Sitting of 11 April 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of claims for supplementary benefit come from families when at least one adult in the household is paying income tax.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): I regret that this information is not available, but we estimate that less than 0·5 per cent. of claimants or their wives are paying income tax whilst receiving supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Renton: Are not there a number or households where supplementary benefit is received regularly but where one or more regular dependants are at the sime time earning enough to pay tax? Does not this emphasise the overlap between the taxation and benefit systems and the need for a reappraisal of the whole untaxed supplementary benefit system?
    Mr. Orme: Adults in households may include adult sons or daughters who are not dependent on the claimants and whose means are not investigated. There are also instances where a benefit—say, a housing benefit—takes the claimant above the tax level and, therefore, tax is then payable.
    Mr. Moonman: On the related subject of the A.6 form used by my right hon. Friend's investigators, will he accept a further personal plea from hon. Members on both sides of the House who are deeply concerned about the use of this form in investigating the marital circumstances of people who may find their particulars on a computer, with the information being used for many years to come?
    Mr. Orme: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings, and I answered a parliamentary Question of his on the subject only last week. I suggest that he and those of his hon. Friends who are concerned about this matter may care to discuss it with the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Professor Donnison, and they may like to come to see me after they have discussed it with him.
    Mr. Sproat: Is not there something desperately unjust about the interaction of wages, taxes and benefits when so many people can be better off by not working than by working? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, for example, that it must be wrong that a postman can receive a net wage of £39·49 for a five-and-a-half day week starting at 5.30 in the morning when at the same time, apparently, another gentleman living on Dartmoor can get £132 a week in tax-free benefits for doing absolutely nothing?
    Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is once again misrepresenting and exaggerating the position. Only those with low incomes and large families—and they are very few in number—are likely to be better off. Fewer than 5 per cent. of men earn £45 a week or less, and many of them are young men without children. Fewer than 5 per cent. of those on benefit have four or more children, and many are one-parent families. It is the poor whom the hon. Member continually attacks.

    South East Thames Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next plans to meet the chairman of the South East Thames Regional Health Authority.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I expect to meet Sir John Donne at the next regular meeting with regional health authority chairmen on 16th May.
    Mr. Ovenden: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the small but welcome redistribution of funds to deprived areas in the region, too great a share of the region's resources are still being devoted to the London teaching hospitals? When he next meets the chairman of the regional authority, will he impress upon him the fact that the current plans for the region will still be under-funded by £24 million by 1987 and that we want to see a much greater degree of urgency towards redistribution and the application of RAWP principles in South-East Thames than we have seen so far?
    Mr. Moyle: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of the RAWP formula. There is no particular need for me to press the case that he is urging on behalf of the chairman of the South East Thames Regional Authority because I know that he is fully desirous of ensuring that the under-funding in Kent is remedied. It is a difficult problem, because most resources in London are locked up in the teaching hospitals and we do need the output of the teaching hospitals to service the NHS of the future in all areas including Kent.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of the South East Thames Regional Authority the danger of concentrating so many National Health Service beds in the large hospitals at the cost of closing down many small hospitals, such as the ones in my constituency? We have some very good small convalescent homes for patients on their way back from the district hospitals. Will the Minister reconsider the definition of acute beds, as convalescent beds are now called? Will he call them convalescent beds and keep them on?
    Mr. Moyle: There is a very large surplus of beds in the Greenwich and
    1158
    Bexley Area Health Authority, an authority which has had the addition of two new hospitals in recent years, which are very advanced in design, and it is inevitable that there will be some rationalisation of service.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Before my hon. Friend meets the chaiman of the South East Thames Regional Health Authority, will he meet the chairman of the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Area Health Authority, who will tell him that under the RAWP formula these three areas are due to lose 13 per cent. of the resources that they need? Many of us will welcome a cut-back in resources for the rich teaching hospitals—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not fair. Every area could get in on such a question. We are dealing with the South East Regional Thames Health Authority.
    Mr. Price: But, Mr. Speaker, my area is part of the South East Thames Regional Health Authority. After that little geography lesson, I should say that many of us would welcome a cut-back in the over-provision for the teaching hospitals. Under these cuts it is not the teaching hospitals that are suffering but the facilities for the mentally ill and handicapped, which are gravely under-provided, particularly in the Lewisham area.
    Mr. Moyle: I agree that there is considerable room for improvement in services for the mentally ill and handicapped in these areas. I assure my hon. Friend that I am in constant and regular touch with—
    Hon. Members: We cannot hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is customary to address the Chair when answering questions.
    Mr. Moyle: I assure my hon. Friend that I am in close and regular contact with the chairman of the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Area Health Authority.
    Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that this concern about the way in which the RAWP exercise has proceeded is widely shared? However, out of deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall not mention any other areas. What steps is the Minister taking to monitor the way in which the allocation is being made and whether it is fair and consistent between one region and another?
    Mr. Moyle: I am totally confident that the distribution between one region and another is based on the RAWP principles, and I support the allocation that has been made thereon. We continually monitor the RAWP formula and we have a special section in my Department to keep an eye on the matter continually. From the questions that I have heard today hon. Members are urging support for the application of the RAWP formula and are not expressing concern.

    National Health Service (Industrial Relations)
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress made in improving industrial relations within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in improving industrial relations within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Hodgsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in improving industrial relations within the National Health Service.
    Mr. MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in improving industrial relations within the National Health Service.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): Considerable progress has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in Lord McCarthy's report aimed at improving the NHS Whitley Council system. As further steps, I expect the General Whitley Council shortly to consider how to establish more effective industrial relations machinery at all levels of the NHS, and my Department is mounting the first of a series of intensive industrial rions training courses for selected . More generally, I recently a meeting, which I believe to be the first of its kind, with leaders of the medical profession and the NHS trade unions. The meeting was fruitful, and I hope to follow it up with further joint discussions of issues relevant to industrial relations.
    Mr. Townsend: Is it not a fact that the level of disruption caused by the action of ancillary staff in hospitals has reached disastrous proportions? Does this not show that there is something rotten in the whole state of the National Health Service?
    Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member must get the matter into proportion. The NHS employs an enormous number of staff all over the country and in general industrial relations have been extremely good. When there are isolated outbreaks they do get widespread publicity. I have made it clear time and time again that I deprecate any industrial action—by doctors, nurses, porters, telephonists or anyone else—which endangers the care and health of patients.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall call first those whose Questions are being answered.
    Mr. Crouch: Does the Secretary of State accept that, like him, I am not fed up with the National Health Service? The Secretary of State knows that I work in it. However, does he agree that the industrial relations problem cannot be brushed under the carpet? Does he agree that the time has come for a more positive course in man and woman management to be introduced into the NHS?
    Mr. Ennals: Certainly; there are such courses. In my answer I said that we were having intensive training courses in personnel matters. I must say that I wish that more of the hon. Members' colleagues would make statements like he has done, supporting the NHS. As for industrial relations, under Lord McCarthy's reforms the Whitley Council management sides have been made more effective and representative. Manpower and pay information units have been established within the Department. Also, the personnel function is being improved and developed.
    Mr. Hodgson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the anxieties of patients and relatives have been greatly exacerbated by the activities of telephonists which are not directly concerned with the health of patients but are concerned with their psychological state? His statement today shows complacency, self-satisfaction and lack of urgency in getting to grips with the problem.
    Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member's comments are absolutely ludicrous. There has been a great deal of exaggeration. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) referred on 13th March to widespread industrial action in the NHS. This is not so. Hon. Members must keep this matter in proportion. When there is action by the telephonists it is right that we should speak out clearly, as I have done. But happily such action is being taken in only a few small parts of the country, and it is diminishing.
    Mr. MacKay: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the action taken by the telephonists and other ancillary workers is affecting the morale of patients and the medical profession? The patients' health is affected because of the action.
    Mr. Ennals: I much resent the fact that everyone seems to be picking on one particular industrial dispute. I am very concerned about this. The telephonists have received a 10 per cent. pay increase but they say that they are dissatisfied with their pay and status. This is being properly considered by the Ancillary Staffs Council. To blow this up into a wider issue is unfair. Hon. Members should look at the whole breadth of the National Health Service, and the amount of time that is being lost in industrial action is very small indeed.
    Mrs. Castle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of improving industrial relations in the NHS is to introduce a system of common waiting lists for all patients in NHS hospitals in order to end queue-jumping by private patients who can afford to pay? Will he make a statement about the report of the Health Services Board asking him to phase out common waiting lists? He has had this report for several months.
    Mr. Ennals: It is true that the Board has made recommendations to me, as it is obliged to do by legislation, on the establishment of common waiting lists. It is essential that we should have these to stop any sort of queue-jumping. I am consulting about this recommendation and at the right time I shall make a statement to the House.
    Mr. Rooker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the day when the NHS was reorganised by the Conservative
    1162
    Party in 1974, the ambulance service in the West Midlands has not worked properly in the interests of the people there? What will he do about it?
    Mr. Ennals: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would table a specific Question about that matter.
    Dr. Vaughan: Does the Minister realise that instead of making remarks about being cheesed off by militants we would like to see some much more positive action? Out of these discussions with the BMA and the TUC, will he produce a code of behaviour for people working in the National Health Service?
    Mr. Ennals: Frankly, I am a bit cheesed off with the hon. Gentleman. It was he who, in the House on 13th March, referred to widespread industrial action when we had no such thing at all in the National Health Service. This sort of exaggeration is trouble-making.
    The meeting that has been held between leaders of the National Health Service unions and the BMA was a cordial one. One of the ideas that I raised at the meeting, which received a good reception, and which will be discussed at our next meeting, is precisely the proposal for some sort of code of practice to improve industrial relations within the NHS.
    Mr. Litterick: Does the Secretary of State agree that a basic cause of demoralisation amongst NHS staff is the deliberate reduction of real wages through the operation of wages policy and by the severe cuts in capital spending in the NHS, which has prevented these conscientious people doing the best possible job by their clients?
    Mr. Ennals: First, I very much respect the way in which workers within the NHS have been prepared to settle this round of pay negotiations within the Government pay guidelines. I think that we owe them thanks for that.
    Secondly, I do not believe that there is deep demoralisation within the NHS. It is to say that those working in the Health rvice recognise that they could do a better job with more resources. That I do not doubt.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Sir George Youngasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether

    1163
    it is his policy to increase dependence upon means-tested benefits.
    Mr. Orme: No, Sir. Our aim is to reduce dependence on means-tested benefits and measures that we have introduced, such as the child benefit and new pensions schemes, are steps in this direction. Meanwhile, means-tested benefits are giving essential protection to poorer people.
    Sir G. Young: If it is the Government's policy to reduce dependence on means-tested benefits, why are there now three times as many people on rate rebates as there were in 1973?
    Mr. Orme: The answer to that is that the Government have made the public aware of these benefits and have encouraged people to claim them.
    Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that many thousands of people are entitled to benefits but are not taking them up, and are therefore suffering unnecessarily as a result, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if the form of market concept that has been developed in his own area—a shop to which people could go to find out what benefits they were entitled to—should be developed, particularly in areas where there are too many people, unfortunately, who have to depend upon the type of benefits available?
    Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he will see from the annual report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Professor Donnison and the Commission estimate that between £250 million and £300 million in legitimate benefits are not claimed by people who could claim them. I am also very much aware that voluntary organisations throughout the country do a great deal of work to draw to people's attention their rights to benefits. In the summer the Supplementary Benefits Commission will launch a campaign on this issue.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment and dismay amongst many beneficiaries of social security and other benefits, including single-parent families, who looked forward to the child benefit only to find that it was taken away from the other benefits that they received? Does he realise that this group of people are the people
    1164
    who most need the increase in child benefit, and cannot he get it changed, to look after them?
    Mr. Orme: This is a problem of overlapping benefits and the difficulty of paying the same benefit twice to the same people. As we phase in child benefit and increase child benefit, this will become less obvious.

    Voluntary Organisations
    Sir T. Kitsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he is taking to encourage the work of voluntary bodies in relation to social services.
    Sir Bernard Braineasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he is taking to encourage the work of voluntary organisations in social services.
    Mr. Ennals: I have constantly stressed the importance of collaboration with voluntary organisations and the harnessing of community effort, through such means as the good neighbour campaign. I have also invited local and health authorities to consider what other assistance they can offer to voluntary bodies in addition to financial support such as further rate relief, provision of accommodation, transport or services, free or at cost.
    I have raised the amount available for grants to voluntary bodies in 1978–79, under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, to £5·384 million, an increase in real terms of more than 54 per cent. over the comparable amount for 1973–74, the last year of the previous Government.
    Sir T. Kitson: In view of the recent report on the death of Simon Peacock, which is similar to other deaths and cases of battered babies, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need to help overworked social workers and for greater co-operation between voluntary organisations to minimise similar cases arising?
    Mr. Ennals: There is no doubt that the contribution of some voluntary organisations, in particular the NSPCC, is extremely important in child care. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that more can be done not only by voluntary organisations but by individuals, first, to

    1165
    give some assistance, friendship and support to families who have problems and burdens and also, when they are concerned, to make sure that a doctor or social worker is aware of their concern.
    Mr. Arnold Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very much depends on the attitudes of local authorities in this matter? Is he aware, too, of the niggardly regard which is paid to this matter by certain local authorities, among which I include my own?
    Mr. Ennals: It is true—I deeply regret it—that in the restraints that have been applied on public expenditure some local authorities have sought to reduce the assistance given to voluntary organisations. This is a very unwise form of economy. Not only have I encouraged them to continue to give support to voluntary organisations but, through the joint financing between health authorities and local authorities, I have ensured that voluntary organisations can receive the benefit of joint financing.
    Mrs. Chalker: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stimulate voluntary giving in order that many of these voluntary societies can help themselves?
    Mr. Ennals: This is not a good moment at which to reveal any discussions that I have had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will appear on the scene fairly soon. However, I may tell the hon. Lady that I have been giving additional support to the voluntary organisations in a variety of ways, such as grants to help them with training for the certificate of qualification in social work, the purchase of short-life leasehold property for use as shelters, day centres, and so on, and for funding partnership schemes under which, with the agreement of the local authority concerned, a selected voluntary organisation may be asked to undertake a particular project for a limited period of time.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) will wait a moment. I made a mistake in not calling him earlier, as he realises.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that though this statement is helpful he ought to have words with professional organisations to allow individuals and voluntary organisations to give help in the social services? Whenever he gives financial help, will he make sure that the House and the public generally know how much he gave, and for what purpose?
    Mr. Ennals: If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question on the last point I shall do so, to indicate the range of grants that my Department has given during the course of the past year to voluntary organisations.
    On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course it is important to encourage not only organisations but individuals to help. This is very much the purpose of the good neighbour campaign that is now being run largely by a co-operative of about 40 national voluntary organisations.
    Sir B. Braine: Since the right hon. Gentleman clearly believes that there is a role for voluntary social service to supplement our hard-pressed statutory services, does he accept the gloomy conclusion of the Wolfenden Report that in future voluntary effort can be sustained only by public financing, or will he urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to begin positively encouraging private and corporate giving, as is done in the United States and other countries?
    Mr. Ennals: I think that the voluntary organisation movement is in a very healthy situation. It has come through a difficult financial stage very well. Owing to some of the problems of inflation that face them, I, as Secretary of State, increased the amount of money made available to national organisations.
    As for the Wolfenden Report, we are consulting on that excellent document and I will be making a further statement when we have considered some of the proposals contained in it.

    Private Medical Sector
    Mr. Budgenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will encourage the expansion of the private medical sector outside the National Health Service.
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will encourage the expansion of the private medical sector outside the National Health Service.
    Mr. Roland Moyle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Budgen: Is the Minister aware that in September last year there were about 6,000 qualified nurses registered unemployed and that of that number about 250 were in the West Midlands? Does he agree that an expansion of private sector medicine would rescue some of those nurses from the misery and humiliation of not having a job?
    Mr. Moyle: There are many reasons for the non-employment of nurses in the NHS, but as a matter of fact the number of nurses employed in the Health Service increased from 163,000 in 1974 to nearly 176,000 in 1976, and the number has increased substantially since then.
    Mr. Michael Morris: As the trade union movement has its own private hospital in North London, would it now not be politically more honest and economically more sensible to encourage a mixed economy in health care?
    Mr. Moyle: No, Sir. The Department, my right hon. Friend and I are committed to a National Health Service free at the point of use—and a public health service at that.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does my hon. Friend recall that in recent answers to me he pointed out that there is an acute shortage of operating theatre nurses? In view of the fact that the private sector is not interested in such subjects as geriatric care and mental health but is concerned only with dramatic operations, will he now add to the criteria of the Health Services Board in permitting new private hospitals to be built?
    Mr. Moyle: The Health Services Board, under the Health Services Act 1976, subsequently consolidated, has the duty of deciding on these matters.
    Hon. Member: Turn round. We cannot hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is ineffective to turn one's back on one half of the House because the House does not hear what is being said.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Minister aware that there is also an acute shortage of nurses in child nursing, especially at hospitals such as Booth Hall, Manchester? If he accepts that this is the position, does he agree that it will be better to retrain some of the nurses who are now unemployed, so that they may undertake child nursing within the National Health Service rather than to encourage the private sector of nursing?
    Mr. Moyle: I do not accept that there is a national shortage of nurses who are prepared to undertake child nursing. There may be local shortages in various parts of the country. If retraining is to take place, it must be done voluntarily on the part of the nurses concerned. But I am sure that local area health authorities will do their best to meet any local shortages.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend agree that any expansion of the private service almost inevitably leads to some restriction on NHS facilities? Is that not what the Opposition have always wanted?
    Mr. Moyle: I hope that when the General Election takes place the electorate will take note of the fact that the Opposition are seeking to increase the private health sector at the expense of the public health sector. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point is valid. The Health Services Board must take this matter into account, including private development.
    Mr. Boscawen: Has not the tragic waste of medical resources, shown by the fact that there are unemployed nurses and lengthening queues, shown that the philosophy of phasing out hospital pay beds and not encouraging the private sector has been hopelessly ill-timed, has encouraged queue-jumping within the NHS, and has been politically motivated?
    Mr. Moyle: That supplementary question is founded on a large number of misconceptions. Most of the pay beds that have been phased out of the NHS up to now have been unused or underused.

    Pensioners (Benefits)
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the number of retirement

    1169
    pensioners entitled to receive supplementary benefit who do not apply for such benefits.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): At the end of 1975, about 600,000 retirement pensioners were estimated not to be receiving supplementary benefit to which they were entitled.
    Mr. Arnold: Will the Minister pay attention to the complexity of many benefits and the great difficulty that many people face in discovering to what benefits they are entitled?
    Mr. Deakins: This is a problem of which we and the Supplementary Benefits Commission are fully aware and we are concerned about the situation. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to chapter 10 of the last annual report of the Commission, which goes into this issue in some detail.
    Mr. Park: In view of the large amount of unclaimed benefit about which we heard earlier, could not the Department deal more sympathetically with retrospective claims from people who learn about their benefit to entitlement too late?
    Mr. Deakins: We do what we can within the limits of the discretion allowed by laws laid down by this Parliament to exercise discretion over the retrospective payment of benefits not only for supplementary pensioners but for other recipients of social security benefits who have not claimed them in time. There are reasons which have to be given for not claiming in due time, and also laws laid down by this House to ensure that benefits cannot be claimed more than a certain period in arrears.
    Mrs. Chalker: This afternoon the Minister rightly referred, with praise, to Professor Donnison. Will he explain to the House why the Labour Government refuse to research a tax credit system to help those pensioners who should be receiving benefit but who today do not claim supplementary benefit?
    Mr. Deakins: The idea of a tax credit system would not help in this connection. The pensioners who are not claiming supplementary benefit by and large are failing to do so not because of ignorance but partly because in some areas they think there is a stigma attached to claiming
    1170
    benefit, and partly because in many instances the amounts to which they would be entitled would be less than £1 a week.
    Mr. Ashley: In view of the fact that the Minister a moment ago said that over £300 million in benefits of all kinds are unclaimed, does this not make nonsense of the anti-scrounger campaign so assiduously peddled by Conservative Members? When the Secretary of State launches his campaign to increase the uptake of benefits, will he also make clear that the anti-scrounger campaign is damaging to genuine recipients and people in need?
    Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend makes a most important point. I am certain that the anti-scrounger campaign has had an impact in preventing people who would otherwise have come forward from taking up their entitlement. It ill behoves those who believe that there are vast amounts of unclaimed benefits to attack those who are abusing the system. For pensioners, the total amount that we estimate to be unclaimed is £65 million. There are many other possible recipients of supplementary benefit who are also not claiming.

    Boarding-out Allowances
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about his discussion with the local authority associations about boarding-out allowances.
    Mr. Moyle: The local authority associations have begun work on the preparation of recommendations concerning age bands, age relativities and the assimilation of discretionary additions. As part of their general review of these matters they will take into account the scales published in my reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 14th February. They have, however, made it clear that guidelines which called for additional expenditure could not be introduced without a comparable increase in resources.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that answer. I hope that he will agree that the tables published in the Official Report in February showed a wide discrepancy between one local authority and another in the levels of boarding-out allowances. Will he now introduce a minimum scale for all local authorities, so

    1171
    that we may bring up those authorities who pay such abysmally low scales?
    Mr. Moyle: There were wide variations in my original answer. Some variation is to be expected, because the level of boarding-out scales is influenced by regional and local factors, including the availability of foster parents and the possible need to provide an incentive to fostering. The local authority associations are hoping to be able to review these wide variations in time for the 1979–80 rate support grant settlement.
    Mr. Hodgson: Will the Minister widen his answer to cover foster parents generally? Is he aware that inequalities exist across all regions in all services connected with fostering? By what steps, and when, will those inequalities be ironed out?
    Mr. Moyle: The local authorities hope to be able to make recommendations in time for the application of the 1979–80 rate support grant. Individual local authorities will be free to accept or reject those recommendations. We hope that as a result of consultations there will be a move towards greater uniformity.

    Disability Allowance
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the criteria used by his department in assessing the take-up of the disability allowance.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): There are a great many allowances for disabled people, and the criteria vary according to the purposes of each allowance. As to the take-up of the allowances, this is frequently reviewed and I am anxious to do all I can to ensure that every possible beneficiary receives all the allowances to which he or she is entitled. I am grateful for the help that I have received from hon. and right hon. Members in improving the take-up of allowances for disabled people, and will much appreciate any further help that they are able to give.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend consider particularly the position of blind people, who, at least in my area, have been turned down for most of the newer allowances, including the mobility allowance and the non-contributory invalidity pension, sometimes after only slapdash
    1172
    consideration? Would not a widening of the criteria for disability generally be of particular help to the blind?
    Mr. Morris: Organisations representing blind people have made representations to the Prime Minister and I cannot anticipate his reply, but very careful consideration has been given to the claims of blind people. We do not underestimate their mobility problems, and they are included, for example, in the orange badge scheme. My right hon. Friend and I will bear in mind everything that my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister at long last do something about the application forms for invalidity pensions, because they are very complicated, discriminate directly against women, and ask many unnecessary questions?
    Mr. Morris: We are reviewing the application forms. We shall do so in consultation with the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance. What the hon. Gentleman has said has been endorsed by other people and I shall have it fully in mind in the review.
    Mr. Clemitson: Whatever the criteria, is my hon. Friend satisfied that they are being applied consistently and fairly?
    Mr. Morris: That is an important point. We need rules in order to be consistent and equitable. We are trying in this area to meet infinite claims with finite resources. There are other groups, apart from those that have been mentioned, which are under consideration for help.
    Mr. Newton: Does the Minister agree that among all the worries of the criteria for these allowances, one of the worst is that which is denying many kidney machine patients the attendance allowance? What progress has been made towards an appeal on this matter, and when does the Minister expect to be able to tell us more?
    Mr. Morris: We are awaiting an application for leave to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner on a question of law. A constituent of one of my hon. Friends is considering such an application. As I have explained before, we must not put the cart before the horse and it would be inappropriate for the Government to consider changing the law until we have the Commissioner's decision

    1173
    about whether the Board's interpretation of the law is correct.

    Supplementary Benefits Commission
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
    Mr. Orme: Yes, Sir. The Commission discharges its responsibilities in an informed and sensitive way.
    Mr. Knox: Is the Minister satisfied that the Commission is able to deal with the increased work load since 1974 which has been caused by the big increase in the number of poor people needing benefits since the Government came to power?
    Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman's last point is not correct. The work load of the Commission has increased because the Government have introduced new benefits for people who need them. The Commission is examining, through the supplementary benefits review, whether it can bring forward proposals to improve the situation.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not often an arbitrary choice whether people apply for supplementary benefit or for rent and rate rebates from local authorities? Is it not iniquitous that, having applied for a local authority benefit, people remove themselves from the possibility of benefiting from the electricity discount scheme? What can the Commission do about that?
    Mr. Orme: The Commission is looking at this point. My hon. Friend will realise that there is a problem of overlapping benefits and people getting supplementary benefits and rent or rate rebates. We understand that this problem is created by the poverty trap. We want to remove the poverty trap, and the Commission is examining this matter.

    BURGESS HILL
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether he will visit Burgess Hill, in West Sussex.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Burgess Hill.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Burgess Hill I would willingly introduce him to a number of successful small firms which are not increasing their work force because the mass of employment legislation passed by this Socialist Government is crushingly weighted against them as employers? Does he realise that the incentive for these small firms is to invest in machinery and not in more men and that the unemployment problem is thus being compounded?
    The Prime Minister: No, that is not my experience of small firms. Reliefs that were given last autumn and subsequently are helping small firms considerably and I find great appreciation for that fact.
    Mr. Madden: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the courageous opposition of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to the Conservative Party's proposals on immigration which seem to be based—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the open form of Question. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not linked at all with the main Question. Mr. William Molloy.
    Mr. Molloy: Question No. 2, Sir.
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman wait until after Question Time?
    Mr. Heffer: No.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not require any help from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
    Mr. Heffer rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are taking Prime Minister's Question Time. I suggest that points of order should wait until afterwards.

    TUC AND CBI
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC and CBI.
    The Prime Minister: I met representatives of both the TUC and the CBI

    1175
    when I took the chair at a meeting of the NEDC on 1st February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he draw to their attention the "phoney" display of concern on unemployment adopted by the Opposition? This was revealed last night in their speeches and votes on British Leyland and the National Enterprise Board, two undertakings which were designed to assist the economy of our country and to prevent unemployment and have been successful in doing so. Yet the Tory Opposition are continually opposing them.
    The Prime Minister: I think that we all thought that it was a rather odd display by the Opposition last night, especially as they did not seem to know whether they wanted a vote or not on the first motion. It is in accordance with their usual practice: they are opposed to all grants and subsidies. That is well recognised and there is no doubt that British Leyland would suffer substantially unless it were able to pursue the path that it has begun of improving its performance very substantially.
    Mr. Pardoe: Did the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC at the last meeting the need for a new phase of incomes policy, and did he tell the TUC leaders that he still believes that earnings must not rise by more than 5 per cent. during the next phase, and what was their reaction?
    The Prime Minister: I shall handle this matter with the usual skill and care which has resulted in substantial progress during the current round. The major element which every trade unionist, his wife and family understands is that prices should not be allowed to rise. We are doing quite well this year in the sense that we have got inflation running at 9 per cent. and it will come even lower. It will be helpful to all trade unionists and their wives if prices do not go up or inflation does not increase beyond that next year and it would be preferable for it to be reduced so that we can be more competitive. That will be my aim, and it will be the basis on which discussions will be conducted with the trade unions.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he discuss the dangerous and continuing import penetration of finished and semi-finished manufactured goods, the value of which reached almost £19,000 million last year? As it looks as if other industrial countries are not willing to take my right hon. Friend's advice to expand their economies, is there not a real need for selective import controls?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend does not focus on the fact that there are already selective import controls and that each case must be decided on its merits as it is presented to us. Basically, however, it is far better that the world should have an expansion of trade than that we should all be cocooned inside our own economies. That is the path that I should prefer to tread.

    PRESIDENT CARTER
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister what matters he discussed with the President of the United States of America during his recent visit.
    The Prime Minister: Our talks were mainly on economic issues as part of the preparation for the seven nation Summit due to be held in Bonn on 16th and 17th July. President Carter and I were agreed on the importance of co-ordinated international action to reduce unemployment, stimulate world trade, assist long-term capital flows especially to the developing countries, introduce greater order into the exchange markets and on the need for the American Administration's energy programme to be made effective.
    The President and I also held discussions on the situation in the Middle East, and the future of relations with the Soviet Union, including the current position of the talks to limit strategic arms and other weapons.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that before he went to America he seemed to express in the House a robust attitude towards the possible deployment of enhanced new radiation weapons in Europe? Since then the President has frozen development of such weapons and rather cut the ground from under the Prime Minister's feet. Does the right hon. Gentleman still favour the

    1177
    deployment of these weapons in the event that the United States goes ahead with their development?
    The Prime Minister: The President and I discussed the matter fully, especially in the light of the disarmament conference that is coming. I do not detract for one moment from the views that I expressed in the House before, namely, that there are weapons that have been deployed on the Soviet side that are far more dangerous than the enhanced radiation weapon. However, this is a political matter for the President alone to decide, as was always the case. It is for him to decide whether this will assist the disarmament negotiations, and I see no reason to differ from him on that matter. Indeed, we discussed it on that basis. It is important that we should attempt to secure disarmament in this sphere and not to pile up armaments. That is the whole purpose of the strategic arms limitation talks.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he had the chance to raise with President Carter the interesting speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in which he questioned the continued economic wisdom of further investment in South Africa? If my right hon. Friend has not been able to raise it with him, will he do so at the earliest possible moment?
    The Prime Minister: Discussions go on about these matters, but I did not discuss the issue particularly with President Carter. It is a growing risk to invest in South Africa, in view of the developing political situation there.
    Sir J. Eden: In view of the brutally cynical encouragement given by Russia and Cuba to insurrectionist elements in Africa, what attempts did the right hon. Gentleman make to persuade President Carter to back those who are trying to achieve a peaceful solution to the problems of Rhodesia through the medium of the internal settlement?
    The Prime Minister: The internal settlement, in so far as it accords with the Anglo-American plan, is something that should be supported. However, without the Anglo-American plan there is little prospect that the internal settlement will succeed. That is because there are
    1178
    substantial elements outside Rhodesia that are not reconciled to it.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I welcome the announcement of the Bonn Summit, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are fears that such a Summit might raise the expectations of people too high, as has been the case on a couple of previous occasions? Therefore, will he tell us what grounds there are for hoping that more success in getting the world economy going again may be achieved this time? Will he consider inviting OPEC country representatives along to the Summit, as the £40 billion that the OPEC countries have is the major cause of our problems in the West?
    The Prime Minister: The case for hoping that there will be improvement is that all the Heads of Government gave their support to the statement that was issued yesterday, and to which I referred in my report to the House, on the meeting of the European Council, namely, that there is acceptance that a co-ordinated effort is needed if we are to restore confidence in the Western industrial world. At this stage it would not be advantageous to include the OPEC countries in the discussions.

    CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister when he plans to have a further meeting with the West German Chancellor.
    The Prime Minister: I have been in touch with Chancellor Schmidt about dates for the next in the series of our regular bilateral meetings, and an announcement will be made shortly.
    Mr. Roberts: When my right hon. Friend meets the West German Chancellor will he reopen with him the question of the offset agreement for British troops in Germany? Will he put it to him that many people in Britain are angry that a wealthy country such as Germany is prepared to pay only about 6 per cent. of our annual £600 million bill?
    The Prime Minister: No, I shall not reopen this matter. The agreement, which was signed in Bonn on 18th October 1977, made it clear that it was the final

    1179
    settlement that would be made. We now operate under our treaty obligations.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When the Prime Minister meets the West German Chancellor will he take an opportunity of discussing with him the problems that the West German Government have had, as have other NATO allies, of grave breaches of security? The latest breach in West Germany may well have imperilled all of NATO's strategic planning.
    The Prime Minister: The problems of security between our countries are discussed from time to time. However, I am in no doubt that Chancellor Schmidt takes this issue as seriously as do I and the hon. Gentleman. I think that there is no need for me to remind him about it.
    Mr. John Mendelson: In discussions with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic, will my right hon. Friend take the message with him that his decision to agree with President Carter on not proceeding with the preparation of the neutron bomb will receive widespread support in this country, despite some opinions that have been expressed, and shows the wisdom and statesmanship of the President of the United States? Will he note that those who supported him when he made his statement a fortnight ago about the Soviet weapon now hope that the Soviet Government will make an appropriate response?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that the Soviet Government should take note of the deep feeling in the Western world about the enhancement of its own weapons and their capacity for improvement, which has been very substantial. If we are to have a successful disarmament conference in New York at the end of May, it will be for the Soviet Government to respond to what the President has done.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of some of the remarks that my right hon. Friend made yesterday when reporting on the European Summit, will he say whether Chancellor Schmidt will regard today's Budget, to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the opening salvo in a concerted European campaign against unemployment and in favour of growth?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we had better wait and hear the Budget before we decide what we think about it, let alone Chancellor Schmidt.
    Mr. Mayhew: When the right hon. Gentleman meets Chancellor Schmidt will he discuss with him whether it would be possible even to maintain our present support for NATO if the £1,000 million cuts in defence expenditure proposed by his party's published and adopted policy were given effect?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be possible to maintain our posture if we were to cut defence expenditure by £1,000 million. That is why the Government do not intend to agree to it.
    Mr. John Evans: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Chancellor Schmidt when next he meets him that the greatest threat to the Common Market is massive unemployment? Will he point out to him that it is essential that West Germany takes the lead in inflating the economies of the Common Market, otherwise, some countries, including Britain, may be forced to take protective measures, including, if necessary, import controls?
    The Prime Minister: I dealt with these questions at some length yesterday, when I made my report. It is clear that the Federal Republic is as concerned as any other country to secure growth. The difference at the moment, if there is a difference, is how that growth can best be achieved.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often pointed out that we have discussed the difficulties in which Back-Bench Members are placed because of the limited nature of Questions put to the Prime Minister. In seeking to put the question that I put, I had two objectives: one, to draw attention to the—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Madden:—to draw attention to the courageous speech made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear the point of order.
Mr. Madden:—to draw attention to the courageous speech made by the hon. Member for Worthing against the Conservative Party's immigration proposals, and, secondly, to ask the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems as though the hon. Gentleman is merely going to ask the question that he had suggested earlier. If there is a point of order on which he wants me to rule, I shall gladly try to do so, but he cannot ask his question now.
Mr. Madden: I am grateful for your tolerance, Mr. Speaker, which is most characteristic. I am trying to highlight the difficulty in which I and many other Back Benchers find ourselves. I was seeking to ask the Prime Minister whether he had yet received a proper apology from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) for the accusation that that right hon. Gentleman made against him.
Mr. Speaker: Order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
The Question is that Commission Document—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Shall I finish reading this?
Mr. Bennett: The point of order is on this matter. May I request that you put the motions separately, since many Labour Members wish that motions Nos. 2 and 3 be debated fully on the Floor of the House because they object to the phasing out of imperial measures?
Mr. Speaker: I shall gladly put them separately.
Ordered,
That Commission Document No. R/1927/77 relating to Animal Feedingstuffs be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Potatoes) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]
Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Goods) (Termination of Imperial Quantities) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]
Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
BUDGET STATEMENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that at the end of the Chancellor's speech, as in past years, copies of the Budget Resolutions will not be handed around in the Chamber but will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
BUDGET STATEMENT

  BRITAIN AND THE WORLD ECONOMY
  3.36 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): Since the Financial Statement and Budget Report gives a full account of events in our economy over the last twelve months, I do not propose to begin my speech this afternoon with the usual historical preamble. And I shall follow the precedent I set last October by wherever possible putting detailed material about my proposals into supplementary documents which are being published this afternoon. I shall therefore confine my speech to the central features of our economic situation as we enter a new financial year and to the budgetary measures which I am asking the House to adopt in consequence.
  The whole of the industrial world has found the last four years by far the most difficult since the war. The enormous increase in oil prices and the reaction to it of the industrial countries have plunged the world into the deepest and most prolonged recession since the 1930s combined with an unprecedented inflation. The period has been particularly difficult for us in Britain because we entered it in 1974 with our economy already badly out of balance, a growing deficit on our current account and severe inflationary pressures.
  Four years of painful and difficult decisions have now got the economy into much better balance. Our current account has moved into surplus. Our financial position has been transformed. The year-on-year rate of inflation is well into single figures and still falling. Interest rates are far below the level of four years ago. The money supply is under firm
  1184
  control and we have exceptionally high reserves. All this is reflected in the fact that the fourth quarter of last year saw a rise of nearly 5 per cent. in real personal income after tax and national insurance—the biggest quarterly rise in living standards for nearly six years.
  But this transformation in our financial situation has not yet been reflected in an adequate growth of output. In consequence, unemployment remains intolerably high, though it has been falling slowly since September. It is the first purpose of this Budget to encourage a level of economic activity sufficient to get unemployment moving significantly down. But like all other countries—and more than most—we cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. And here the outlook still leaves much to be desired.
  Two years ago it looked as if the industrialised world was emerging from the severe recession which followed the increase in oil prices. But that recovery proved more sluggish than expected. 1977 was a disappointing year for nearly all the world. Economic growth in the OECD area was well below the average rate obtained in the 1960s. World trade in manufactures increased only 3½ per cent. compared with 9½ per cent. in 1976. Although with an increase of 8 per cent. in the volume of our manufactured exports we increased our share of world trade, in general as well as in manufactures, there was very little growth in our economy during 1977.
  The problems created by the slow growth of the world economy have been made worse by the big payments imbalances between the oil-consuming countries. Some oil-producing countries cannot in the short run eliminate their surpluses through trade, so the oil consumers as a group must face a corresponding deficit. The total current account deficit of the OECD countries rose to around 30 billion dollars in 1977. But this total includes a large increase in the deficit of the United States and a large increase in the surplus of Japan.
  One reason for these disparities is that other strong countries have been slow to follow the expansionary lead of the United States. These payments imbalances are at the root of the currency instability of the last few months which is itself a further threat to world growth.

  1185
  If we are to solve this country's problems we need to take action on a world scale, because no single country can lead the world out of its difficulties. Indeed, no single country can by itself solve even its own problems. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States recognised this fact together when they met at Easter to discuss a programme for concerted action designed to attack simultaneously all the five major problems which are now damaging the world economy—low growth, currency instability, the trend towards protectionism, over-dependence on imported energy and inadequate flows of stable long-term capital and aid from the surplus countries to countries in deficit, including many in the developing world.
  Yesterday the Heads of Government of the seven leading world economies agreed to develop their policies so as to promote a concerted approach to this group of problems in the months leading up to the Bonn Summit meeting in July. The European Council agreed on Saturday to work with determination for the higher economic growth that this approach requires.
  This Budget represents a first British contribution towards that common effort as well as meeting our national needs.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House of the convention that Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer is not interrupted during his Budget Statement.

  THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS AND OVERSEAS DEBT
  Mr. Healey: I shall now say something about our balance of payments and overseas debt.
  Between 1973 and the middle of last year we borrowed large sums overseas to meet the consequences of the oil price increase and the deterioration in our terms of trade. Most of these loans have to be repaid in the six years from 1979 to 1984, but as we moved into balance of payments surplus and rebuilt our reserves last autumn, the Government were able to start tackling this hump of debt. It then stood at over $20 billion.
  1186
  It would not be sensible to aim to pay off the whole of this debt from current account surpluses earned over the next six or seven years. That would add to the problem of current account imbalances in the world and it would not be consistent with the need to expand our own economy. The Government's aim is therefore to combine net repayment of debt year by year, with new borrowing to spread the maturities.
  As part of this policy we are now repaying large amounts of debt ahead of time. In January I announced the prepayment of $1 billion of our drawings from the International Monetary Fund. Arrangements for this payment have recently been completed. I can now announce that I shall be arranging to prepay a further $1 billion to the Fund this year. This further step is made possible by our own improved position and we hope that it will assist the IMF to help other countries. This should be a useful contribution to the concerted approach to world problems to which we have committed ourselves.
  In addition to these IMF prepayments, we have since October repaid or arranged to repay ahead of time $1 billion of private market debt. Thus our repayments ahead of time, made or already planned, now total $3 billion. We shall also repay a further $1 billion in 1978 on the due dates as other debt matures in the ordinary way.
  The other part of our policy is to make progress with new borrowing. Since last October we have contracted new loans totalling about $630 million from the European Investment Bank and the European Coal and Steel Community. In addition, I can now tell the House that we propose to make a British Government bond issue in the New York market. The issue will be for a total of $350 million in two tranches of seven and 15 years respectively. So it will mature well after the hump of existing maturities. The United States rating agencies have said they will rate such an issue triple-A, the highest credit rating they can award.
  I believe that by spreading the burden of debt repayment forwards and backwards in this way we can ensure that it does not unduly restrict our ability to expand our economy and to make an appropriate contribution to world growth.

  THE FIGHT AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT
  Our main objective in the coming years, like that of other countries, must be to reduce the intolerable level of unemployment by stimulating demand in ways which create jobs at home without refuelling inflation. The temporary employment subsidy and other special employment measures which have now been in operation for three years are already providing 320,000 jobs or training places.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced a powerful reinforcement to these measures on 15th March which should increase this figure to 400,000 by March next year. I believe that in a period of world recession such measures bring immense human and social benefits. Their value is shown by the fact that although the number of men and women available for work has been increasing by 170,000 a year, unemployment has been falling slowly for the last six months and job vacancies have been rising.
  But we cannot expect to see the rate of unemployment moving down at an acceptable speed unless we can create new jobs particularly in profitable firms in manufacturing industry and so strengthen the industrial base on which our whole economy depends.
  A Budget stimulus by itself will not necessarily achieve this, because unless British industry can produce and sell the goods required to meet the demand created by any Budget stimulus, that increase in demand will be met by imports and set inflation going again. It will create jobs in other countries rather than our own. After some years in which the level of investment has been lower than normal it is not easy to judge the point at which a demand stimulus may prove self-defeating for this reason, both in terms of jobs and prices.
  But two things are clear. The key to growth and high employment must lie in an improvement in our industrial performance. And we must design this Budget, like the measures last October, as part of a programme for steady and sustained growth which must cover a period of many years.

  IMPROVING INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
  If the bulk of the additional demand created by this Budget is to be met by British goods then we must make sure that the products of our industry are more competitive in terms of design, delivery and price. An improvement in these fields is the prime objective of the tripartite industrial strategy to which the Government, the TUC and the CBI committed themselves afresh last month when they approved the programmes of the sector working parties for this year. Our main job now is to carry the industrial strategy down to the managers and workers in individual companies and plants throughout the country. I hope that the whole House will endorse these efforts because the future of our economy lies ultimately in the hands of those who work in British industry.
  If industry is to become more competitive and unemployment is to fall, we need better product design, better marketing, more efficient use of plant and materials and more investment in new capacity. The main responsibility must fall on management and work force in the individual firms and plants. But the Government have a responsibility for providing an environment which encourages their work.
  The Government will therefore continue to support the industrial strategy through industrial assistance, training schemes and the National Enterprise Board and by helping to provide a favourable economic climate. Moreover, we are now giving industry priority across the whole range of Government policies—for example, in education and local planning.
  I believe that small businesses have a special role in improving our industrial performance. They have always been a prime source of innovation in British industry. The development of small businesses often produces more additional jobs more quickly than development in the larger firms. They can also play a vital role in regenerating our inner cities and our countryside. For this reason, this Budget will give a special importance to the needs of smaller businesses.
  Now that our economy is in so much better balance and our financial situation

  1189
  is transformed, an improvement in our industrial performance must be our overriding objective, since this is a precondition for restoring high employment. But this improvement is bound to take time. To the extent that our performance falls short in design, delivery and productivity of that of our competitors, we shall have to concentrate on making ourselves competitive in price.
  It remains as true as ever that inflation is the main enemy of full employment. Monetary policy will be one decisive factor here. But our price competitiveness will also depend crucially on reducing industrial costs, of which wages are bound to remain much the most important element.
  Over the last three years, the British people have given overwhelming support for pay policy, and this has played an indispensable role in keeping our industry competitive and in bringing the rate of inflation down. The country owes a lasting debt to our trade union movement for its invaluable contribution here.
  I believe that the Government can help to support common sense and moderation in pay negotiations both by controlling prices and avoiding unnecessary increases in indirect taxation and by cutting income tax. But the main responsibility here again must continue to lie with the trade unions and employers who actually negotiate on pay.

  THE CURRENT PROSPECT
  In deciding how much stimulus I can afford to give the economy this year, I have to make a judgment about the rate at which our industry can increase its output to meet the consequent demand and about the competitiveness of the goods it produces. I must also consider the likely development of the economy over the next year or so if I take no further action at all in this Budget.
  These are all difficult questions of judgment on which the margin for error is uncomfortably large. Economics, after all, is about the behaviour of human beings—the most unpredictable of all creatures. It is a useful tool of policy but still far from being an exact science—if it is a science at all. As I have warned the House on many occasions, economic
  1190
  forecasts, like weather forecasts, become increasingly unreliable as they look further ahead, particularly if precise figures are attached to them—as must be the case, for example, with the forecasts which the House has instructed me to provide. But some trends are fairly clear.
  Now that the inflation rate is stabilising at a level well below the increase in earnings, living standards and personal consumption should both rise substantially. Private investment in manufacturing industry rose about 14 per cent. in volume last year and is expected to show a similar increase this year. Public expenditure on goods and services is planned to rise significantly.
  It is more difficult to forecast how our trade performance will develop since assumptions about our competitiveness are crucial here. But it is reasonable to expect that exports will continue to increase substantially, though higher domestic demand will probably lead to faster growth in our imports of manufactures.
  This leads me to conclude that without any stimulus from the present Budget the economy might grow in the coming year by 2 per cent. to 2½ per cent., if, as is still the case, we make these calculations at the prices which ruled in 1970. If, on the other hand, we value the contribution of North Sea oil at the relative prices of 1975, after the oil price explosion, which we plan to do for all national income statistics later this year, then the increase in oil production would, of itself, add a further ¾ per cent. to our growth rate.
  Against this broad estimate of the likely growth in the economy without a Budget stimulus, the increase in demand which I can afford to generate this year depends critically on the outlook for inflation. This, in turn, will depend primarily on two factors—our monetary policy over the next 12 months and the outlook for wage costs. So far as the immediate future is concerned the outlook is now firmly established and our success is evident in the figures already available.
  Our year-on-year inflation rate reached single figures in January—months earlier than we predicted last November. Over the last 10 months, the month-to-month increase in inflation has been running at an annual level below 8 per cent. The yearon-year inflation rate is likely to reach 7 per cent. in spring or early summer.

  1191
  Unless there is some quite unforeseeable catastrophe, it seems likely to remain fairly steady at around 7 per cent. for the rest of this year—at about the average rate for most industrial countries and lower than that of some of our competitors whose inflation rate has been rising rather than falling in recent months. But if we are to be sure of maintaining at least this level in 1979, then we must have appropriate policies for dealing both with the money supply and with pay and prices. I shall deal with each of these factors in turn.

  MONETARY POLICY
  Monetary policy will continue to play a central role in our attack on inflation. The money supply figures for banking March will not be published until Thursday, but I think it right on this occasion to tell the House in advance that sterling M3 grew in March by only ½ per cent. and M1 slightly less. This confirms that the trend of monetary growth has come back into the desired range, as I predicted it would after the exceptional but expected jump in January. The figure for 1977–78 as a whole will probably be just above the 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. range but under 14 per cent. But this was a year in which the money supply in Britain, as in Germany, was substantially increased by inflows of foreign currency—a factor which we took action to correct last October.
  For the coming year, 1978–79, I intend to continue using monetary targets, with certain changes. Over the last year, as we have moved into surplus on our balance of payments, greater attention has rightly focussed on sterling M3, the wider measure of money supply, rather than DCE—domestic credit expansion. It is right to recognise this by making a target range for sterling M3 the focus of our monetary policy.
  I also intend to adopt a system of rolling targets, in which the target is rolled forward once every six months. This will enable me regularly to reassess progress on the monetary front in relation to developments in the rest of the economy and either to continue with the existing target range or to modify it. For example, if events have moved as I would hope on
  1192
  counter-inflation policy, it would be appropriate to consider in the autumn whether to lower the target range.
  The target range for sterling M3 for 1978–79 will be 8 per cent. to 12 per cent. The corresponding level of DCE will be below the £6 billion which was set out in the Letter of Intent I wrote to the International Monetary Fund in 1976. This will provide both for a reduction in the rate of inflation and for an increase in economic growth. It should provide ample room for the likely increase in bank lending to industry.
  In Britain, as elsewhere, the rate of growth of the money supply is bound to fluctuate significantly from month to month. As last year, it is likely to be significantly above or below the desired range from time to time. In so far as it is possible now to identify the sort of factors which may cause such fluctuations, I would expect the growth to be higher at some stages in the first half of the year than in the year as a whole. In particular, the timing of central Government receipts and payments may cause jumps in certain months such as banking May similar to that which we had in January this year.
  I will, of course, use whatever instruments of monetary policy are appropriate as the year proceeds. I would hope that gilt-edged interest rates will fall later in the year as it becomes clear that we are making further progress in the fight against inflation. At the moment, however, sterling short-term interest rates are on the low side, both in relation to controlling the domestic money supply and by comparison with United States and Eurodollar rates, given recent developments in the exchange markets.
  With my approval, therefore, the Bank of England is this afternoon raising its minimum lending rate from 6½ per cent. to 7½ per cent.—far below the level that I inherited four years ago.

  PAY AND PRICES
  Within the framework of this monetary policy, we must also do our best to ensure that rising prices and earnings do not make our industry uncompetitive.

  1193
  This will require co-operation from employers and trade unions alike. We must start with a collective determination to ensure that we do not allow the rate of inflation to begin rising again from the levels we expect to reach this summer. On the contrary, we must aim at a further fall.
  This will not be easy to achieve. Over the last 12 months we have been helped in getting the rate of inflation down by the appreciation of our currency and by the fall in world prices which accompanied the fall in world growth and trade. We cannot rely on similar assistance in the next 12 months. That is why the forecast in this year's FSBR shows an increase of 1 per cent. in the inflation rate by the middle of 1979, even assuming that earnings increase only half as much in the next pay round as is likely in this round. Earnings in fact will be the key to the inflation rate next year. Although earnings have increased in the current round far less than most observers expected a few months ago, they are still growing faster in Britain than in most of the countries which compete with us, and our productivity is growing more slowly.
  So we shall be unable to prevent our rate of inflation from rising significantly next year unless we can achieve much lower levels of increase in wage costs than we have achieved this year. If we fail to achieve this, then, whatever the size of the stimulus I give to the economy in this Budget, we cannot expect to keep control of prices or to see the faster fall in unemployment at which we aim.
  I therefore propose early discussions with the representatives of both sides of industry to see, first, whether they agree with the Government that we must keep inflation moving down next year and, second, what policies are appropriate in the field both of prices and of earnings to ensure that we achieve this objective.
  I believe that the success we have achieved in fighting inflation over the last few years both through our control of the monetary aggregates and through our policy for pay and prices provides reasonable grounds for confidence that we can continue to make progress in the fight against inflation in the next 12 months.

  THE SIZE AND NATURE OF THE STIMULUS
  It is on this assumption that I have made my judgment about the size of the stimulus which I can deliver to the economy this year. The total size of the stimulus must, however, depend not only on the assumptions about inflation but also on the nature of the stimulus itself. It can be larger to the extent that it is clearly designed to improve our industrial performance and to strengthen our prospects of success in the fight against inflation.
  The objective of the measures in my Budget today is to provide additional support for our industrial strategy partly in the form of direct help for business, particularly for small firms, and partly by strengthening the incentive to effort at all levels in industry through cuts in income tax. I also believe that by using tax cuts to increase the real value of the pay packet during the coming year I can encourage further moderation in pay settlements and a continuing fall in the rate of inflation.
  I recognise, too, that if the Budget measures are to generate the support of working people for the nation's economic objectives they must also contribute directly towards the relief of poverty, to the fight against unemployment, to the improvement of our social services and to the achievement of a more compassionate and fair society. The measures I am about to describe are designed specifically to achieve these objectives.
  I have, therefore, concluded that it would be right to give a full year stimulus to the economy of some £2½ billion—or about £2 billion in 1978–79. The measures should raise output by another ¾per cent. in the next 12 months and, as a result, GDP should increase by about 3 per cent. at 1970 prices—the highest increase for five years. I am satisfied that this can be done without either prejudicinging our monetary objectives and refuelling inflation or overstraining our productive capacity.
  As a result of this Budget stimulus the PSBR this year will be within the ceiling I set in my letter to the International Monetary Fund last December. The forecast shows a PSBR of £8½ billion or 5¼ per cent. of GDP, reflecting a general

  1195
  Government financial deficit which at 4 per cent. of GDP would be no higher than that, for example, of Germany. In fact, the PSBR for 1977–78 as forecast in last year's Budget was exactly the same as the current forecast for 1978–79—£8½ billion. The estimated outturn for last year, however, is now £5·7 billion—nearly £3 billion lower, despite additional cuts in taxation during the year.
  Of all the elements in the forecast the PSBR is the most difficult to estimate correctly. But even if this year's PSBR is as high as forecast, the higher level of government debt needed to finance it will be counter-balanced by the reduced need to sell gilts to offset the domestic effects of inflows across the exchanges, which were very substantial in the last financial year.
  The funding of the PSBR outside the banking system will be helped by direct sales of certificates of tax deposits, mainly to companies, and of national savings to individuals. A new issue of savings certificate is announced today, with a yield of just under 6·8 per cent. per annum over its four-year life, and a maximum holding for any one saver of £2,000.
  This will mean that the forecast requirement for gilt sales will probably be much the same in money terms as the sales achieved in the last two years and somewhat smaller in relation to the institutional funds which are likely to be available. Thus I foresee no difficulty in financing the PSBR for 1978–79 consistently with the new monetary guideline of 8 to 12 per cent.
  I now come to the Budget measures themselves.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  Last October I announced an increase in our plans for public expenditure in 1978–79 of £1,000 million at 1977 survey prices, including £400 million on construction and over £300 million on raising the rate of child benefit to £2·30 from this month. These increases were included in the Government's expenditure plans as set out in the public expenditure White Paper last January. The White Paper also made provision for the statutory uprating of the main social security benefits in line with earnings or prices as appropriate.
  We have therefore decided to increase in November the rate of pension by £3·20 to £31·20 for a married couple, and by £2 to £19·50 for a single person. This is likely to represent an increase of over 4 per cent. in real terms. The real value of the pension will thus have risen by over 20 per cent. since this Government came to office when the married pension was £12·50 and the single £7·75. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will shortly be announcing the full details of the uprating, including the increases in short-term benefits. Altogether, these improvements will be worth around £500 million in 1978–79 and £1,300 million in a full year. The revised national insurance contribution rates for 1978–79 now in payment were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security last December.
  The Government's plans provided a contingency reserve of £750 million at 1977 survey prices to cover additional public expenditure measures in 1978–79. We have decided to allocate now a substantial part of the contingency reserve to such measures.
  The first call on this sum is for the employment measures which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale for Employment announced last month. The extra cost of these additional measures to United Kingdom employment programmes in 1978–79 is estimated at about £156 million and in 1979–80 at about £144 million. As I said earlier, these additional measures, combined with the others previously announced, will protect or provide about 400,000 jobs or training places by March 1979.
  The Government are also making available further sums in 1978–79 to expand other programmes which are of particular social and economic importance at this time. Within the social services we are giving on this occasion the highest priority to health and education. There will be an allocation of £50 million in 1978–79 for the Health Service in the United Kingdom for specific improvements in services for patients. These will vary from place to place but there will be, for example, extra resources for the full opening of newly completed hospitals, facilities to cut waiting lists, more staff to help care for the elderly

  1197
  and handicapped, and over 400 extra kidney machines, Education will receive £40 million to cover a higher rate of capital expenditure by local education authorities on schools and colleges and there will be additional funds for retraining teachers in subjects like mathematics, science and crafts where there is a shortage.
  There will also be £20 million for environmental services, including building small factories in rural areas by the Development Commission, and for preserving the coastline. There will be provision for higher expenditure on law and order—such as police and prisons and the probation services; special assistance for certain areas affected by early steel closures; and a small extra sum for sea defences in addition to the help announced for farmers affected by storm and flood damage earlier this year. Finally, funds will be made available to promote insulation of private houses and to launch a further scheme to promote energy saving in industry and commerce. I think that this will make a helpful contribution to the energy objectives of the concerted international programme I have mentioned.
  These decisions will provide useful additions to a wide range of public expenditure programmes and will also bring some further help to the construction industry. Further details will be announced by the Ministers responsible in each case.
  The other increases in expenditure are designed to help the family budget. The Government have decided that the autumn increase in the charge for school meals will not take place. We have also decided to take advantage of the Common Market subsidy for school milk by enabling local education authorities to provide free milk for 7-to-11-year-olds. The net cost of these two measures is about £68 million in 1978–79.
  Finally, we are raising child benefit again. As I announced last summer, child benefit was raised this month to £2·30 a week for all children, and the premium for the first child of one-parent families doubled to £1. The Government have now decided that the child benefit rate will be increased in April 1979 to £4 for all children. Meanwhile, as a first instalment of this increase, the Government
  1198
  have decided to increase child benefit by 70p to £3 for all children this November. In addition, the premium for children of one-parent families will be doubled from £1 to £2 in November.
  The cost of these increases in 1978–79 will be around £165 million. They will give a further major boost to child support for working families. Those dependent on social security benefits will, of course, gain from the general social security uprating which I have just announced.
  In deciding on these measures of additional expenditure this year, the Government have regarded it as an essential principle that their cost should be met within the public expenditure plans published in January. Accordingly, the cost will be met from the contingency reserve for this year.
  It has been argued from many quarters, including by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the Government should take major expenditure decisions on measures affecting people's incomes, such as child benefit, at the same time as their main decisions on taxation. The two can then be seen in relation to each other. I believe it is right that the Government should have taken now their principal remaining decisions affecting 1978–79. Just under £200 million at 1977 survey prices remains available in the contingency reserve. Any contingencies requiring additional expenditure in the remainder of the year will be met within this figure.
  The Government will consider the programmes for 1979–80 and subsequent years in the public expenditure survey. It remains the Government's firm intention to contain the growth of expenditure planned for those years within the growth which we can expect in the economy as a whole.

  TAX AND BUSINESSES
  I now come to my proposals on taxation. A major purpose of this Budget is to adjust taxation so as to help and improve our industrial performance. Our business tax system is generally recognised as giving very generous incentives to new investment, and the scheme for stock relief which I introduced in 1974 has also been of immense value to industry. I think the House would agree that

  1199
  what industry requires now is stability in its tax environment. I have therefore decided again to make no major changes this year in the rate of corporation tax or in the levels of investment incentives.
  In my Budget Statement last year I said that the stock relief scheme would continue in its present form for 1977–78 and 1978–79. I then hoped that the debate on current cost accounting might by now have reached the stage where we could move to a permanent scheme of relief. But it is now clear that more time is needed for discussion of inflation accounting and, when an accounting standard has been agreed, tried and tested, for deciding how far it can be used for tax. I intend, therefore, to retain the present scheme for 1979–80, and to continue it indefinitely until a permanent scheme can be introduced.
  However, I recognise that there is continuing concern about the build-up of deferred tax liabilities in company accounts and the effect that this may have on the raising of investment capital and investment decisions. This is a matter which can best be dealt with as part of the permanent scheme. I wish, however, to dispel any anxiety among industrialists that, with the present scheme continuing indefinitely, they may be faced with a mounting volume of potential tax liabilities.
  I, therefore, give this assurance now: if, this time next year, we are still unable to see what form a permanent scheme will take, we shall introduce legislation to limit the build-up of these liabilities as follows. First, the balance of the relief for the first two years of the scheme will be written off. Second, we shall build into the present scheme similar provisions for a write-off of so much of the relief for each subsequent year as remains after a six-year period. This will remove the major criticisms which industry has of the present arrangements and will enable stock relief to continue in more or less its present form until a permanent system is available.

  TAX AND BUSINESSES

    SMALL BUSINESSES
    While overall stability is my main purpose so far as company tax in general is concerned, I believe that, so far as small businesses are concerned, we can expect a significant improvement in industrial performance from some easing of the tax
    1200
    regime. In my Statement last October, I announced the first changes which were proposed in the tax treatment of small firms and in particular a big increase in the relief for capital transfer tax. I can now outline the firm decisions we have made on the matters which were then under review. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be describing these changes in more detail at a Press conference tomorrow.
    First, I intend to raise the profits limit for the small companies rate of corporation tax from £40,000 to £50,000 and to increase the limit for marginal relief from £65,000 to £85,000. Next I intend to provide that a business man who makes trading losses in the early years of an unincorporated business will be able to set them against income received in previous years. I also propose to give relief similar to that for employees last year to self-employed people and members of partnerships who are resident here and work abroad.
    We are also proposing substantial relaxations in the capital gains tax rules for small businesses. I intend, as foreshadowed last October, that capital gains tax on gifts of business assets either within a family or to employees should be deferred until the assets are sold. This will be a major help in passing on a business. In addition, I propose that losses on loans and guarantees should henceforward qualify for capital gains tax relief. This will encourage investment in family companies. Finally, I intend to raise the limit for retirement relief from its present level of £20,000 to £50,000. A very large increase is, I think, justified here to help the small business man who has worked hard all his life to build up a modestly successful business.
    Finally, I am concerned to limit the burden of value added tax on small firms. I am proposing to make a number of changes in the administration of the tax and, in particular, to raise the registration limit to £10,000 and to allow relief against VAT for bad debts in insolvencies. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will give details later in the debate.
    I am sure that these changes will be welcome. My right hon. Friends and I are still considering what further proposals we can reasonably make to help

    1201
    small businesses and encourage investment in them.
    I propose now, however, to give extra help to two particular sectors. First, farmers. I think it is generally accepted that farmers are in a unique position, partly because the weather can produce substantial fluctuations in their income and partly because farming is a highly capital intensive industry requiring substantial investment. I have, therefore, decided to allow farmers to average their incomes for tax purposes when they vary by 30 per cent. or more between two years and to increase the agricultural building allowance in the first year to 30 per cent.
    Second, the hotel industry. In recent years a substantial increase in tourism has made an important contribution to our invisible export earnings. I therefore propose that any expenditure incurred after today on the construction or extension of a hotel with at least 10 bedrooms should qualify for capital allowances at the rate of 20 per cent. initial allowance and 4 per cent. annual allowance.
    Mr. Robert Adley: Well done.
    Mr. Healey: These measures will provide a valuable incentive to businesses as such.

    PROFIT SHARING
    I also wish to encourage profit-sharing in this year's Finance Bill. Profit-sharing schemes can encourage the employees of a company to identify themselves more closely with their company. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has often emphasised, this can help to improve the relationship between employees and employers, encourage greater efficiency and stimulate growth. But if it is not simply to give relief to the higher paid there must be a ceiling to the amount of relief to which any one taxpayer can be entitled. So there will be a limit of £500 a year to the value of shares which can be allocated tax-free to any one employee. My proposals will take effect from next year and will broadly follow Method III as set out in the Inland Revenue's consultative document published last February. There will, of course, be full details in the Finance Bill.

    CAPITAL GAINS TAX
    I have studied very carefully the representations which the Inland Revenue received on its consultative document on capital gains tax and inflation. I must conclude that the practical problems for taxpayers, their advisers and the Inland Revenue alike in any scheme for indexaation or for tapering would be too great. Moreover, I do not think it would be right to give relief for inflation to investors in shares and land while investors in building societies and other fixed interest loans receive none—and while an investor can benefit from the decrease in the real value of his own borrowings.
    But to lighten the burden on small investors I propose that an individual's gains up to £1,000 in any year should be exempt and gains between £1,000 and £5,000 charged at 15 per cent., that is, at half the full rate. A marginal relief will secure that only large gains of £9,500 or more in a year will bear the full rate. These provisions will apply to the year just ended and will replace the present exemption for small disposals and the alternative basis of charge which many people have had difficulty in understanding.

    TAX AVOIDANCE
    Lastly, a word about tax avoidance. This has emerged recently in a new form which involves marketing a succession of highly artificial schemes—when one is detected, the next is immediately sold—and is accompanied by a level of secrecy which amounts almost to conspiracy to mislead. The time has come not only to stop the particular schemes we know about but to ensure that no schemes of a similar nature can be marketed in future. So the provisions I shall be introducing this year to deal with artificial avoidance by certain partnerships dealing in commodity futures will go back to 6th April 1976, that is, before the date when the intention to legislate was announced in a parliamentary Answer.
    My proposed measures against avoidance by means of land sales with the right to repurchase will go back to 3rd December 1976, the date foreshadowed in a parliamentary Answer; and I will from today counteract devices for avoiding the capital transfer tax charges on discretionary trusts and avoidance of CTT

    1203
    through the use of associated endowment and term life policies.

  TAX AND INDIVIDUALS
  I now come to my proposals for those taxes which most concern the individual man and woman.
  I think it is now generally recognised that, while the total burden of taxation in Britain is well within the international average, the proportion of total revenue derived from income tax is still too high although I have already reduced it significantly in the last three years. So cuts in income tax will account for almost all the £2½ billion stimulus which I have announced.
  I know that some hon. and right hon. Members think it would be right to cut income tax this year by a much larger sum and offset the additional costs by increases in indirect taxation. In principle I have some sympathy with this view. But I believe that this year we must consolidate and reinforce our success in the fight against inflation so that we can for good and all bring down the inflationary expectations which have damaged our economy in recent years in so many ways. In this situation I cannot believe it would make sense for the Government themselves deliberately to raise the inflation rate and increase the cost of living. I will, therefore, leave the indirect taxes generally unchanged on this occasion—with one small exception.
  To discourage the smoking of cigarettes which have a higher tar yield, I intend to introduce from 4th September a supplementary duty on cigarettes with a tar yield of 20 milligrammes or more. If the manufacturers fully passed on this increased duty in prices they would raise the price of 20 of these cigarettes by about 7p. About 15 per cent. of cigarettes will be affected.
  The House will recognise that this supplementary duty is not designed primarily to raise revenue—it could bring in only £25 million in a full year at most—and if it results in leading smokers abandoning these high tar cigarettes, no one will be more pleased than I. In any case, the effect on the RPI will be negligible.
  I have also been asked to consider an increase in the national insurance surcharge. The share of employer social
  1204
  security contributions and payroll taxes in total revenue is a good deal lower in Britain than in most other countries of the European Community. But I do not believe it would be right to increase it so soon after it has been introduced, and at a time when unemployment is our major problem. It would increase industrial costs at a time when it is essential to improve our competitiveness and it would ultimately be largely passed on in higher prices at a time when the fight against inflation is at a crucial stage.
  The proposals I have announced so far leave £2,400 million for reductions in income tax. I have considered carefully how they should be distributed so as to further the objectives I have set myself, to increase the incentive for greater effort and to promote social justice.
  I believe it right to regard this Budget as the second phase in a process which I began last autumn. I told the House in October that, as well as increasing the plans for public expenditure in 1978–79, I was raising the level of the personal allowances fixed in last year's Finance Act by 12 per cent. so as to ensure that their real value was maintained and that I was bringing forward this increase in tax thresholds by 12 months compared with the date provided for in the Act. In practice, this increase of 12 per cent. has turned out to be slightly higher than the increase in the retail price index over the calendar year 1977.
  The question I have had to decide for this Budget is whether I should devote the hulk of the tax relief now available to raising the tax thresholds still further or whether I should introduce a lower initial rate of tax. Since I have already more than fulfilled my obligation to index tax thresholds. I have been particularly impressed by the argument that the rate at which people become liable to enter income tax is too high. It is, indeed, the highest in the world. It means that many of the low paid are little better off in work than on the dole. I cannot believe that this makes sense in either economic or social terms.
  I propose, therefore, to introduce a lower rate of tax, at 25 per cent., on the first £750 of taxable income. This new lower rate will be the marginal rate of tax for some 4 million of the low paid. Most taxpayers now caught in the poverty trap will find its impact that much less

  1205
  severe because their tax will be nine percentage points lower than now. Other taxpayers will be £1·30 a week better off as a result of this change alone. I hope it may be possible to extend this lower rate band in future years.
  I still believe, however, that it is necessary to raise the tax threshold as far as possible above the main social security benefit levels and to take as many people as I can out of tax altogether. I therefore propose this year to raise the single person's allowance and the wife's earnings allowance by a further £40 to £985 and the married allowance by £80 to £1,535.
  This increase in tax thresholds will help widows and also provide the family man with special help during the second stage of the transition to the child benefit scheme. The additional child benefit which mothers are now receiving will in general more than offset the effect on family income of the reduction in the child tax allowance which we have already announced.
  But I believe it also important to ensure that this change does not reduce the father's pay packet, and for this reason I am increasing the married allowance by twice as much as the increase in the single allowance. I propose, as last year, to ensure that the allowance for one-parent families is kept in line with that for two-parent families by increasing the additional allowance by £40 to £550.
  Pensioners with a modest additional income have a special problem, which I expect all hon. Members will have come across in their constituencies. I therefore propose to increase the age allowance a little more than personal allowances generally—by £50 for the single person and £100 for the married—and to raise the age allowance income limit to £4,000.
  The cost of these measures will be £2,150 million, of which nearly £1,600 million is attributable to the lower band and just over £550 million to the increases in the personal allowances. As a result of these increases 360,000 people who would otherwise have been paying income tax in the coming year will not now do so.
  Although last October I increased the thresholds for the basic rate of tax by 12 per cent., I did not at that time similarly index the threshold for the higher
  1206
  rates of tax. If I did not raise this now, people with no more than one and a half times average earnings would move into higher rate liability this year. I propose, therefore, to raise the upper limit of the basic rate from £6,000 to £7,000. This will mean that a married man with earnings of £8,500 will not be liable to tax at the higher rate, even if he is entitled to no allowances other than his married allowance. As a result, 450,000 people who would otherwise be paying tax at the higher rate will not have to do so. This will be of particular advantage to highly skilled engineers, foremen and middle managers.
  I propose also to increase the thresholds to the successive higher rate bands. The 40 per cent. band will, as now, be £1,000 in length. This will be followed by two bands of £1,000, two of £1,500, one of £2,000, one of £2,500 and one of £5,500. The 83 per cent. rate will thus be reached at a taxable income of £23,000 as compared with the present £21,000.
  There is a similar case for raising the thresholds for the surcharge on investment income. I propose, therefore, to raise the general threshold to the 10 per cent. rate of surcharge from £1,500 to £1,700 and the threshold to the 15 per cent. rate from £2,000 to £2,250, in line with the rise in prices.
  However, it is significant that nearly half of those liable to the surcharge are over 65, and two-thirds of these have incomes below the higher rate threshold. I therefore intend, in addition to the increase I have already announced, to help those elderly people living on relatively modest income from savings by increasing the real value of the surcharge thresholds for them. I propose that for those over 65, the thresholds for the 10 per cent. rate should go up from £2,000 to £2,500, and for the 15 per cent. rate from £2,500 to £3,000. Finally, I propose that maintenance payments should be wholly exempted from the surcharge with effect from this year.
  The changes in the personal allowances will take effect under PAYE on the first pay day after 10th May. Single people and earning wives earning over £19 a week will in general then get a refund of £1·30, and they will thereafter pay 26p a week less in tax. The refund for married men earning over £30 a week will

  1207
  in general be £2·60 and the weekly reduction for them will be 52p. The new tax tables giving effect to the changes in rates of tax, including the lower rate band, will operate from mid-July. There will then be a further refund of about £18 and a further reduction in tax of £1·30 a week.

  LIVING STANDARDS AND PAY
  Let me now explain the effect of this Budget on living standards.
  With the usual Budget tables, I am arranging to have published this year, as in the last two years, tables which show the effect of my tax changes on individuals at different levels of earnings. In order to illustrate this, let me take first the example of a man earning £75 a week who has a wife and two children under eleven. The tax reliefs in today's Budget will give him an extra £1·82 a week in his pay packet.
  As I have said, however, these tax reliefs are only the second phase of the process which I began last October, when he got an extra £1·05 a week. From the beginning of this April, the new provisions for child benefit and child tax allowances have come into force, as well as the increased national insurance contributions. Taking all these into account, the £75 a week family is better off by £3·32 and, when the child benefit rises in November by a further 70p for each child, the family will be better off by a total of £4·72 a week.
  But these calculations do not, of course, take into account the effects on living standards of wage increases over the current pay round. Taking again the man on £75 a week, if his earnings rise by 10 per cent. in accordance with the Government's guideline, his standard of living will rise by nearly 6 per cent. in real terms between August 1977 and August 1978 as a result of last October's measures and those I have just described.
  The man earning £50 a week will do even better. His living standards will rise by nearly 7½ per cent. On the same basis, a single man on £75 a week will be about 4¾ per cent. better off, and on £50 a week will be just over 6 per cent. better off.
  Thus I do not in this Budget make any call for sacrifice. With the rate of inflation remaining low, and with these sub-
  1208
  stantial tax reliefs, modest increases in earnings should ensure that real living standards can continue to rise over the year ahead without unduly increasing our industrial costs. This is the best possible recipe for commercial and industrial success. It is the only recipe for curing unemployment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order No. 94, the first motion, entitled "Provisional Collection of Taxes", must be decided without debate. When that matter has been disposed of I shall call on the Chancellor to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the Law". It is on that motion that the Budget debate will take place today and on the succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the debate on Monday, and they will then be decided without debate.

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following Motions—

  (a) Gaming licence duty in Scotland (Motion No. 3).

  (b) Value added tax (registration limits) (Motion No. 6).—[Mr. Healey.]

  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means Motions), and agreed to.

BUDGET RESOLUTIONS AND ECONOMIC SITUATION

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to—

  (a) the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (i) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (ii) for refunding any amount of tax otherwise than by virtue of a provision relating to bad debts;

  (iii) for reducing the rate at which tax is for the time being chargeable on any supply or importation otherwise than by reducing that rate in relation to all supplies and importations on which tax is for the time being chargeable at that rate; or

  1209

  (iv) for any relief other than relief applicable to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description; or

  (b) the making of any amendment relating to the surcharge imposed by the National Insurance Surcharge Act 1976 and applying to some only of the persons by or in respect of whom the surcharge is payable; or

  (c) the making, except in relation to farming or market gardening, of any provision for affording relief from tax by the adjustment of fluctuating income.—[Mr. Healey.]

  [Relevant European Economic Community Documents: R/1721/77, R/2080/77, R/2473/77, COM (77) 640, the Economic Situation Annual Report, R/654/78 and R/655/78 on the economic situation in the Community and economic policy guidelines.]
  4.44 p.m.
  Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: It is the custom of the Leader of the Opposition always to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the manner in which he has presented his Budget speech, although, as he will know, one reserves one's comments on the contents for a little later. I warmly congratulate the Chancellor on his different presentation. His speech was much shorter, which, I believe, is a great advantage. We had been told that it would be freer of jargon and a good deal simpler. However, I am bound to say that I did not notice it. This is, of course, the Chancellor's thirteenth Budget. The style has changed a great deal, and I think that the House has benefited from the change in style and from its being shorter.
  With regard to my comment on the Budget, perhaps it is known in this House but not outside that this has to be wholly off the cuff—[Interruption.] The House knows that I have no advance knowledge whatsoever of what the Budget contains. Therefore, I know no more than the public knew in listening to this broadcast. I hope that they will not—
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: These are proceedings of the House. It is not a broadcast.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) must restrain himself.
  Mrs. Thatcher: It is also the custom that the Opposition's reply is made tomorrow by the Shadow Chancellor. It will, of course, be made. Finally, the Leader of the Opposition makes some preliminary comments, or attempts to
  1210
  comment, on the Budget that we have just heard.
  I noted that the Chancellor did not go into his own immediate history of his last 13 Budgets or of his last four years. Indeed, the way in which he started the Budget meant that we scarcely recognised the picture which he drew. As he knows, under his stewardship output in this country has not increased for four years. The right hon. Gentleman has presided over the biggest increase in unemployment in the post-war period. In terms of inflation he has presided over both the biggest increase and the peak in the post-war period.
  Although the Chancellor now says that the year-on-year rate of inflation is down to 9·5 per cent.—he and we hope that it will soon be down to 7 per cent.—he omits to say that from the housewife's point of view this is 9·5 per cent. on top of 16·2 per cent. on top of 22·9 per cent. on top of 19·9 per cent. Therefore, it is not surprising that the housewife does not entirely see it in exactly the same way as the Chancellor.
  The right hon. Gentleman also omitted to say that inflation is still three times as high as it is in Germany in the same world circumstances, twice as high as in Japan and higher than in any other major competitor country except Italy. He also omitted to say that under his stewardship the fall in the standard of living has been greater than any other we have experienced in the post-war period. Indeed, the average wage earner is £6 a week less well off than he was when the Labour Government came to power. He also omits to say that he has presided over the biggest increase in personal taxation.
  All that the Chancellor is doing today is taking off just a little of the tax that he has put on. He also omits to say that the Budget is delivered against a background of 4¾ million people dependent on supplementary benefits and against a background in which industry is not in a competitive position because it has far lower profits than it should have in real terms and is still suffering from the old problem of far too many restrictive practices to be competitive.
  I must say, therefore, that as I listened to the Chancellor I thought that the trailer to his Budget had been a good deal more exciting than the show itself.

  1211
  The fact is that the whole of his strategy during the last four years has failed and that instead of tinkering with the system we ought to go in a totally different direction. I believe that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's strategy has been to take more of the nation's income to be spent by the Government and to leave less of it to be spent by the people from their own pockets. Indeed, if one studies what has happened in the past four years, every description shows it. The Government side of the House believes in the Government spending the people's income. The people believe in having a higher proportion to spend themselves.
  The right hon. Gentleman did this—it was his strategy, I believe—to try to get higher growth, which he did not get, and to try to get better social services, which he has not got either. So the entire strategy has failed. He set out to create a Socialist paradise, and all that we have is Socialism. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman starts off as the prisoner of his previous 12 Budgets and as the prisoner of his party's philosophy.
  As we know, every Budget has two effects, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman knows this better than most. It has the immediate effect of tax cuts which one can see. It has the longer-term economic effect, which comes with the money supply and the amount which he borrows, and sometimes the longer-term effect, which is not immediately seen, can be very damaging. But that effect ought to be foreseen.
  May I deal first with what is seen with some of the tax cuts that he has mentioned? First, I take small businesses. Will the right hon. Gentleman please remember that it was his Government who successively damaged small businesses with capital transfer tax and then with one tax after another—[HON. MEMBERS: "VAT."]—with the Employment Protection Act and with one Act after another. I notice that people with small businesses, like other people, will have to take the increase in interest rates which he has announced, and they will be very harmful to them. We note that at last the right hon. Gentleman recognises that they are the prime source of innovation and that he has given them some reliefs. We welcome the reliefs which he has given to small businesses—especially those
  1212
  on capital gains tax, which will help a great deal—and especially the arrangements which he has announced about losses being allowed against previous income. We also welcome the changes on value added tax, although we wish that he had accepted our amendment last year and raised the threshold to £10,000. We are also very pleased about the relief for bad debts.
  As for other tax changes, most of us welcome the intention to make stock relief permanent, although a number of us would have preferred it this year. This is causing great problems in the balance sheets of many companies particularly small businesses but almost all companies, and the sooner that deferred tax liability goes the better it will be.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman's main tax changes will very soon disappear without being noticed. He has announced changes on personal income tax to the tune of about £2,150 million. Last year, he announced changes on personal income tax to the tune of about £2,250 million, and they very soon disappeared without trace, in that they were absorbed—[Interruption.] I am reading from the right hon. Gentleman's broadcast last year, in which he said that it would cost a lot of money to do all that he proposed. He said that it would cost £2,250 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Off the cuff."] Of course, I armed myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Some cuff."] It is a very good cuff. Hon. Members should try having one themselves.
  The Chancellor announced fairly moderate reductions in personal income tax, and I believe that most of us were expecting more, provided that he could make room for them in the public expenditure side of his Budget. I notice that he has brought back again the reduced rate band, one of his predecessors having abolished it. The reason why it was abolished, of course, was that it was very complicated administratively. One of the effects of bringing it back is that we could never, in fact, have a tax credit system—[Interruption]—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the right hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Thatcher: It is a great disappointment to many of us that the right hon.

  1213
  Gentleman has not reduced the standard rate of income tax. We left it at 30p. It is now still 34p. It still presses very hard on middle management—the very group of people whom we need to encourage if we are to get industry back into the position where it must be if it is to be competitive. The changes which the Chancellor has made on investment income are very small and could have been bigger.
  On the whole, the right hon. Gentleman has done some double counting in the figures which he announced at the end of his speech. He omitted to point out that the increases in national insurance contributions which come into effect this same April will be offset against some of the tax reductions, and some people will notice very little difference in their net take-home pay.
  I come to what I call the longer-term effect of the Budget, of which the two most important features are the public sector borrowing requirement and the money supply. I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that when he said that the public sector borrowing requirement would go back to £8·5 billion, many of us thought that it was very high if he was to keep down the level of inflation in future years. That in fact is reversing his previous policy. His previous policy had been to reduce public sector borrowing as a proportion of the gross domestic product. He has reversed that policy, and now he is increasing borrowing as a proportion of the gross domestic product. That gives rise to the very great dangers of laying the foundations of a future round of inflation in the years to come.
  The Opposition are very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has reduced the money supply targets from a band of 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. to one of 8 per cent. to 12 per cent. He said that he thought the money supply would be just above this year's target, about 14 per cent. That is very much on the high side, bearing in mind the broad width of the target which he set himself originally. It is undoubtedly because he has overshot that target that the market has been signalling interest rate increases and, because he has overshot that target, the interest rate has to go up.
  1214
  We utter a warning here that the tax cuts which he has made are welcome, provided that he is prepared to make sufficient reductions in his Government expenditure not to have inflation in future years. On that we shall reserve our judgment. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the dangers. He announced them in his speech. We are not certain that on the programme which he has announced he will avoid inflation in future years. Many of us think that he has laid the very foundations for it.
  I notice one or two features with regard to public expenditure. I notice, first, that we had to join Europe before the Labour Party could get school milk back for the 7 to 11 age group. I notice, secondly, that he announced with a very great flourish an increase in expenditure on school building of £40 million. That would be the equivalent of about £20 million in my time. It is about the smallest increase that I have ever heard of in relation to school building. It was almost not worth announcing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not say that it was not worth giving. I said that it was not worth announcing in the Budget.
  The question is how we are to judge what the Chancellor has said. We have to make a judgment not only of what he says that he has done but of whether it will be done. I have been through the right hon. Gentleman's previous Budgets, as I usually do, and noted the previous way in which he has set them out to the people. It has been one tale of euphoria after another. The Opposition are very conscious of the Budget which he introduced before the last election What he did then is very similar to what he appears to be doing now, in that apparently he is cutting tax in advance of a General Election.
  At that time, he announced that his actions were taking
  "the top off the peak which inflation would otherwise have reached"
  and that this would give
  "a solid prospect of a steady improvement in 1975."
  In fact, in the following year inflation went up to 27 per cent., so his forecast was totally wrong.
  At the time of his next Budget, the Chancellor said that his main job was making sure that people had jobs that

  1215
  winter. What happened? The unemployment rate went up steadily. In the next Budget he said that he had
  "laid the foundations … for a tremendous leap forward next year."
  Somehow he stumbled, and he did not look before he leapt. In his next Budget we were promised "an economic miracle," and somehow that foundered too.
  The Chancellor could have made all the general comments that he made today—and he has made them—on almost every Budget that he has presented to date. But not one single Budget that he has presented has brought an improvement in prosperity to this country. Indeed, they have brought a flat output and a reduction in living standards.
  We judge the Chancellor not by his words, because we have heard so many words before. We judge him not by world summitry, to which he gave a great deal of attention. It is not the first time that world problems have gone to world summits. We have had one every year, and every time the message has been of confidence, but we have not in fact seen any recovery as a result of that world summitry.
  The truth is that the Chancellor is a very late convert to tax cuts. He said that he would make people howl with anguish over increased tax. He made everyone who worked for a living howl with anguish over the increases in taxes that he made. His policy and that of his Government is to take an increasing proportion of the national income for the Government to spend, so that the increased social wage is determined by the Government and there is a lower real wage in the wage packet. I see that hon. Members below the Gangway are nodding.
  The Labour Government have told the people that they will take their money and look after it for them. Now, the people are saying that they want more of their own money to look after themselves in their own way. The Chancellor's conversion to tax cuts is only election-deep, and we shall deal with it accordingly.
  Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would give some guidance to the House in the new circumstances of the broadcasting of our proceedings. The Leader
  1216
  of the Opposition, in her introductory comments, referred to the outside audience listening by mechanical means to our proceedings today. I have always understood that it is one of the conventions of the House that reference was not even made to those in the Strangers' Gallery. Therefore, how is it possibly right to make reference to an outside audience of a much larger number?
  Secondly, it is surely improper that the Leader of the Opposition should refer to the proceedings of this House as "a broadcast". That is not what we are doing in this place. We are discussing specific matters on specific occasions. In this context the Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear by her statement that she was using this House not to argue the merits or demerits of the Budget but to make an overt party political broadcast, supposedly off the cuff.
  Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you could give us some guidance—or perhaps Mr. Speaker could do so on another occasion—on the conduct of Members in these new circumstances. Surely the guidance should be that Members should not make reference to the broadcasting of the House while we are conducting the proceedings, and that there should be direct comments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading.") No. I am not reading, I am referring to some notes that I have made. This is more off the cuff than the comments of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Surely there should be direct comments in the House only to those who are actually here and not to the listening audience outside. In this the Leader of the Opposition patently failed.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), in addressing you, presumably forgot that while he was here in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker has asked whether the outside broadcast channels were switched on at the moment. Since Mr. Speaker was referring to the hon. Member for Warley, East in that case, the hon. Member must be alleging that Mr. Speaker was himself out of order, which is a somewhat improbable hypothesis.
  Mr. Faulds rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) must resume his seat. Broadcasting is now a fact of life in this place. On the question of the conventions, there are no conventions existing in that connection.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. Terry Walker: The whole House will congratulate the Chancellor on his Budget, not only on his presentation but on the content. After so much euphoria in the Press and on television, the Budget proposals, as put before the House, seem to come as an anticlimax. As this debate is going out on radio at the moment, we have a different situation from that which applied in the past. But, despite this, all the speculation about what the Chancellor would or would not do can only come to an end when the matter is brought to the House.
  Certainly I believe that the Chancellor has made the right decision by going for greater tax allowances rather than reducing the basic rate of income tax. All of us, as constituency Members, find great difficulty in dealing with people who get into the poverty trap. It seems ridiculous that people who are retired and who have paid in for their pensions all through their working lives should suddenly find themselves still liable for tax when they retire. The increase in allowances will help these people in their commitments, as many of them will now find that they do not have to pay tax at all.
  This will work through the tax system and will be of great benefit. I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. I think that this action will be appreciated by people when they see that they have more money in their pockets. There will be great benefit to ordinary people and families.
  It is important to note that the child benefits are being brought forward substantially by the Chancellor's proposals. This will help families. One-parent families, about whom we hear so much, are considerably assisted by the doubling of the amount from next November.
  On the charges on school meals that were proposed for the autumn, hon. Members have played a considerable part in making sure that the Chancellor and the Government were aware of their feelings. It is more or less a victory for Back-
  1218
  Bench Members who have campaigned continually for this over a long period. It is a nonsense to suggest that these charges should be increased at this time, when we are curtailing the amount of money that people have in their pockets.
  Another thing that must be welcomed, certainly by the Labour Party, is the restoration of free school milk for children between the ages of 7 and 11. Some of us will remember that when the provision of free school milk was reduced by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and was taken away there was considerable feeling within the trade union movement and the Labour Party. However this has been achieved, whether or not it is through the Common Market, it is to be welcomed and I am sure will be welcomed by the Labour Party.
  The measures announced by the Chancellor to help the National Health Service will also be widely welcomed by the Labour Party. We need more hospitals and we need to reduce the waiting lists. The help to provide 400 more kidney machines will be of immense benefit, to my constituents and many other people who are concerned over this matter.
  The insulation of private houses is a matter about which we look forward to hearing more in due course. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House felt that the previous proposals for the public sector of housing created an anomaly, and we want to know more about this before saying very much more. This kind of thing has to come about if we are to conserve energy, which is vital.
  Within the context of the Budget we shall wait to hear more about the amount set aside for environmental help and law and order. These matters are of concern to Members on both sides of the House. The resources that are offered should be used in the proper way.
  The Budget that has been presented today is a move in the right direction. As the Chancellor said, it is the second phase of what was started by his announcements in October last year. In the improved economic situation I believe that the position of ordinary working people must also improve accordingly. That is why I hope that we shall go forward and that the Chancellor will have a chance to present another Budget after this one and another Budget after that. I do not agree with what the Leader of the Opposition

  1219
  said, that this is an electioneering Budget. I believe that it is a process that we are starting. That process is to provide for working people and their families a better deal and a fairer redistribution of wealth, power and influence in this country.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: The Chancellor's thirteenth Budget cannot of itself smack of good financial management. To appear so many times in the House of Commons during a relatively short period and to present conflicting and varying Budgets is an extraordinary way in which to run the country's finances. It seems to me that if we are to try to restore any degree of stability or certainty either to individual or family budgeting or to company budgeting, we have somehow to go back to the system of annual budgeting, even though that is less convenient for a Chancellor and depends upon his making longer-term predictions on relative movements within the economy.
  I should like to say a few words about the Chancellor's proposal to repay early some of the borrowing from the IMF and some of the other debt. I am greatly concerned—I have registered my opposition in the House on many occasions—at the degree to which the Government have put us in debt to a record and massive level. This is not only imprudent but immoral. I believe that the Government have saddled future generations with a level of debt which is improper and will place a considerable burden upon them. They have destroyed a heritage by their own profligacy and overspending, and have subsidised a rate of consumption which the country cannot afford by saddling future generations with the responsibility of repaying excessive borrowings. Therefore, I condemn this level of debt wholeheartedly and condemn the Government's policies, which led to effective receivership by the IMF a year ago.
  I do not wish to be churlish about my support for early repayment of this debt, but I am bound to say that it seems to be repaying with one hand and borrowing with the other, for we are told that while some of those moneys may be repaid the Chancellor is to go to the New York bond market for, I believe, about £300 million-worth of foreign currency borrowing. This may appear relatively attractive at a time when the dollar
  1220
  is weak on international markets, but over the term of this loan it is quite possible that sterling will decline at a greater rate than the dollar. If the rate of inflation of this country is markedly higher than that of our industrial competitors, and the rate of inflation is much higher even than that prevailing in America, it is inevitable that in the long run sterling must be relatively weak. If that is so, the cost of repaying the debt will be considerable.
  Though there may appear to be a short-term advantage in terms of interest rates, in borrowing a considerable amount on the American exchange, the reality will probably be that it will be very expensive to repay. I suspect that it is no coincidence that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) will almost certainly not be the Chancellor who will be held accountable when the House has to repay that money. It is easy for him to borrow now, because he has not to bear the responsibility of paying back an increased real sum at the end of that period of borrowing.
  I was interested to note—it was fairly unexpected—the substantial increase in the minimum lending rate which was announced today. This will have a severe impact on interest rates generally at a time when people were hoping that the gradual reduction over the last year would have a beneficial impact on the rate of inflation. As these higher rates of interest work their way through the economy there will be further pressure on the retail price index, much of which may negate the advantages and benefits of the tax cuts which the Chancellor has announced today.
  More pertinently, many of us will be concerned that this will once more place pressure on the building societies to increase their mortgage interest rates. Though there has been a welcome decrease in these rates in recent months, it would be a matter of serious concern to many families if their mortgage interest rates were to increase again. Bearing in mind the many young families and young married couples who are now having to pay escalating prices for new homes throughout the country, it would be an impossible burden at a time of prospective wage restraint, with relatively little given away to many in middle management by way of tax cuts, if their

  1221
  mortgage interest burden were to increase substantially.
  Though help has been given at the lower end of the incomes scale today, for those in the middle—that is, I suspect, the vast majority of earning people in this country—there are severe dangers that the year ahead will show that the benefits provided through tax cuts and tax relief will be more than offset by increases in costs that they have to face. Many of us are extremely concerned about this.
  However, I wholeheartedly welcome some of the tax measures. As a Member representing a farming and agricultural constituency, I welcome the proposal to introduce an averaging system of a tax on farming income. Many of us in the Conservative Party have been pressing for this for some time. Given the vagaries of agricultural production and the relatively long-term nature of the product involved, it seems sensible to apply a different time scale in terms of tax assessment.
  Clearly, the Committee stage of the Bill will give Parliament an opportunity to consider whether the 30 per cent. variation, which is the sine qua non for such assistance or averaging, is the appropriate figure to choose, bearing in mind the difficulties of many farmers in recent years and also the substantial costs which many farmers have in meeting the interest on mortgages or on borrowing to finance their stock and capital equipment. Therefore, although I welcome that move, I reserve the opportunity to examine carefully what tax relief is to be given and to consider whether the 30 per cent. variation between income in various years is too wide for a sufficient number of farmers to qualify for this help.
  I turn now to the reduction in the level of basic tax to 25 per cent. on the first £750 of income. Although I welcome this, I hope that it will be followed in subsequent Budgets by increases in the band to which this rate should apply. I hope that this will be built upon and that the lower rate will apply for a wider band of income than has been announced today. I hope very much that this will be remembered by my right hon, and hon. Friends when we are returned to office.
  Nevertheless, although I welcome this move, it is nonsense to have a 25 per cent.
  1222
  rate applying at the bottom end rising to 83 per cent. at the higher end. That is far too wide a band of taxation. It involves far too many levels of taxation within the range, and at the upper end it is totally ineffective because it restrains many people from giving of their best. If the higher marginal rates of tax were to be lowered, it undoubtedly would restore to this country a good deal of income from those who have a higher propensity to save then than do those at the lower end of the income range. This, in turn, would have a substantial and beneficial impact on the level of private investment.
  I also welcome the announcement that profit-sharing arrangements will include a provision for £500-worth of shares to be given tax free to employees within companies. This is something which the Conservative Party has been pressing for for a long time. It is fundamental to our philosophy that we encourage personal ownership—whether a property-owning, share-owning or chattel-owning democracy. We believe in personal ownership. We believe that it is healthy for people to own things. We believe that it makes them more responsible for that ownership, and that it will encourage people to provide for themselves when age or disability falls upon them.
  The sad fact is—this is a reflection on bad management by successive Governments since the war—that those who have worked hard during their lifetimes and who have consistently put aside a small proportion of their incomes so that in their retirement or when they are ill or suffer from disability can look after themselves without calling on their families or on the State find their savings taxed out of existence at one end and their real value eroded by inflation at the other end. This has been another immoral aspect of bad Government management successively and the impact of inflation on the savings of ordinary people.
  I look to this Government in their remaining months in office, and particularly to the next Conservative Government, to make a real impact on encouraging people to save and protect the value of their savings. It is essential in the remaining part of this century to take this step. There is a total of 7,500,000 people aged over 65—a figure which is

  1223
  likely to remain constant until the end of the century. But it is interesting to note that there will be a dramatic increase in the number of people aged over 75. The figure in that respect will increase by 23 per cent. in the next 25 years to about 3,500,000 people, and over the same period the number of people aged over 85 will increase by 42 per cent. Therefore, towards the end of the century we shall have many more very elderly people in our community. It is also easily and empirically predictable that a higher proportion of those elderly people will not have gainful employment. Therefore, they will be an increasing financial burden on their families, the community and the Government.
  I believe that we must accept the important responsibility of looking after the elderly in our community. I also believe that the severe financial burdens which this will place upon us, not just in the next year covered by the Budget but in the next 25 years, will not be met unless we recognise the importance of once more returning to people the ability and responsibility to look after themselves financially. We shall do that only if we give proper incentive and encouragement to enable people to save, to enable them, out of the product of their labours, to put by something for when they are elderly, and when they have done so to ensure that the product of those hard-earned savings is not taxed by effective surtax.
  I come to one aspect of the tax changes which I find disappointing. I refer to the pitiful increase in the threshold for unearned income. I believe that "unearned income" is a misnomer. It is hard-earned income. There are many people who are living on fairly low incomes—this argument applies to many in my constituency, which contains a relatively high age group—and they now find that they are paying effective surtax on incomes substantially below those of an average industrial worker and where they have minimal other sources of income apart from those savings. They are asking "Is this right? We fought for the country, we worked hard all our lives and we took it upon ourselves to be reliant on nobody else but ourselves." This, perhaps, was regarded as a Victorian or Edwardian virtue. I think that it should be a modern virtue and should once more
  1224
  be encouraged. The minimal announcement of the Chancellor today that he intends to increase those threshold levels to a maximum of £2,500 for the higher rate of investment income surcharge does not begin to cope with the problem or to encourage people once more to save or to provide for themselves.
  This shows a fundamental difference in attitude between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. This is sad for me as a young politician, because I should like to move towards a modus vivendi on many of these aspects, but clearly Labour Members wish consistently to move towards a collectivist State, with centralised care—a State where services and subsidies are handed out indiscriminately and where the individual will not be allowed freedom of choice, or even to make financial provision to make that choice. This is wholly regrettable to the Conservative Party and the Chancellor has given us little cause to believe that the Government are taking our criticisms seriously.
  The money supply expansion figures which the Chancellor announced today in a band of 8 per cent. to 12 per cent. for the year ahead may indicate a relatively higher rate of inflation for the year ahead than many of us had imagined. This endorses our suspicion that the benefits which have been so dramatically and theatrically given away on this occasion will in reality be absorbed by a high rate of inflation.
  The fact that the band for monetary expansion last year was exceeded because of mismanagement by the Government gives us little cause to expect that it will be met in the year ahead, particularly when the expansion of domestic credit is expected to be £6 billion. Many of us hoped that the Chancellor would announce a much more radical means of administering monetary control. The movements in the last year in M3 and M1 indicate that the Government by concentrating predominantly on the management of M3 have had only a partial impact on economic movements and the rate of inflation because of the highly variable movements of M1, which in many cases have moved alarmingly against the trend set by M3.
  If we take into account M4, which includes building society deposits, we find that there has been a marked tendency,

  1225
  partly because of the tax treatment of building society interest, for people to move their deposits from clearing banks into building societies. The real expansion in money supply over the last 12 months is therefore probably even higher than the Chancellor's announcement that it was slightly outside the band that he set of 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. Taking into account the growth of building society deposits over the last 12 months, it is clear that monetary expansion has been even larger and many of us would like to know the Government's predictions for the year ahead and what impact there will be on prices in the short term.
  One of my greatest concerns is that while we have relatively high inflation in this country, the value of sterling is bound, in the long run, to come under further pressure. It is already clear that in the last two months the decline in the value of sterling by over 5 per cent. in its trade-weighted index value will soon have an impact on retail prices. The Financial Times reported today on the increases in wholesale and raw material prices which industry is having to pay. This is alarming and gives rise to concern for the future.
  It is notable that the Chancellor's prophecies today went only to the end of this year. He told us little about the rate of inflation that we may expect next year. Many of us suspect that once more we shall be on a Socialist spiral of decline in the real value of net incomes and increasing burdens through higher prices.
  In welcoming the Chancellor's statement as far as it goes, I issue a warning about dealing with the level of inflation and the management of monetary targets on which I hope we shall have some reassurance in this debate and on the Finance Bill.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I hope that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) will forgive me if I do not discuss much of what he has said. I have limited myself to a maximum of 12 minutes and I shall try to confine my remarks to that time.
  As one who is not seeking re-election, I find it possible to look at Budgets with a different and detached view from those who will be facing the hustings in six, 12
  1226
  or even 17 months' time. Watching the faces of the Opposition during my right hon. Friend's statement, I was struck by the fact that they looked stunned, shocked and almost shattered by the fact that he had taken them to the cleaners. I conclude that the Conservative Party does not like good news.
  I see that Liberal Members have gone away to think. It is always a good idea for them to do that. I believe that they will come back and decide to support us. They do not want a General Election.
  I agree that we should be grateful that we are able to repay our debts ahead of time, but, like many others, I am disturbed about the high level of unemployment in this country and I do not believe that enough has been done in the Budget to try to get out of the impasse of 1·4 million people unemployed.
  Hon. Members who were in the House 10 years ago will remember the debates on the document "In Place of Strife". If the then Labour Government had had the guts to stick by that we would not have been faced with the problems that have confronted us in the last four or five years. But that is water under the bridge.
  I am glad that the Chancellor has decided to introduce a new series of savings certificates at 6·8 per cent. per annum. That is an extremely good move which will encourage savers. I am sure that everyone will be glad that pensions have been increased by £3·20 for a married couple and £2 for a single person. Of course, we shall be told that it is not enough, but then it never is.
  I am also glad that the Chancellor has made money available for improvements in the National Health Service and I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that some of the money is to be used to provide an additional 400 kidney machines. This is long overdue.
  I am pleased that we are restoring free school milk for children aged between 7 and 11 and that there will be no increase in the price of school meals in the autumn.
  As a smoker, I believe that it is right that people should pay more for cigarettes with a high tar yield, and I therefore welcome the Chancellor's proposal that the price of cigarettes should go up if their tar yield is 20 milligrammes or more.

  1227
  I hope that no hon. Member on the Government side of the House will be euphoric about the Budget. If it were an election Budget, the Chancellor would have given away far more. I do not agree with those who insist that we should have only one Budget a year. I am glad that we have got away from that arcane practice, which is crazy. It is right that we should bring forward new ideas and meet challenges as they arise through the year.
  The Chancellor had a difficult job. He had to steer a course between the demands of the CBI and the hopes of the TUC. He has a pretty thankless job and he is always bound to be damned by most people and praised by only a few.
  I have often said that whatever the Chancellor gave away over £2,000 million, he would have to take back in some other way. The one thing that is certain—this is stressed to me by my constituents—is that people want a reduction in taxation and a pretty rapid reduction at that. I am a little disturbed that when we already have 10 tax bands the Chancellor has now increased it to 11 bands. That is inefficient. I asked earlier this month what savings would be made in administrative costs if the 10 bands were reduced to five and I was told that savings would total £400,000. That is not a tremendous sum, but the bands are too close and should be widened.
  Those in middle management earning between £8,000 and £10,000 a year should pay tax at 35 per cent. instead of the present 50 per cent. or 55 per cent. Those in lower senior management earning between £10,000 and £14,000 a year, who are paying 60 per cent. or 65 per cent., should have had that reduced to 40 per cent. In addition, no matter what the Chancellor or anyone else says, the top rate of 83 per cent. is penal and far too high to be justified. People want more money in their pockets. We must ensure that they can have that, while also ensuring that those at the lower end of the scale get the greatest benefits and, in that respect, the Chancellor has done well.
  I would have been prepared to accept a move to a flat rate of VAT. A 10 per cent. rate for VAT would help the small business man and those who want to do their sums more quickly. An across-the-board rate of 10 per cent. would bring in about £600 million. That is the figure
  1228
  that appeared in a Written Answer in Hansard on 27th February in column 81.
  I have mentioned the cost that would accrue if the Chancellor decided that there should be some change in the tax bands. I asked the Chancellor, in a Written Question, what would be the cost if the taxable income up to £7,000 was reduced to 30 per cent.; from £7,001-£10,000 to 35 per cent.; from £10,001-£14,000 to 40 per cent.; from £14,001-£21,000 to 60 per cent.; and over £21,000 to 70 per cent. The cost would be £2,375 million. These are the sort of problems with which we are faced all the time. I hope that something can be done.
  I have referred to increasing the rate of VAT to 10 per cent. Such an increase would have increased the retail price index by about 0·8 per cent. That increase could easily be lost by other measures.
  I am glad that the Chancellor has decided not to increase the employers social insurance contribution. On the other hand, he might have hinted that at some stage he will be thinking along the lines of the policy of the Labour Party—namely, that a wealth tax might be a good thing, to bring in some more revenue.
  The Chancellor has missed his opportunity in another respect of easing the burden for those at the lower end of the wages and salary scale. That could be done by scrapping the road fund licence and with it the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre. The centre at Swansea has been one of the greatest disasters with which we have been faced. I have in mind the many letters that I have had to write to Swansea to get mistakes put right. The centre is a nonsense. If we were to get rid of the road fund licence and increase the tax on petrol, it would mean that the man who wants to have a large car that does only a few miles to the gallon would pay the price of having the privilege of driving such a car. In the same way the chap with a small family car—an Escort, or whatever—who takes his family to the seaside, but who drives fewer than 8,000 miles a year, which is the mileage that the average person drives, would benefit.
  In addition, the offices at Swansea could be used on a more profitable basis. We should save a lot of form filling and letter writing. It would no longer be necessary to spend an enormous number

  1229
  of hours searching out those who have not paid for their road fund licences. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) would not have to wander around New Palace Yard and the House Car Park examining road fund discs to see whether the tax has been paid. That would save my hon. Friend a lot of time as well.
  There has to be some restoration of the cuts that have been made in public expenditure. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has done so much for the National Health Service. In my opinion that is priority No. 1. However, housing is another factor that he should consider, for that is vital.
  There is no point in hon. Members on both sides of the House blaming the Government, whichever Government they might be, when there are many employers throughout the country, and many in West Yorkshire, who are not prepared to take advantage of the new incentives and the new technology that is now available. On this point, I have in mind the wool textile industry in particular.
  I must conclude even though there is so much more that I could say. However, I realise that others wish to speak. I do not believe that this is an election Budget. It is not a Budget that is giving massive handouts. It is a pretty fair Budget. It is moving in the right direction. There will probably be another Budget before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and probably there will be another one before the end of the year. However, this is not a Budget that panders to every whim of one political party or one section of society. It had to be a Budget that would chart the course for the next 12 months away from the stormy waters of international booms and slumps to a more sane and realistic society, in which all of us, whatever views we may hold, may share the benefits that the nation deserves.
  When people ask "What is in it for me?" they should be asking "What is in it for them?" By "them" I mean that we should be giving consideration to the weak, the sick, the infirm and the disabled. I have tried to put my thoughts on record. When hon. Members have read my right hon. Friend's speech, I
  1230
  think that they will recognise that he has tried to be fair.
  I did not like the way in which the Budget was presented. I refer to the fact that there are to be separate statements made by various Ministers. We shall have to collect them altogether. We should ignore the broadcasting box. My right hon. Friend should make the sort of Budget speech that he has made in the past, without pandering to the broadcasting people. If he had done that, the full story would have been in Hansard tomorrow. Instead, we shall have bits of paper all over the place. I hope that when my right hon. Friend presents his next Budget he will do that. I am sure that he will.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the much better balance that he perceives now exists in the economy compared with previous times. I find it difficult to accept that there is a much better balance at a time when throughout the United Kingdom there are 1½ million unemployed and when in my Wales 90,000 remain unemployed. That factor in the imbalance remains, and while it remains we cannot be satisfied with the balance as it exists.
  In the Budget, the main thing for which my colleagues and I were looking was a positive step towards overcoming the crucial problem of the unemployment and false deployment of our manpower. The fact that we have 1½ million out of work means that we have human resources that are being wasted. That leads to economic wastage, and it can also lead to social tragedy. We hoped that steps would be taken in the Budget as part of a general strategy towards eliminating, or partially eliminating, our unemployment.
  We do not accept the myths that are put forward from both sides of the House that an automatic transfer of resources from the public sector to the private sector or from the private sector to the public sector necessarily leads to greater employment, and although we hear such theories being put forward from both sides of the House to support their respective political theories, the fact is that a transfer of money by increasing taxation or lowering it does not necessarily mean anything in terms of jobs. Everything

  1231
  depends entirely on the implications of the taxation and the way in which the yield is used. Taxation can lead to higher or lower unemployment, and the outcome of this Budget remains to be seen. There are other possibilities, apart from the transfer of money., that can possibly generate employment. Having listened to the Chancellor, I am not certain about the direction of Government policy.
  We understand that the supply of money, the M3 figure, will increase by 8 per cent. to 12 per cent., which suggests that possibly greater employment may come, from increasing inflation. However, at the same time the PSBR is to remain within a ceiling of £8,500 million. In that context we cannot see that there is a coherent strategy for ensuring that the transfers that are taking place are designed primarily to ensure greater employment.
  Another factor that could be brought forward to ensure a greater increase in employment and a decrease in unemployment would be to restrict imports. That may or may not be acceptable for other reasons, but it would be a strategy. That too, has not been forthcoming. When I consider all these elements, I cannot see what is the strategy or that the tinkering around—I am sure that it is liked by some—with the taxation system will get to the nub of the problem of providing more jobs.
  The Manpower Services Commission produced a report last year entitled "MSC Review and Plans", which included the cost to the Government of unemployment. The facts come home in a staggering way. In the first month of unemployment for a married man with two children, the cost to the Government, taking into account the loss of income tax revenue, the cost of unemployment benefit and the cost of supplementary benefit, is £330. Over 18 months the cost runs at about that level and terminates at £335. That is about £80 a week. If that is the amount of money that has to be spent to keep people unemployed, it implies that the money would be better used to ensure that those who find themselves unemployed are employed by the Government in something useful.
  In Wales—and I am sure that the figures for Wales correspond to the Great Britain figures—we have 100,000 houses
  1232
  that are unfit, 60,000 families on the waiting list and 15,000 building workers unemployed. However, it seems that we cannot bring these problems together one with the other. That is the central thrust of strategy that we would have been seeking in the Budget, but it has not been forthcoming.
  We would have hoped that when the Chancellor was looking at aid to smaller companies, which we welcome, he might have looked at the possibility of helping the entrepreneurs who are setting up for the first time and giving employment to other persons, by means of a tax reduction. That would have to be a once-off development, because obviously it would be open to a fiddle if it could be repeated. But I believe that there is a need for giving extra incentive to someone who takes the initiative of setting up employment not only for himself but for others and, therefore, saves the Government about £330 per month per person.
  In the context of unemployment—unemployment in Wales and in Scotland and in the North-West and North-East regions of England, no doubt—there was again no reference to improving the Government's regional policies. Some 16 months ago the Government were forced to axe REP. Certain other short-term measures have taken its place, but they involve nothing like the expenditure nor the securing of jobs that REP helped to secure for Wales. We shall have lost probably 10,000 jobs in Wales as a result of this move. I do not believe that the Government have a positive strategy for responding to the regional dimension of unemployment.
  I should like to follow the comments that were made about interest rates. If we are looking for stability for industry, one of the areas where we would have sought such stability would have been in interest rates. Having brought them down to 6½ per cent., I should have thought that they could possibly have stayed at that rate. One of the worst features for industry in planning expansion is the uncertainty of where to pitch its return rates in relation to interest rates which it has to use as a base measuring stick. I believe that in recent years one of the greatest uncertainties in the economy has been the high rate of interest. I am sure that this has crippled many companies. I

  1233
  had hoped that we were coming to a time when we could live with lower rates.
  I turn now from the central theme of unemployment to one or two of the details. I welcome the two-year averaging for farmers. I suggest that a three-year average would be even better, for the reason that the exceptional factor that involves one year may continue into the year which immediately succeeds it. It may run over from one year to the next. I welcome the Government's moving in that direction.
  I get the impression that the Government are dabbling with the idea of profit sharing. I am very much in favour of profit sharing, but I reserve judgment on the scheme which has been outlined.
  We welcome the child benefit increases but regret that those who are on social security, invalidity benefit and so on will lose by one hand what they gain by the other hand. The increases in child benefit were because of the need for these resources to be available to the mother. That need is even greater for the families—particularly one-parent families—which are on supplementary benefit, invalidity benefit and so on. To take away by an offset in social security payments the increase that such families get from child benefit is to take away from those who need the most help. I regret that it has not been possible to find a way to overcome this problem in the Budget Statement that we heard this afternoon.
  We welcome the increase in the tax thresholds. We have pressed over a number of years to get back to the level at which the tax thresholds stood five or six years ago. That would have needed another £1,000 million. I should have liked to see the standardisation of VAT at 10 per cent. That would have provided £700 million of that £1,000 million towards the further increase of the thresholds and would have taken more people out of the taxation net.
  People say that this is not an electioneering Budget. I suggest that the fact that the Chancellor decided to give help to 4 million people within the lower band, whereas only 300,000 people were benefiting from the increase in the threshold, indicates that there is an element at least that he is trying to get the greatest possible number of people involved in the
  1234
  benefits rather than hitting at the end where it is most needed.
  We welcome the proposals for pensions, school milk and school meals and the tightening on the avoidance of taxation.
  Regarding the Health Service, the £50 million will help but it is a drop in the ocean. We are talking of a Budget of £5,000 million. Therefore, it is 1 per cent. Of course, 1 per cent. is better than nothing, but it is only 1 per cent., and likewise with education.
  There are aspects of the Budget that we welcome, but our main criticism is the lack of strategy on the creation of jobs. That we greatly regret.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: I rather felt that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) was a little uncharitable, because this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer undoubtedly delivered a good Budget. That was why the Leader of the Opposition, in her opening remarks, spoke with such a forked tongue and at other times seemed so bitchy about the good proposals contained in the Budget.
  Of course, we welcome the tax reliefs and the incentives that they provide.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has used an expression which, although it does not come within the rules laid down in "Erskine May," is in my view unparliamentary.
  Mr. Hughes: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and withdraw it.
  Certainly we welcome the decision to reintroduce free school milk. The people of Britain have never forgotten who took it away from the 7-to-11-year-olds.
  There is the promised help for areas which have been affected by steel closures. That, again, will be welcome, particularly to towns, such as Ebbw Vale, which are suffering so badly at the present time.
  Another section of the population which has undoubtedly been helped by the Budget is the pensioners. The proposed increases of £3½20 for a married couple and £2 for a single person are, I suppose, generous. Likewise, the pensions allowances are welcome. Indeed, one may safely say that this Labour Government, throughout their period of office, have

  1235
  been generous to pensioners. But the fact must be faced that many of them are still suffering, and the question of justice for them still remains on the agenda.
  There is the additional £50 million for the National Health Service. As the hon. Member for Caernarvon said, this additional amount is merely a drop in the ocean. I suppose that to a very limited extent it will help to reduce waiting lists. We know that standards in the Service have been deteriorating for quite a long time. I know that that is so in Newport. A good deal of the deterioration stems from the reorganisation of the Service carried out by the Conservative Government under the direction of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who believes in cuts in public expenditure. The fact is that, as a result of that reorganisation, many of the funds of the National Health Service are now being swallowed up by bureaucracy.
  I come now to what to my mind is the central point of the Budget and the whole economic strategy of the Government. The Chancellor said that the present economic recession in the West is general in character. I suggest that there is specifically a United Kingdom problem as well. The Chancellor knows that he cannot reflate as much as he would like to do for fear of an inflow of imports.
  My feeling is that, despite the welcome proposals in the Budget, the bulk of the 1·4 million people at present on the dole will remain there.
  A question must be asked. How much longer can a Labour Government accept the direction of the Treasury which permits such a high level of unemployment, with all the waste and demoralisation that this involves? My blunt reaction is that if imports are keeping nearly 1½ million people on the dole it is time that imports were curbed.
  With our ailing manufacturing industry, free trade is no longer good for Britain. Some of my hon. Friends say that there is nothing Socialist about import controls, but at least they are interventionist and there is a relationship with our Socialist philosophy. There are others, whom I would call Euro-fanatics, who are most anxious that we should curb Japanese imports, particularly cars. How will the British economy benefit if we halt the import of Datsuns and Hondas,
  1236
  which will only increase imports of Renaults, Fiats and Volkwagens?
  The Government have it in their own hands to change course. The Cambridge Economic Policy Group in its recommendations a fortnight ago made some good proposals. First, it sounded an ominous warning when it said that if the present Government's policies continued unemployment could rise to 5 million in the next 10 years. That represents one in five of the working population of Britain. For those of us who have been brought up in the post-war era of full employment, this is a difficult figure to contemplate.
  We know that manufacturing production in the country is no higher now than it was seven years ago, but imports of manufactured goods have risen by two and a half times. The facts speak for themselves. They lead to the road to ruin for an industrialised nation such as Britain. We are witnessing the de-industrialisation of Britain. The whole purpose of the Chancellor's strategy must be to try to reverse this trend. If he succeeds, the balance of payments problem will be eased and it will permit faster growth and more reflation than he was able to announce this afternoon.
  To bring that about, we require a 50 per cent. increase in investment in manufacturing industry over the next 10 years. That would take the form of new and expanded manufacturing facilities. This would displace foreign suppliers in home and overseas markets. Our own suppliers would provide more of our own markets, and we should also be able to compete more successfully in overseas markets. In order to get the benefit from increased investment, we need import controls and discrimination in favour of our home manufacturers. Only in this way will the new money invested in our manufacturing industry be made to pay off.
  I appreciate that the type of proposals that I am putting forward would not make us popular with the multinational companies or with the Common Market, but the priority of a Labour Government should be to stick by their principles and to look after the interests of the British people. I appreciate that there are other sides of the argument. For instance, people may have to wait a few months for the delivery of their favourite, new model, motor car, but surely that is

  1237
  better than keeping 1½ million people on the dole.
  Let us think what would happen to the morale of our workers in the factories if such a policy were followed. Morale would be lifted overnight. We have heard the smears and innuendoes that car workers have suffered through the media over a long period. Not long ago our car industry was supplying over 90 per cent. of the British home market. Now it supplies only 50 per cent. Let us imagine what would happen to the British economy if we could achieve that former figure.
  We have heard much in the House recently about the steel industry. If the British car industry could regain such a large section of the home market, the crisis in the steel industry would vanish almost overnight. What a benefit that would be to areas where steel is concentrated, such as South Wales. What is more, such policies would receive the overwhelming backing of the trade unions. I see a parallel with what happened in the 1930s. Ernest Bevin, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, saw the wisdom of the Keynesian analysis, whereas the mandarins in the Treasury were years behind.
  The enigma of North Sea oil and the bounty that flows from it could have the effect of blurring our understanding of what is happening to industry in Britain. It could give us the opportunity to live in a fool's paradise for another decade or so. This should not be allowed to happen. North Sea oil revenues must not be frittered away in meaningless tax giveaways to produce another property speculators' boom such as we experienced in the early 1970s. North Sea oil revenues must be invested in manufacturing industry to try to reverse the trend which I have outlined so that our economy is put on a firm basis for the future.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I shall speak briefly because other hon. Members wish to speak in this short debate today. I shall first mention two items which caused me to have some reservations and to experience slight amusement. I refer to the two proposals, important as they are, for
  1238
  school meals. I share my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's wry amusement that it has required a Common Market subsidy and incentive for a Labour Government to restore these measures.
  The Chancellor's proposals on school meals are most important. I am worried, however, that, welcome though this move may be, it is being applied, as we argued at the time of legislation on school meals and school milk, across the board while other items of educational expenditure are being held in close rein. We already have schemes to help those who cannot afford school meals or school milk. Many parents and people involved in education would prefer the money to go towards improving facilities, buildings and so on. Therefore, welcome though this money may be, it is not necessarily being put to the best use for education.
  One of the central features of the Budget, which I very much welcome, is the reduction of income tax. Specifically I welcome the new lower rate of income tax, which will be generally and rightly welcomed. When the Chancellor introduced it, he said that he particularly wanted to remove the anomaly in our society by which it is worth more for some people not to work. I am glad that he acknowledges that anomaly. None of us wishes to see an abuse of the social security system. The system is abused, I believe, because of its complexity, which makes the task of those who seek to abuse it that much easier.
  I do not agree with hon. Members who believe that we could eliminate this abuse by wielding the big stick. The best approach is to use the carrot. The Chancellor's action to introduce lower rates of tax and an incentive that makes it worth more to work will also help to reduce or remove some of the abuses. His action comes not before time. The longer that abuses are allowed to continue, the less are people encouraged to look for an incentive to work and the more difficult it becomes to root out the abuses. I hope that this incentive will be increased in the future with higher thresholds.
  I welcome, too, the Chancellor's action in relation to small businesses. All the items in the Budget are to be welcomed, and they will help small businesses. Our smaller businesses contain far greater potential for job and wealth creation than

  1239
  Governments in the past have been prepared to admit. Here, too, however, I have a reservation, as what the Government have given they have also taken away with the 1 per cent. increase in minimum lending rate. For many smaller businesses, the bank overdraft is what looms largest when the statement comes in. While the Chancellor has rightly attempted to give incentives, these are offset by the higher MLR.
  I welcome the effect on small businesses in two specific respects. The first is the averaging of incomes for farmers. Representing as I do an agricultural constituency, I know how welcome that will be. I have argued for this move, but are we right to confine it to farming? There are other industries which have small firms which suffer from seasonal and other variations that are beyond their control. They do not have the resources of larger firms to weather the storm. I have tried to impress this point upon my right hon, and hon. Friends. The Chancellor's action will be most helpful to farmers and horticulturists, but there is a case for extending it to other smaller businesses and I hope that this will be considered.
  The second aspect concerns building allowances for hotels. Our hotel and tourist industries have been treated as Cinderellas of the service sector for too long. Much lip service has been paid about what the tourist industry does for our foreign exchange earnings and for employment, particularly in areas with few alternative sources of work. The building allowance has been long deserved and is to be welcomed. But, while I do not wish to appear grudging, I must voice yet again my reservations. Why impose the 10-bedrooms restriction? It means benefit for the main centres of population because that is where the larger hotels are located, and they are doing well anyway. The employment problems are in the remoter areas which make a great contribution to the tourist industry and foreign exchange earnings but where the hotels have fewer than 10 bedrooms. May I suggest to the Chancellor that he increases this concession to give much wider benefits to employment by extending the scheme to the smaller hotels?
  My next reservation concerning small businesses is that the Government have
  1240
  not looked widely enough at other service industries. For far too long these industries too have been treated as Cinderellas. Manufacturing industry has been regarded as good, and service industry has been regarded as of less value. If the Government genuinely want to increase the wealth-creating output of manufacturing industry, they must realise that that will lead to a greater demand for services.
  Let me give one example from the oil industry in my area. One of the striking developments of that industry concerns not the manufacturing side but the smaller service concerns such as welders which are an integral part of the development of the industry. These firms are indigenous, being run by Scots or other British people, and they service manufacturing industry which is based abroad. The Chancellor said that the Government want more innovation and enterprise, but he should realise that it is extremely difficult, irrespective of how big the concessions are, for the small firm to move straight into the manufacturing sector. Often the route to innovation and manufacturing begins in the service side, where, by gaining skills and expertise, the small firms move on into the true innovating and wealth-creating roles to be found in manufacturing industry.
  In relation to small firms, I beg the Government, and the Opposition as well, not to make the distinctions that we have made in the past between manufacturing industry and service industry, because very often service industry is the road through which we get our innovation, through which we encourage the small man to set up and through which we get job creation and everything else that goes with it.
  I should like to make two concluding points. The first is about jobs. Here I echo very much what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said. I believe that we are becoming seriously out of balance in our attitude towards jobs and employment. I welcome, of course, as we all do, the temporary employment scheme that we have. I do not have them to any great extent in my constituency because of North Sea oil development, but they operate in Scotland generally and particularly in the West of Scotland.

  1241
  However, my worry is that the temporary employment schemes, for which the Government take so much credit and in which so much money is invested, are in grave danger of becoming increasingly permanent. We are building up in these areas a great reliance on them, and the whole economy of the areas is becoming increasingly dependent on Government subsidy of one form or another. This is bad. It is bad in terms of the whole attitude and everything else in relation to these areas.
  I am unhappy about the fact that, in all we are doing in regard to TES and so on, we are not doing enough to generate the longer-term jobs on which longer-term prosperity will really depend. I believe that we are in grave danger of treating all these schemes simply as substitutes for genuine long-term job creation in the future.
  This is where I return to what I said a moment ago generally in relation to the encouragement of small firms. I believe that a great deal of the money that is going into temporary employment schemes should be given in the kind of way suggested by the hon. Member for Caernarvon—in first-time grants to get people set up in new business. This is where the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development agency come in. I believe that far too great a part of the budget of those agencies is being used to prop up and to help firms that come on bad times. That may be needed; I am not saying that it is wrong. Over the years, however, I should like to see the balance of the budgets of these agencies change so that they become pump-priming operations and provide the money that sets up new industry and new jobs rather than simply propping up old jobs, which is not the way in which to build a modern and prosperous economy.
  Lastly, I make one comment about the thing that makes possible what the Chancellor has done today. As we all know, the basis of it, quite simply, more than any other single thing, is oil. In relation to our balance of payments and the savings that oil makes, that is the one real thing that makes a minor expansionary Budget of this nature possible.
  What worries me, however, is this. First, on the general front, the trouble is that we are doing this because of oil, but
  1242
  other countries in the Western world are doing just about the same without oil. That is the worry. We are not making enough of our opportunities with oil in relation to the rest of the economy as compared with the kind of expansion and prosperity which is beginning to be shared by other countries in the Western world.
  Therefore, I hope that in relation to our whole economy and to the Chancellor's decisions—whether they are to give more away in terms of spending by the individual, which I believe is the right choice to exercise, or for the Government to use this money in terms of greater public expenditure, by which they hope to stimulate more activity of this nature—the Government do not use the wealth that oil provides simply to give us the breathing space or a bit of a pain-killing operation for the ills from which our economy now suffers.
  I hope that the Government do not use our oil money in the sense of filling the gap or of making our economic ills less painful than they really are. I hope that the money and the time that it gives us will be used for the generation of new jobs and new investment in productive manufacturing industry, and to give us a real step forward and a real advantage that we can turn to our use as compared with our competitors in the rest of the Western world. Unless we are prepared to use oil in this sense as a springboard to make our economy stronger than other economies, this one-for-all opportunity that oil has given us, and which the Chancellor is using to some extent today, will be lost.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I should like to accommodate at least four hon. Members before we start the Private Business at 7 o'clock.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I very much welcome the Budget, very many of its provisions are very welcome indeed. I am particularly pleased with the announcement that charges for school meals will not be increased in the autumn. That is probably one of the areas in which we can judge whether this is an election Budget.
  I very much hope that this is not merely putting off an increase in school

  1243
  meal charges in the autumn but is, in fact, a clear change of policy by the Government and does not mean that at some future date there will have to be a larger increase. I hope that the Government have decided that they will not pursue the policy of moving towards an economic charge for school meals but will recognise that this is a very effective way of helping families and giving them support.
  I also hope that it will be recognised in the debate that this should not be measured as money that should be given either for school meals or for other educational provision but rather that we ought to be making the comparison between expenditure on school meals and on other forms of family support.
  Although it is clear that the school meals service has some relevance to education in that it is difficult to teach during the afternoon children who are not well fed at dinner time, it is much more significant in terms of family support and help for the family rather than in terms of the education service. If we make the comparison between money spent on school dinner subsidies and money on family support, we make a very good case for the school meals subsidy, whereas if we make it a comparison between that and education we find ourselves on rather more difficult ground.
  Therefore, I particularly welcome the decision not to increase school meal charges, although I hope that it will not mean that we are deferring such a decision but that we have a clear change of policy.
  This is particularly important for those who work in the school meals service. It has been particularly unfortunate that many of the women, who are already on very low pay, found their job security threatened because of the number of children who stopped taking school dinners last autumn. It would be far better for that group of people if we could have relative continuity in the service, and not merely defer an increase in the school meal charges for some time and then have a very large increase, which would have the effect of discouraging children from staying for meals and reducing the employment prospects in the area.
  We also have to be careful about some of the effects of a large increase in charges on the children whom we protect from such increases. I have in my con
  1244
  stituency several instances of children who were protected from the increase. Because of the means test, they were entitled to free school meals. But they then found that their three or four best friends at school had switched to taking sandwiches, so they found that they had to eat their school dinner, which was free for them, on their own or go to the hardship of paying for sandwiches and not taking up the benefit to which they were entitled.
  Therefore, I welcome this measure. I hope that it indicates a major change in the Government's policy that we shall continue to have school meals subsidised and that we shall see this as a significant form of family support.
  I also welcome very much the announcement that child benefit will be uprated in November to £3 and next April to £4. I would have hoped that the Chancellor could have gone a little further, because in the child benefit scheme there is provision for different rates of benefit to be paid for children of different ages. I should have particularly liked my right hon. Friend to look at the possibility of paying out a higher rate for children who are aged between 16 and 18 and who remain in full-time education. It seems to me that in a great deal of the youth opportunities programme which has been developed we are developing facilities for the children who leave school but we are not giving encouragement to those who stay on at school.
  I know that local authorities, on a means-test basis, can give small grants to children who stay on in sixth forms, but in practice very few of these are given. I should have thought that the Government could have looked this time at the possibility of introducing a higher rate of child benefit for children in the 16-to-18 age group as some indication that the Government offer support to families who encourage their children to stay on at school, and some encouragement to those children who stay on at school and often find that the amount of money they can have to spend is very much less than that of their friends who, in some instances, have quite well-paid jobs.
  I also welcome the announcement of the uprating of pensions, but it is sad that upratings of any benefits are announced in April but do not take place

  1245
  until November. If we are to have annual upratings, I hope that the procedure can be simplified and the time scale narrowed.
  I welcome the announcements about the provision of school milk to the 7-to-11-year-olds, although this is already done in many areas. Since there is still a substantial milk surplus in the Common Market, we should consider other ways of ensuring that youngsters get the milk rather than let it go to waste.
  I am glad that more is to be spent on law and order. I hope that this means that the Home Office will quickly be able to approve Greater Manchester's application for an increased police establishment. I hope that there will then be more policemen available to Stockport—not so much for law enforcement and catching criminals as for crime prevention. The most important thing is that policemen should be seen on the streets. Policemen walking the beat are one of the most effective discouragements of vandalism.
  I am rather disappointed that nothing has been done for the traditional training schemes, particularly apprenticeships. Newspapers like the Manchester Evening News have pages full of job advertisements. Many Stockport firms complain that they cannot recruit enough skilled workers. Some trade unionists say that they should pay more, but, certainly in Stockport and probably throughout the country, there is a shortage of skilled workers.
  This is the paradox—a shortage of skilled workers and 1½million unemployed. There will be an increase in the labour force of 1½million people by 1986, and with more industrial investment the number of jobs will decrease. Thus, there is a possibility of 5 million people lacking jobs. Many of my constituents say that the logical answer is a shorter working life—with men retiring at 60—a shorter working week or a shorter working day. At the moment such schemes would cause problems for industry, particularly in Stockport, which would find difficulty in skilled recruitment.
  The Chancellor should be considering ways of encouraging the number of traditional apprentices, particularly since the population figures mean that there will be a bulge of school leavers every year for the next four or five years—struggling for
  1246
  probably the same number of apprenticeships—followed by a steady decline in the number of school leavers. We should try to increase apprenticeships over the next few years. Those administering the youth opportunities scheme are doing a good job with new methods of training, but the Chancellor could have done something more.
  It is odd that a firm investing in new machinery, which often reduces the number of employees, qualifies for tax relief but that a firm investing in apprenticeship programmes does not. The Chancellor could have made a small contribution to improving youth employment and increasing the number of skilled workers.
  Something could have been done to help those who have been out of work for a long time. After being out of work for 12 months, my constituents are at a severe disadvantage when going for jobs. Employers tend to prefer someone who is changing jobs or who has been out of work for a short time. There are natural reasons for this. It is also difficult for someone unemployed for a long time to give a confident account of himself at an interview.
  We should encourage these people to return to employment. A small amount of Government money—possibly a subsidy to employers or some assistance to the job applicant—would do much to help them. We should have particular sympathy for them. They are the hardest hit by the unemployment situation. Those who have been out of work for a short time, particularly if they had a good redundancy payment, are nothing like as badly affected financially. In those two areas particularly, the Chancellor could have done more.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), I regret that the Chancellor did not keep the promise that he made in his Budget Statement two years ago to abolish the road fund licence. His reason then was that it would have encouraged people to move to smaller cars, since the same revenue would obviously be raised by increasing petrol duty. The vehicle licensing set-up at Swansea is in complete disrepute, which is bad for the law. It is now difficult for the police to enforce the law, since people put notices on their windows

  1247
  saying "Tax applied for" and it is virtually impossible to check.
  However much one complains about computers and the Swansea system, it is unfair to blame individuals. The basic flaw in the system is that we are all bad at filling in forms. When one went to one's local town hall or tax office, someone there could explain how to fill in the form. Now, it has to be posted and it takes a long time to put things right. Often complaints lead to more complications. I do not see how one can alter the computer. However hard one tried to improve the system one could not get rid of the basic flaw.
  The road fund is a poll tax. Those who use their cars very little pay as much as those who use them a great deal. I would welcome help to those, in rural areas for instance, who have to use their cars to travel to work but use them very little otherwise. I should also like some assistance to be given to elderly people who build up a small mileage but who have to get out for shopping, holidays or days out.
  I would not want to reduce the number of jobs at Swansea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West suggested, but if those working there concentrated on keeping up to date with changes of ownership and worked on MOT and driving licence provisions they would still be in full employment.
  I very much welcome the Budget. I hope that in the next month or two, or perhaps during the debate on the Finance Bill, there will be an opportunity to consider a little more tax relief for firms which are carrying out or increasing apprenticeship training. I hope that consideration will also be given to help for the long-term unemployed, those who have been out of work for more than 12 months, to make it easier for them to get back into work.
  I very much welcome the provisions for putting off, or not carrying out, the increases in school meals charges. I also very much welcome the increases in child benefit.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I think that when the country has had a chance to reflect on the provisions of the Budget there will be a sense of disillusionment and disappointment that they
  1248
  have not satisfactorily matched up to the hopes that were raised in anticipation of the Budget.
  One of the principal problems that the country has to face—failure to solve it will mean much despair and distress—is the problem of unemployment. Its most disturbing feature is not the total figure of unemployment but the fact that one-third of the 1½million people now unemployed are young people, under the age of 21.
  This Government came into power in 1974 on the slogan "Back to work with Labour". I can identify nothing that gives any hope that the young people or any of the unemployed can hope to go back to work with this Budget.
  However, I welcome, as the whole House and the country will, the increase in the pension for elderly persons, of whom I have many in my constituency. If one were trying to point to the real victims of the Labour Government and the inflation that has followed upon their policies, one would say that the elderly were the principal victims of inflation and the Labour Government. They deserve the relief now offered to them, because they are among those who have suffered most. But there are still the unsatisfactory and unjust—indeed, some might well describe them as penal—levels of taxation on investment income.
  I am delighted, as I believe the whole House is, that the farmers will now be able to have their income taxed on a spread over a number of years. I was particularly pleased to hear the Chancellor say that there would be more money for farmers whose land, equipment and buildings had been damaged by flooding. In the North-West of England this has been a serious problem. I hope that the Government will not delay long in telling us exactly how much money such farmers can now look forward to, in the hope of repairing the immense damage that was done by the floods.
  Can Ministers also give us some idea what is happening to the EEC funds that have been diverted, so far as one can see, almost exclusively to the South-East of England, leaving those who suffered in the floods in the North-West without any relief from that source?
  I am equally pleased by the fact that the Government have decided, belatedly,

  1249
  to help small businesses. Small business men are also among those who have suffered worst at the hands of a Labour Government. I think that it will be realised—certainly by the small business men, who will not forget what has happened over the past four years—that the reliefs about to be given to them indicate not a change of heart but rather a change of tactics in anticipation of the forthcoming General Election.
  The small business man and the philosophy of the small business are wholly incompatible with Socialism which is out of tune and out of sympathy with, and has no time for, the small business man. What it is doing now is merely an attempt to win support that it does not deserve. But I believe that the Government will be disappointed by the political results of their efforts, because I do not believe for one moment that these people are likely to forget what has happened to them over the past four years.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to tell the Government. They might not do it.
  Mr. Gardner: I do not want to discourage them. I believe that they dare not do anything but what they are doing now, because they must know that, as I believe the whole country appreciates, the key to solving the unemployment problem and the real hope for the unemployed lies not in big business but in small businesses.
  The ability of the small business man and small businesses is one which this Government do not possess—the ability to reduce unemployment drastically. For that reason, from whatever source it comes and for whatever reason it may be given, I welcome the fact that help is now to be given to small businesses.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: In the very few minutes that I am allowing myself, I begin by observing that it is a thousand pities that for the second year running my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has so arranged business that the debate is cut short prematurely at 7 o'clock. I believe that however important the cemeteries may be in Sheffield, they are less important than the country's economy. I find it extraordin
  1250
  that my right hon. Friend, who has the reputation of being a Back Bencher's man, should twice have been responsible for this kind of arrangement.
  I should like to make a few general observations before returning briefly to the Budget. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, what is missing—to some extent this is because the Government are dependent upon the support of their parties, particularly the Liberal Party—is a coherent strategy with regard to unemployment. It is significant that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not stick his neck out to say by how much he expected unemployment to be reduced as a result of these measures.
  Another matter relates to the whole question of the level of sterling. I share with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) disappointment that the minimum lending rate is being raised. I think that his criticism is valid, but it should be supplemented by something even more important. There is a considerable case for saying that the level of sterling is too high. This action is likely to raise it still further. If that happens, as I fear it will, this will lead to a diminution of our competitive bite in export markets, when we all know that the world recession is by no means over.
  There is a particular reason why it is very important that we should keep our interest rates down. There are countries that can perhaps be described as the Third world, but we regard those in the most prosperous part of it—the developing nations, the Brazils, the Nigerias, the Mexicos, the Malaysias and so on, and the oil-rich countries such as Venezuela—we should in the next few years be seeking to replace them as the main recipients of exports of consumer durables that formed so much of the boom through the 1960s.
  It may be forgotten sometimes that one major factor responsible for the sustained period of quasi-full employment in the 1950s and 1960s was the welcome introduction of the first-time car, the first-time television set, the first-time washing machine and so on. There was thus a mass market for consumer durables in this country and in the developed world.
  One reason for the present recession, of course, was the increase in oil prices.

  1251
  Another is that, in terms of consumer goods, we have almost reached saturation point. What is now taking place, on the whole, is a process of replacement. I do not say that there will not be a further expansion. We hear—not with unalloyed enthusiasm—that there is scope for even more cars on the road. So there may be, but the great expansion of cars on the roads in this country and in Western Europe is obviously over, so that we look more and more to the richer of the developing nations for our markets.
  If we allow sterling to rise, or encourage it to rise, which will be an inevitable outcome of the rise in minimum lending rate, I think that we shall suffer as a result. Certainly there has been no sign lately that the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been taking measures to counter the appreciation of sterling. I do not share the views of those who say that sterling is endemically weak. It may, indeed, be pulled down temporarily as a result of the dollar weakness, but as a result of the fact that we know that we are to have increasing supplies of North Sea oil—not indefinitely, but for at least a very considerable time—sterling will on the whole be a strong currency.
  That is in ironic contrast to the position only a year or so ago. I think, therefore, that one of the main tasks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to set himself is to try to reduce the level of sterling and to take countervailing measures against the danger of its appreciating to such an extent as to blunt our competitiveness in the world markets. But it is particularly important that we should be competitive in the markets of the developing world with the Americans, the Germans and so on.
  I have one or two other points to make. I shall try to be brief because I should like to leave enough time for one other hon. Member to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The deadline is 7 p.m.
  Mr. Lee: I am looking anxiously at the clock and trying to be fair to other hon. Members, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There are, of course, a number of things which are good about the Budget. In fact, it seems to me to be a very shrewd Budget in many respects. The
  1252
  right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition floundered around in the first part of her speech in a way that I believe no one has done in making an immediate reply to the Budget since Herbert Morrison's reply to the Butler budget of 1953. If it is suggested that it is an electioneering Budget, what is wrong with that? It has happened many times before and it will happen in the future. The weakness, from the tactical point of view, of the position in which the right hon. Lady finds herself has been made quite clear. It is not only in regard to school milk.
  I am very glad to note the proposals concerning tax avoidance. This is an instance in which I believe it is right that legislation should be made retrospective. In general, retrospective legislation is not something that many of us would encourage, but in this case the kinds of schemes which the measure will be designed to scotch are quite clearly basically dishonest. Therefore, none of those who will be disadvantaged by it will have any real cause to complain.
  It is right that the VAT level should be raised in the way that has been proposed. It is a bad tax. It is a spin-off from the Common Market and ought not to be there. That being so, the more people who can be cushioned against its operation, the better.
  I think that we all welcome the fact that the Government have resisted the temptation to make an overall reduction in the rate of income tax rate from 34p and have confined themselves to selective measures. There has been a chorus of demands in the last few weeks for income tax to be cut across the board. I think that the measures taken to help people at the lower end of the scale, and the measures taken to benefit families, are wholly desirable. I also welcome the proposals concerning energy conservation. On the whole, although I am afraid that it is a Lib-Lab strategy and not a Socialist strategy, within that context it is a shrewd Budget. It is one with which the Leader of the Opposition had difficulty today. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) will also have a great deal of difficulty with it tomorrow.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. David Knox: In common with most other hon. Members, I welcome the reductions in income tax which have

  1253
  been announced this afternoon. The fact is that this country is grossly overtaxed and the burden of direct taxation is particularly heavy. The Chancellor has started on the way back to a more realistic and more sensible income tax system, but he has a very long way to go yet.
  It is just as well to remind ourselves that to restore the country to the position which the Chancellor inherited in March 1974 he would have had to cut income tax by about £5,000 million. Today's reductions should be measured against that figure. Although I believe that it should be the aim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reach that position eventually, it will certainly take a few years to achieve and it would have been imprudent of him to go the whole way this afternoon.
  I am not trying to justify what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done today; I am pointing out that it will take a long time to undo the economic harm and damage that the Chancellor's previous tax policy has done to this country.
  By any standard, the Chancellor's stewardship of the British economy over the last four years has left a great deal to be desired. Whichever set of statistics we look at, the record of the Government is very bad. In particular, their record on economic expansion is deplorable.
  The time has now come to change course. The course of economic expansion seems to me to be the one that the Government ought to take up. They ought to take it up because in the long run it is the only way to deal with the problem of unemployment which afflicts this country today. It is also the only real
  1254
  way to deal with investment, because we shall not get investment in industry in the future as long as there is spare capacity.
  Any industrialist who can get out of his existing capital plant the goods that he can sell in the market will not spend money on investing in new plant and machinery. Therefore, in terms both of dealing with unemployment and getting more investment, we need expansion, and I think that the Budget will help a little in this respect.
  The present is a particularly good time for getting this expansion. With North Sea oil we have a little leeway in terms of balance of payments for the next few years. The balance of payments problem has, of course, been a great constraint on economic expansion in Britain since the end of the war. North Sea oil will see us through for the next few years. We can afford to spend a little more on importing raw materials and, indeed, on importing, temporarily, some manufactured goods. We should take advantage of this opportunity and try to get expansion going and to build it up over the next few years. That would enable the country, in the long run, to have the very much higher standard of living that we all want and the very much better social and public services that we need.
  The great weakness in the British economy is that we do not produce enough. It is not that public expenditure is too high or that consumption is too high. It is simply that we do not produce enough. I hope that the Budget will help to get economic expansion going once again.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL
(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The amendment has not been selected.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hooley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Sheffield General Cemetery covers an area of about 14 acres. Part of the ground is consecrated and part is not. It is situated about one mile from the centre of the city of Sheffield. It is also in the middle of a built-up area. It is derelict, overgrown, vandalised, used for dumping rubbish and is in a dangerous condition. Children play around in this area, but there are broken vaults and fallen gravestones. There have been accidents and there are likely to be more in the future unless something is done about this area. I want to dispel any illusions that any hon. Member may have that this is a well-kept country churchyard. It is an eyesore. It is a vandalised area. It is dangerous.
The purpose of the Bill is to transfer the ownership of the cemetery from the Sheffield General Cemetery Company Limited to Sheffield City Council. An Act of Parliament is required for this purpose, because the effect would be to extinguish burial rights and to cease the use of the land as a cemetery. I understand that an Act of Parliament is required for that purpose.
I want to make clear that the city council and the company jointly are promoting the Bill. It is not a takeover. It is not a question of the city council's exercising compulsory purchase powers, or anything like that. This is a joint exercise by the present owners and the city council. The fact is that the cemetery company does not have the resources to maintain the cemetery in a decent condition as we would expect in this day and age. For its part, the council is prepared to take it over, but it does not need it as a cemetery. There are already a dozen civic cemeteries in the city and there is no necessity to add to that number.
1256
The number of interments in this cemetery has fallen to about half a dozen a year. It was running at about a dozen a year up to 1977, but fell to only six in 1977. Since there is still space for about 13,000 burial places, if the matter were left as it is we could go on for another 2,000 years with this rather unhappy situation.
The plans of the city council for this 14 acres of strategically situated ground are as follows. The eastern part of the cemetery will be landscaped as a public park. So far as possible, graves will be left undisturbed, although memorials will have to be removed and there will have to be a considerable amount of tidying up and change of layout. If human remains are disturbed they will, of course, have to be reburied properly as provided by the law.
The western part of the cemetery will be restored as a setting for certain listed buildings and will be laid out as an example of a Victorian cemetery. It is not intended that the character of this area should be totally changed. A portion of the existing ground will be retained as a historic example of the layout of a Victorian cemetery.
There are seven listed buildings altogether, including a gateway built in 1836. There is quite an impressive old chapel in grey granite, which was also built in 1836. There is a monument to Mark Firth, who was the founder of Firth College, which eventually became the university of Sheffield. There was a monument to James Montgomery, the famous hymn writer, but that was removed some time ago to the precincts of the cathedral, and there is no problem with that.
Part of the overgrown area of the cemetery—it is very badly overgrown—has become of ecological interest to some students in the university. The small animals and the vegetation apparently have some scientific interest. The city council is prepared to keep this small segment in its present state for the purpose of scientific study for those students who are interested in it.
The cemetery will be closed for burials. This has aroused some emotional concern by people whose relatives—perhaps parents or grandparents—are buried in the cemetery. I do not wish in any way to disparage or play down the feelings of those people. I can well understand that

1257
those who, for generations, have had relatives buried in the cemetery would be very sad to see most of it used for a different purpose. But there is a petition relating to this matter and if the House is prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading it will no doubt be examined carefully in Committee in accordance with the procedures of the House. Possibly reassurance can be given to the people who are concerned that the rights of burial in this part of the city will no longer apply.
Alternative rights of burial elsewhere, without any charge, will be given to people who can establish a legal right for burial in this cemetery.
Mr. John H. Osborn: The problem relates to those who wish to join their next of kin—perhaps the widow of a husband or the widower of a spouse—who are buried in this cemetery. Does the hon. Gentleman visualise any assistance from the city council in that instance?
Mr. Hooley: I imagine that that could be considered. But clearly, if the purpose of the cemetery is changed and if the right of burial is extinguished, one could not physically bury persons in the same area as that in which previous generations were buried. That is part of the reason for the Act. Those rights could not be extinguished, except by an Act of Parliament. However, that is a matter which can be considered in Committee. I am sure that the petitioners will be given every opportunity to argue their case, to make representations and to make the kind of point which the hon. Gentleman has just made.
Basically the proposition is that the Bill will enable the city council to take over what is a vandalised, derelict burial ground—it could fairly be argued that in its present state it is more of an insult to generations gone by than a fair memorial to them—and to turn it into a fitting memorial combined with a much-needed space for recreation in an inner area of the city which very much needs it.
On general social grounds the case for doing that is very strong indeed. The fact is that the present company simply does not have the financial resources to manage and operate this cemetery in the way that it should be managed. I
1258
believe that discussions were held 10 or more years ago about handing it over to the council, but they foundered on a technical legal problem. If the Bill is given a Second Reading we are now prepared to solve the legal problem through Act of Parliament and through the proper processes of this House.
I would not like to give the impression that this proposal is something peculiar and unprecedented. I am advised that the deconsecration of burial grounds has been implicit in a number of private Acts—the Rochdale Corporation Act 1962, the Leeds Corporation Act 1956, the Northampton Corporation Act 1958. The Hove Corporation Act of 1966 extinguished burial rights and the Manchester Corporation Acts of 1954, 1958 and 1965 converted cemeteries into open space or playing grounds within the city of Manchester. What is proposed here is not some wildly revolutionary idea; it is a procedure that has been exercised by important cities in the kingdom before, and I hope very much that it will be acceptable here.
One of the problems that have arisen is that some people are nervous or worried that, if the cemetery is taken over, it will be used not for a park or open space and for amenity purposes but as a site on which to put up buildings. To meet this fear, the city council is quite prepared to consider an amendment in Committee to prohibit for at least 25 years any building on this piece of land, other than a minor recreation building. In other words, until way into the twenty-first century there should be no possibility of anyone putting up an unsightly or inappropriate building on the land.
The council takes the view that beyond a 25-year span it would not be fair to their successors and to ratepayers, taxpayers and inhabitants of the area to lay down stringent conditions. After all, the cemetery was originally opened 140 years ago, in 1836. To extend the span of its use partly as a cemetery and partly as an open space into the twenty-first century would seem to be reasonable, but beyond that it would not seem to be reasonable to try to bind a future civic authority or the ratepayers in the area. They might very well conclude, even after 25 years, 50 years, or more, that the excellent lay-out and the creation of a public park in the area was so valuable that they

1259
would not want to disturb it, anyway. But in legislative terms, as I say, the city council is prepared to accept an amendment providing for a 25-year span during which building development will not be allowed.
I understand that various ecclesiastical authorities and various denominations have been consulted about these plans and, to my knowledge, they have voiced no objection. Certainly no one has approached me. I have not read in the local Press of the Church of England or other denominations raising any objection to this proposition.
As I say, there is a petition by certain people who may feel that burial rights should be continued. That matter can be discussed in Committee. No one is suggesting that the personal and family feelings of people should be overridden. We have procedures in this House for discussing these matters, but in order for them to be discussed the Bill must be given a Second Reading.
7.12 p.m.
Mr. John Osborn: The Sheffield General Cemetery is, in fact, almost surrounded by the Hallam constituency. It borders on to the Heeley constituency and it is right, therefore, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) should sponsor the Bill on behalf of the Sheffield City Council. In fact, however, it rests in Sharrow, in part of the Park division, and I see that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) is present to listen to the debate.
The debate really takes place in a David and Goliath situation, because the Sheffield City Council is largely Socialist and those who are objecting appear mainly to have approached me as the only Conservative Member of Parliament in the area and the Conservative councillors.
I agree with the hon. Member for Heeley that the condition of the Sheffield General Cemetery has on several occasions in recent years been questioned in the city council and in the Press and that it has represented a danger, especially to children. The hon. Member has referred to this danger in his letters to objectors and to the Press. Much of the damage has been due to vandalism and to the fact that the cemetery has not been
1260
supervised properly, certainly during the time that I have been a Member of Parliament.
I have been aware of the cemetery since I was a boy, and when I looked at it last autumn it was untidy and unkempt. However, this winter, as part of a job creation scheme, the cemetery has been tidied by arrangement with the city council. Last Saturday, when I walked through it with a number of the objectors, I was surprised to find it in such good condition. Trees have been cut down, grass has been cut and paths have been cleared. I am certain that the ratepayers and citizens welcome the decision of the city council to clean up the cemetery, and the outcome of its endeavours is a cause for congratulation. Certainly it is not right to describe the cemetery as desolate today, as described by the hon. Member for Heeley, if it was right to do so last autumn.
The handling of the cemetery issue by the city council, especially by its Socialist leaders over the last few months, has given me no option but to use the democratic safeguards of the House of Commons where the balance between the political parties—perhaps there is an element of politics in this—is a good deal more even than is the case on the Sheffield City Council. Hon. Members here may not be aware of it, but with the exception of one year the ruling party on the city council for almost 50 years has been the Labour Party, and both its councillors and perhaps the officers serving them may not be as sensitive to the views of the objectors on an issue as would be the case if the margin between the ruling party and the opposition were closer.
Many people have written to me and have approached the objectors, and I am certain that one who will attend my Select Committee which is set up following this debate has written to me saying:
"In my own case I have two grandparents, two uncles, one aunt and my own parents in a small patch of graves which are close together. In fact my mother died in 1943 and my father in 1950. Every now and then I go to clean up the stones and graves and I should be very resentful if the graves were disturbed at this stage. The present plan to tidy up part of the cemetery is not objectionable to me"—
and many reasonable people have put this view to me—
"but the wide powers in the Bill would allow the corporation to change its mind at short

1261
notice and I have no faith in the present leaders' honesty."
I should like to touch on this approach to me and to elaborate on the reasons for this lack of faith. This view seems to be reflected by many who have approached me.
Another constituent approached me in connection with a letter which many of them received from the hon. Member for Heeley dealing with the hazards to children. The hon. Member said that the living should be considered before the dead. My constituent's reply is:
"This is most unfair. We also are living and have suffered grievously since 2nd December 1977 when the announcement was coldly made in the local Press."
Many of the old petitioners have been deeply troubled, as is evidenced by their many letters. One point which has been put to me is as follows:
"We wonder how people throughout the country would feel if their family graves were going to be treated like this. Mr. Hooley should be asked what would happen if this were to be done in the Flanders military cemeteries and was told that that was a different matter."
Mr. Hooley: If the Flanders military cemeteries had been left in this disgusting and derelict condition, the attitude to them would have been different, but they are not.
Mr. Osborn: They are not. That is the point. We do not dispute that this private cemetery has been short of funds and has been allowed to fall into decay.
At a special meeting on 2nd November, Councillor Pinder, who happens to be chairman of the Hallam Conservative Association, seconded by Councillor Patnick, chairman of the Conservative group on South Yorkshire County Council, moved the following amendment:
"That action for the promotion of a Bill to authorise the acquisition of the Sheffield General Cemetery by the Council be deferred and the Policy Committee be requested to give further consideration to this matter with a view to the council acquiring the cemetery for use as a cemetery and an amenity area."
The request was rejected. Time and opportunity to reflect whether action for the best was being taken was rejected out of hand.
When I was asked to oppose this Bill, I was asked to reject it out of hand, and
1262
hon. Members have been asked to come here to vote against it. But the hon. Member for Heeley put his case very carefully, and I think it right that this issue should go to a Select Committee. However, there are hon. Members who would be concerned if the findings of the Select Committee were not wise, and, of course, there would be an opportunity to vote against these proposals on Third Reading. I think it right that the Select Committee should look at this isssue.
The city council has made reports to Members of Parliament, and the hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley has outlined the background, although I find some contradiction in the information given to me. In 1962, a company called Bowden Development Ltd. acquired 980 out of 1,000 shares in the original cemetery company. Approaches were made to the former city council to secure the redevelopment of the cemetery by coverting part of the land into a peace garden and using the rest of the land for a block of flats. It could be said, perhaps, that the advice given to the company at the time was bad advice, but the proposal did not proceed because of local opposition from members of the public, particularly those with burial rights and a personal interest.
Subsequently, Bowden Development Ltd. has approached the present and former councils to ascertain whether the council would be prepared to take over the cemetery, or to what use the company could put it. Earlier last year, the company approached the city council saying that it was prepared to convey the cemetery and associated buildings to the council free of charge, subject to an existing free tenancy held by an employee of the company being maintained. The company said that if this proposal were not accepted it would have no choice but to put the cemetery company into voluntary liquidation.
Anyone can accept that this would put any city council in a position of having to take a decision. I have reason to believe from assurances given by officers of the city council and by the number of letters that have gone out to known-grave-holders that the necessary statutory obligations have been carried out by the legal department of the city council. Unfortunately, its rate of success in receiving replies to letters that have gone out has not been high, and there have been problems

1263
because the records of the cemetery probably are out of date.
The acreage involved is some 17½ acres—although the hon. Member for Heeley said that it was 14 acres—with some 20,000 grave plots and 330 vaults. I understand that the interments so far total 77,834, and I confirm from one source that the number of interments has recently been about six a year.
The cemetery was incorporated under a Private Act of Parliament in 1846 which set aside part of the cemetery as consecrated land to be used for burial in accordance with Church of England rites and part of the cemetery as unconsecrated land to be used for interments of persons who were not members of the Church of England—mainly Nonconformists.
A useful introductory history to the cemetery has been prepared by a Mr. J. R. Welch and the fifth-year history group of Carter Lodge School, and he has supplied me with some additional information. He said that until recently there was an average of one burial a month but that no plots had been sold since 1955. This cemetery was started, and some of the buildings originally built, in 1836. There is no doubt that the cemetery was used as a prestige one and that it served a useful purpose until the turn of the century.
The Select Committee may be interested in establishing whether the acreage is 14 or 17½ and whether the number of interments has been 77,000 or 87,000. The Conservative councillors and the general public have felt that a decision to purchase the land and to pass the Bill was rushed too quickly, for reasons which the Conservative opposition could only guess at, after a delay going back to 1962 and 1964. There have been no opportunities for the Conservative opposition to ask questions about the minutes of the policy committee of the city council. That is why the public and the opposition were very uneasy at the action taken by the council in this case.
Many of the past leaders of industrial Sheffield, the steel masters, the cutlery masters and others, have been buried in the cemetery and many of them lived in the Hallam constituency. It has been inevitable that some of the great names, including Mark Firth and Cole, are buried in this cemetery. Among them were many
1264
devout churchgoers of a variety of denominations.
The constituents, when doubting the honesty and purpose of the council, expressed their views to me because they believe that too many councillors from areas other than Hallam may be too insensitive to the religious sensitivities and traditions of those in the area of the cemetery. This may or may not be correct but these people feel that it is, and the objectors fall into two categories. The first is those who live nearby and who want to preserve the cemetery on environmental and other grounds.
The local environmental action groups and the local Conservative branches of the Hallam Conservative Association have tackled me about the importance of keeping this area of land as an open space near the city. It is close to one of Sheffield's most picturesque water mills, and the ornithological and wildlife is worth preserving. Above all, these people want this area as an open space but would not object to seeing an open space comparable to that across the valley known as the botanical gardens.
The second group of objectors have appointed their parliamentary agent—a Mr. Byron Wright, who is assisted by Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher and a Dr. Fletcher. These people have lodged their objections in the Private Bill Office and have held close consultations with their local councillors, as well as making their views known clearly to me.
I appreciate that several other local authorities have found it necessary to take over and develop cemeteries that have fallen into decay and disuse. However, I do not accept the haste with which the Sheffield City Council has approached this Bill. I find that burials are still taking place in the cemetery even at the rate of half a dozen a year, let alone one dozen, as has been the case recently. From correspondence that I have received from relatives of those interred in the cemetery recently, it appears that consultation between those who have burial rights and relations buried there and the city council before the preparation of the Bill was not effective.
This shock to which I have referred has been widespread ever since the intentions of the city council were made known

1265
to the Press towards the end of last year. Powers given to local authorities where the political balance is much more even are no justification for similar powers being taken by the Sheffield City Council.
The hon. Member for Heeley, referred to the Sheffield amendment. There have been discussions between Councillor George Wilson, the Socialist leader on the council, and Councillor David Heslop, the Conservative leader, and myself about the question of building on the cemetery. The amendment was passed on 1st March, and it says:
"That in the consideration of the Sheffield General Cemetery Bill by Parliament, the head of the administration and legal department be authorised to indicate that the city council is prepared to agree to the inclusion of an additional sub-clause in the Bill to provide that for a period of 25 years from the passing of the Act no part of the cemetery shall be used for the erection of any buildings other than for recreational purposes."
This heightens rather than relieves the concern of objectors. Any reference to building at this stage shows an utter insensitivity to those who have burial rights and have close relatives recently buried in this cemetery. If in the year 2005, after there have been no burials for 25 years, it is thought right by the next generation to build houses or flats, I would expect there to be a new Act of Parliament.
Manchester provides a precedent for this, without this being referred to in an Act of Parliament now, and I shall refer to this. There was a very good Press release issued by the city council setting out its intentions clearly. These were to restore the listed buildings in the cemetery, to leave certain areas of the cemetery undisturbed for ecological reasons, to restore the western end of the cemetery to its original Victorian form and to landscape the eastern part of the cemetery as a public park by removing the memorials but as far as possible to leave the actual graves undisturbed. All Conservatives would go along with this, and some of the objectors—namely, those objecting on environmental grounds—would agree with it, but others would not. Once the Bill had been drafted, it became perfectly clear to them that the powers in the Bill as it stands give the city council far greater powers than those required to carry out the proposals.
1266
I accept that a Private Act of Parliament is necessary to extinguish private rights of burial on this land and to enable the city council to use the land other than as a cemetery. I do not accept the way in which the Bill, if passed, would give the Sheffield City Council totally unrestricted powers to deal with this land as it wishes.
The hon. Member for Heeley made references to other Bills. This is perhaps because those who have an interest in this cemetery do not trust the city council as constituted. The thought of having close relatives disturbed and memorials removed has greatly added to this distress. The parliamentary agents and promoters have consulted local Members of Parliament. From my own researches and the help I have had from the House of Commons Library, it seems that other local authorities have been able to promote Bills of this type. This Bill is undoubtedly based on precedents. Therefore, I am aware that the claims of some of the objectors who have approached me may not be as well justified as they would consider them to be. I do not know the exact answer. I very much hope that the Select Committee will find the exact answer for them.
A perusal of, for instance, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 shows that Southwark was able to use Camberwell Cemetery land and the Nunhead All Saints Cemetery, but Section 13 of the Act restricts the use of such land to open space for use as either a nature reserve or for gymnasia or for club houses for societies having athletic, social or educational objects. It will be useful to know whether the cemetery was still being used when the Bill was introduced.
There is the Queen Road, Brighton Burial Act 1975. That concerns a privately owned cemetery which had not been used as a burial ground since 1854. Clause 4 of that Act was similar to Clause 6(1) of the Sheffield Bill. However, all burials in that place had ceased for 124 years, so building took place a long time after the last burial.
The Hove Corporation Act 1966 provided an interesting precedent. Burials were wholly discontinued in St. Andrew's Churchyard in 1956. There was provision for part of the land to be conveyed to the city council, which built a

1267
school on it. In 1972, in order to build on the land, further provisions were made in a Bill of that year, 1972.
Then there is the Liverpool Corpora-Jon Act, which again provided powers for cemeteries to be taken over. The Manchester Corporation Act of 1970, Section 22 of which empowers the corporation to use, deal or dispose of burial grounds as if they were never consecrated, is yet another Act.
Therefore, powers have been taken in the past, and I am aware that in opposing this Bill I shall have to proceed slowly. It seems reasonable to use these old disused grounds, but, frankly, as a Back Bencher, I have not yet sufficient knowledge of the circumstances in which each of those Acts was passed and how old the burial grounds were.
I might even refer to the Leeds Bill of 1956, or the Rochdale Bill which has been mentioned. In 1975 there was a cemetery at Newton Heath, Manchester, at which burials had ceased as recently as 1950, prior to which about one burial a month had occurred. The Act gave powers to the playing of games on school playing fields.
Obviously, it must be the local authorities which determine their own cemetery needs over and above those of parish churches in the region. There is an increasing tendency for citizens to welcome and accept cremation. I understand that the city of Sheffield—the hon. Member for Heeley referred to this—has more space for burial purposes than it is likely to need for decades to come.
I wrote to the Under-Secretary for the Environment in February trying to find out which local authorities had purchased and closed cemeteries which had not been used for a considerable period and which local authorities had purchased and closed cemeteries which were still taking burials, the nature of guidance given to local authorities and the number of grave sites expressed per capita of living population in the major cities. I asked Parliamentary Questions. I did not get very helpful answers. I hope that the Select Committee will look at the Questions and try to find more helpful answers.
I received a very full reply from the Under-Secretary of State, who stated that
1268
he had not authority on the points of law involved and that, in any event, it was for the promoters to satisfy Parliament of the need for a Bill. At least, I have brought the Bill to debate on the Floor of the House of Commons and I am on my feet now. The Under-Secretary's letter states:
"Where a council can acquire an interest in burial ground land by agreement, the Open Space Act 1906 enables operations within certain limits to be carried out for the purposes laid down in that Act. In some circumstances a council acting on these provisions may incur a liability to pay compensation. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 contains powers to acquire land and where burial ground land has been compulsorily acquired. Section 128 provides for its use in accordance with planning permission. These enactments include provisions for the way in which consecrated land should be treated."
Therefore, I hope that the Select Committee will advise Sheffield what precedents there are outside Private Bills.
The letter continues:
"Section 128 of the 1971 Act is also relevant regarding building on disused burial grounds. That provision creates exceptions to a provision in Section 3 of the Disused Burial Gounds Act 1884 which itself, with limited exceptions, prohibits building on such land. Subject to that, it is not easy to generalise about the time which should elapse before building is undertaken on former burial grounds; but you may like to know that Section 32 of a pastoral measure of 1968, in which an exception was also made to Section 3 of the 1884 Act, provides for a period of 50 years between the date of the last burial and putting church land to other use."
In view of the fact that it has been easier to close cemeteries where there have been no recent burials than where there have been recent burials, some local authorities at first closed local cemeteries under one enactment and then passed an Act at a later date when perhaps memories were weaker. For instance, the precedent in Manchester in the case of the Act dealing with Newton Heath, Rusholme and Nunhead in 1950.
The specific powers to develop in those cases were not given until 1954, 1958 and 1965. These are precedents which should have been looked at by the Sheffield City Council. If the cemetery were to be closed now, time should elapse before any removal of memorials or disinterment took place. The difficulty is that this city council has apparently shown too little sensitivity to the needs of objectors.

1269
I should like to see safeguards inserted into the Bill to prevent any immediate or hasty reorganisation of the cemetery. Those who have an interest in the cemetery would be prepared to see it retained as a place of quiet enjoyment—at least, some of them would—or what has been described by the city council as passive recreation similar to the botanical gardens. This is next to the home of one of my great grandparents and is one of the gardens that I visited as a child.
One of the amendments that I should like the Select Committee to consider is that the preamble should be altered to bring the intention of the Bill into line with the Press release issued by the city council. This would enable the council to provide a park or recreation area upon the cemetery site. I hope that it will delete Clause 4(1) dealing with deconsecration. Thirdly, it should restrict the powers at present given by Clause 6 to provide that the cemetery should be used only as a park or garden for passive recreation. Finally, I should like the Bill to come into force two years from now or well after it has received Royal Assent. This would give time to those affected to make alternative plans. After all, it is time for which people are asking.
I have discussed the timing in a letter to Councillor David Heslop outlining what I thought opponents to the Bill would like to see, and I hoped that he would discuss these matters with the city council.
I have discussed this matter of timing with those who have burial rights. Their general feeling is that nothing should be done and that it should be cleared up as a cemetery and kept as such, but I cannot go along with that and they know it. I believe that Parliament should take the burden from one Member of Parliament in this case because it is wrong that ratepayers' money should be used to benefit so few. On the other hand, one or two people have asked me why the dependants of those who are buried there cannot themselves keep the cemetery in good condition. I do not want to overstress this matter because it is a problem that faces authorities in respect of graveyards in all our churchyards, but I hold the view, as the promoters said in their Press release, that this cemetery should
1270
be a park and should be changed gradually.
I have discussed a date when work should commence. I do not think I should like to see work commenced for another seven years. I have set out my views in the letter to Councillor David Heslop. But one matter that causes concern is what provision, if any, after the passing of the legislation will be made for those who have close relatives buried in the cemetery and who when they die wish to join those deceased relatives. I do not think that the hon. Member for Heeley understood me. The only way this will be possible is to disinter the existing graves and to let those already buried there join their deceased relatives elsewhere. The cost of doing this would not fall within any of the provisions of the Bill and presumably would have to come from persons concerned or from private sources.
It is possible that certain widows will wish to be buried alongside their husbands and widowers alongside their spouses. Is it common practice when a cemetery is closed to arrange such a matter, and what provisions have been made by other local authorities?
There have been precedents where graveyards have had to be disturbed for planning purposes—including, for example, a roundabout near St. Mary's Church, less than a mile away from this cemetery. I have consulted the Sheffield Council of Churches, and it feels that something needs to be done about this environmental area of Sheffield. But it is concerned that recent interments to the cemetery should not be disturbed, and I have been asked to stress this point in my opposition to the Bill.
I have been in touch with the Church of England, including the Right Reverend Gordon Fallows, Bishop of Sheffield, and because the Church of England has its own problems with its own graveyards I have been advised from various sources to object with caution. This makes it clear that there is a much bigger problem at hand. I do not think it is right that the city council should face this burden without the issues being more widely debated. I mentioned the pastoral measure of 1968 from which the implication is that, wherever possible, the graves should not be disturbed for at least 50 years after a burial.

1271
I have objected to the Bill first because those who wish to be consulted feel that they have not been consulted and have turned to Parliament to consider their views—views which appear to have been brushed aside by the city council. Secondly, I am objecting to it because it would be of value for a Select Committee to examine the problem facing Sheffield and to relate it to problems in other areas in a much wider context. I very much hope that the Select Committee will undertake that task. Thirdly, I object because the present city council has not had to face up to the opposition which it would have faced if the margin between the ruling party and the opposition parties was not so great.
The Star, on Friday 7th April, in an item headed "Sheffield's forgotten burial ground", reported:
"Councillor Jack Watson, who used to live in the area, said 'At the present time the scrapyard is ten yards away from a grave that was used recently'. City council leader Councillor George Wilson intends to stop any building development near the graveyard. He said 'It is diabolical, more respect should be shown to the people lying there.'"
I wish that he had said that more specifically in the city council to give assurance to the objectors to this Cemetery Bill.
Furthermore, the Sharrow newsletter of the branch Labour Party contains the following statement:
"Sheffield District Council want to acquire the cemetery so that it can be improved from its present dangerous and terrible state for recreational purposes. A Bill has been going through Parliament which would enable the council to do just that. The only problem is that the Bill is being sabotaged by the Tories … It is worth remembering that there were no objections from the Tories when the cemetery was purchased by a development company … So remember—the Tories of Hallam are preventing you from having your recreation space, not theirs!"
I hope that Labour Members will either condone or refute that statement, because it has caused more concern in the neigh-bourhood than has any other document emanating from the Labour Party and claiming to represent the views of Labour councillors.
Unfortunately, there has been misunderstanding on this issue. It has become political. Therefore, the objectors have turned to me, the only Conservative Member of Parliament in the area, to see that Parliament looks at this issue and gives it a proper hearing.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Martin Flannery: It is most unfortunate that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) is opposing this sensible and compassionate Bill. He likened the situation to that of David fighting Goliath. I do not see the Sheffield City Council as Goliath. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Goliath in his day was seriously in the wrong, but a Labour Sheffield City Council has been elected and re-elected for 50 years. I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman impugned the integrity of that council. The people of Sheffield have elected that council because it has shown so much concern for them and has shown compassion in general over that period.
I have a particular interest in this matter, not merely as a citizen of Sheffield. I was born in Sheffield, in my own constituency, but for nearly 20 years I taught in the area in which the cemetery is situated. For 11 of those years my classroom overlooked the cemetery, which was alive with rats. When I arrived in the area in 1953, a child was badly injured and lay out in the open all one afternoon. Almost every morning at assembly we would warn the children to steer clear of this dangerous and wildly overrun cemetery. I emphasise that that occurred as long ago as 1953. It was so dreadfully overrun and so wild that not only was it an eyesore; it gave rise to a sense of shame.
It was a privately owned cemetery run by a company, and 10 years ago there were only 12 interments a year in it—a figure which now, I understand, has dropped to six. The people concerned cannot go on any longer, because money is needed to run the cemetery. Therefore, the council has examined the cemetery which is near to the main part of Sheffield, only a few hundred yards from one of the main streets.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of all this having happened in haste. I remind him that the place was in a dreadful state as far back as 1953. Therefore, the word "haste" is very much out of place. I am only sad that it has taken so long to get round to taking some action. The council has got round to it at the request of the company and the local people.
This area of the city has a vast amount of Industrial Revolution-type slum housing. I know the names of all the streets where the back-to-back houses have been

1273
cleared away by the council. There is a plan for the whole area, and the cemetery is in the middle of it.
Many of us are deeply interested in the cemetery. I am president of the Sheffield Holberry Society. Samuel Holberry was a great and distinguished Chartist. He is buried in the cemetery. For compassionate, as well as political reasons, I wanted a memorial erected to him. He had possibly the biggest funeral that Sheffield has ever seen. We would not dream of upsetting local people in a way that was insensitive or not compassionate.
Every detail of the Bill has been gone over to try to help people in a humane way. Every clause has been carefully thought out. There is the provision, for example, about 25 years having to pass after the last burial. The area would have to be cleared up in an acceptable way after taking account of the views of people who have had dear ones buried there in the last few years. All this has been carefully thought out, and I should have thought that, outside a tiny minority, everyone would want the Bill to go through without opposition.
The hon. Member for Hallam said that the matter had become politicised,
1274
but it is not the Labour Party which has done that. I was here when the hon. Gentleman was away in Europe and persuaded some of his hon. Friends, who had never heard of the cemetery, to object to the Bill. That was politicising.
We thought that such a sensible measure would have gone through with the agreement of everyone concerned. It is said that it is being opposed in this way. I have spoken to the leaders of the council and sounded out local people. I believe that it is the general will that the Bill should go ahead in order to make a better Sheffield, to do what local people want done, to provide an attractive area and for it to be looked after. It will not injure any human being.
Mr. John H. Osborn: I should like the hon. Gentleman to understand that I shall give the Bill a Second Reading. I do not intend to vote against the Second Reading.
Mr. Flannery: I am happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says. That newfound happiness is a good point at which to end.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (TEXTILE POLICY)
7.53 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Community Documents Nos. S/139/77, S/183/78, R/3375/77 and R/513/78 (and the Supplementary Memorandum submitted on 21st March 1978) on Community Textile Policy.
I am glad that we have an opportunity today to consider these documents which, together, establish the framework for trade in textile products over the next five years. They all arise from the multifibre negotiations which took place at the end of last year, and may be regarded as the practical outcome of those negotiations.
When hon. Members last debated textile policy during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 14th December, the EEC had not taken its final decision about renewal of the MFA. That decision was taken by the EEC Council of Ministers a few days later, on the 20th, when Ministers decided to accept the results of the negotiations and agreed that the Community should renew the MFA. In taking this decision, they agreed to some increase in the ceilings set in the negotiating mandate for cotton yarn and cloth in order to reach agreement with certain countries. To have done otherwise would have put at risk the whole package of negotiations. But before going along with that decision, we secured a useful reduction in the United Kingdom share of the cotton cloth increase, together with other important assurances from the Commission, which I shall come back to in a moment.
The decision to accept the new bilateral agreements was described by my right hon. Friend as a "historic turning point" in the fortunes of the United Kingdom textile and clothing industries. For the first time, we and our trading partners in textiles know where we stand for the next five years. And within this overall framework there are new rules to control the flow of imports which are an enormous improvement over anything that we have had in the past.
In the first place, there are many more bilateral agreements or other special arrangements with low-cost suppliers—28 to date, compared with only 14 previously.
1276
The coverage of these new arrangements will be much more comprehensive than in the past. In 1977, about 75 per cent. of our low-cost imports were covered by quotas. The new arrangements cover, either by quotas or by special safeguard provisions, about 95 per cent. of our low-cost imports.
Mr. John Roper: Can my hon. Friend say how much of the remaining 5 per cent. is with State trading companies and therefore also covered in some way?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend must have read my speech, because that point is covered in the next sentence. If we include the separate quotas that operate outside the MFA or the State trading countries, the coverage rises to 98 per cent. The arrangements with State trading countries account for a further 3 per cent. of the remaining 5 per cent. Virtually all of the United Kingdom's low-cost imports of textiles and clothing are subject to actual or potential control.
We have paid particular attention to the most sensitive products. These are a familiar list for hon. Members—cotton yarn, cotton cloth, synthetic cloth, knitted shirts, jumpers, trousers, woven blouses and woven shirts—and are all products where import penetration is high. All low-cost imports of these eight products are now restricted within global ceilings, both for the EEC as a whole and for each member State. The effect of these ceilings should be that import penetration will be virtually stabilised, because imports from new suppliers will have to be contained within the overall limits. This is a significant departure for the EEC and, because these eight products represent about 60 per cent. of our total low-cost imports, this should be of great benefit to our own industry.
In general, the quotas are based on actual trade in 1976. Trade in 1977 was, in some cases, lower than in 1976, and I know that some hon. Members are therefore concerned about the level of the 1978 quotas. I understand that concern, but I insist that there was no alternative to using the 1976 base line.
As negotiations took place during the latter half of last year, 1976 was the latest year for which complete EEC statistics were available. The 1977 statistics were not available until the beginning of

1277
April this year. To have chosen a base year before 1976 would have been contrary to the spirit of the MFA and on practical grounds it would not have been possible to justify using different base periods for different products or suppliers.
Documents S/139/77 and S/183/78 set out the quota levels for the member States for 1978. In the case of Taiwan, the quota levels for 1978 to 1982 are shown. Both documents were approved by the Council of Ministers on 7th February and both have now been published in the Official Journal. Our own notice to importers will be published in Trade and Industry on 14th April. I should also say that in the case of the regulation covering Taiwan—this is a more technical matter—where no negotiations took place because Taiwan is not a GATT signatory, the Taiwanese authorities have made representations to the Commission about the low level of some of the quotas. If any changes are proposed as a result of these representations, the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation will, of course, have an opportunity to consider them.
Mr. Dan Jones: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that the new regulations are a valuable safeguard However, what steps have been taken to ensure that the safeguards are ironed out securely for the textile industry in future?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises a key point. It is all very well to have a set of regulations, but we must be concerned about efficiency in implementing them and the prevention of loopholes and possible abuse. I assure my hon. Friend that later I shall turn to the whole issue of surveillance, the blocking of loopholes and the prevention of potential abuse. When I reach that stage in my speech, he will understand that the arrangements are extremely comprehensive.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is this one of the cases where approval was given to EEC documents by the Council of Ministers before instead of after the documents had been debated in the House?
Mr. Meacher: This is one of the cases where the decision is taken by the Council of Ministers because it is felt to be in the interests of each of the member
1278
States that action should be taken as soon as possible. However, the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation will have a full opportunity to examine the matter. As we are talking about the imposition of levels of quota that will benefit a particular industry, the urgency of the matter is sometimes overriding. This is not the first time that it has happened, but I do not believe that it has caused matters to be taken amiss by the Select Committee. It has an opportunity to make representations if it takes that view.
Mr. Roper: My recollection is that this is an instrument that the Scrutiny Committee did not recommend for debate in the House before the decision was taken. It merely recommended that it should be debated at some stage in the context of a debate on textiles.
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House that information. This is quite regular practice, as I have indicated, in the circumstances that I have outlined. It is not that there is any attempt by the Government in any way by sleight of hand to put through a measure before there is a proper opportunity to discuss it. When it is beneficial to the home industry for action to be taken more quickly, that is the procedure that has been followed. That is well understood by the Select Committee.
With one or two exceptions, the quotas are now all subject to dual control—that is, that an import licence is granted here only on production of a valid export licence issued by the supplying country. The exceptions are Taiwan, where the quotas continue to be import-administered: Malaysia and the Philippines, where export-administration will begin on 1st May; and Peru and Mexico, where export administration will begin on 1st July.
Another very important advantage in the new agreement is the introduction of more precise safeguard procedures which cover all products from bilateral agreement countries which are not subject to immediate quotas. These procedures are most often described as a "trigger mechanism", under which new quotas can be introduced following consultation if imports of unrestricted products reach certain specified levels compared with

1279
imports into the EEC in the previous calendar year. That is one of the most important aspects of the new agreement.
I mentioned earlier the assurances that we secured from the Council on 20th December. One was that similar procedures would be applied to countries which have not concluded bilateral agreements. This is an assurance to which we attach great importance because the ability to introduce quotas when imports rise above a certain level, whether or not the country concerned has entered into a bilateral agreement, is clearly a crucial element in the new framework, and clearly in respect of new suppliers. I know that that is a matter of great concern to the industry and to Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I shall spell it out briefly.
As a result of their preferential relationship with the EEC, none of the Mediterranean suppliers was prepared to enter into separate textile agreements, with the exception of Egypt. Instead, the Commission secured a series of informal understandings. That is a word that is used in the technical sense. It is, perhaps, a term of art within the trade. In the case of Morocco and Tunisia, the Governments of those countries have agreed to a voluntary restraint on their exports of certain sensitive products. Similar arrangements have been agreed with the textile and clothing industries in Greece and Turkey. Discussions are continuing with Spain and Portugal in the hope that similar arrangements can be agreed with them. In the meantime, both countries have been notified of levels which should not be exceeded and have been warned of possible safeguard action. All these arrangements apply in the first instance to 1978, but the Commission intends to make similar arrangements in subsequent years.
Mr. Mike Noble: My hon. Friend said that the Commission intends to make similar arrangements in subsequent years. Will he confirm that the arrangements will mean no increase in quota levels for these countries in subsequent years, and will not merely imply the creation of further informal understandings, albeit at a different level?
Mr. Meacher: The proposal is that the basis on which existing informal understandings are made shall be continned,
1280
although this is no doubt dependent on future negotiations. There will be the same basis for limitation as exists in 1978. The basis of restriction will remain the same. There is no suggestion that there will be an increase in future years, although, as I repeat, that is a matter for negotiation. The fact that it is not written into the specific framework of the MFA means that it is open to negotiation. The Commission has made it clear that it is not allowing non-signatory countries any easier conditions than those that apply to countries that sign the bilateral agreements.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What if the situation were changed and, for example, two of the four countries became signatories to the Treaty of Rome? What protection would the British textile industry have within that changed circumstance?
Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Greece, Spain and Portugal, these are all countries where membership is being contemplated and arrangements are being made to that end. If they became members of the EEC they would have to abide by the same rules that govern existing member States, especially in terms of the abolition of quotas or tariffs and any special aids that they might now give to their industries. Such measures would have to be done away with as a result of the competition rules under the Treaty of Rome. That would certainly make a good deal of difference in terms of intra-Community trade in respect of those countries. We are talking about a situation well into the middle or late 1980s. If accession were to come about for those countries in the 1980s, there would be a transitional period, as there was for Britain, so we are talking of a period five, eight or 10 years on.
I was saying that because of the voluntary nature of these arrangements we have not published details in a notice to importers. However, I assure the House that a close watch is being kept on the level of imports from these Mediterranean suppliers, so that the Commission can be alerted in good time if the agreed levels are threatened. The Commission, for its part, gave an undertaking at the Council on 20th December that appropriate action would be taken promptly if it became necessary. That is an assurance to

1281
which we attach great importance and certainly intend to utilise if need be.
This brings me to the question of surveillance and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones). This is obviously a key factor in ensuring that the safeguards are operated satisfactorily. We shall need to know in advance when trigger levels are likely to be reached so that the safeguard machinery can be set in motion in Brussels.
To this end, our own surveillance licensing of non-restricted textiles is being brought into line with the new MFA product categories, and we plan to introduce an early warning system which will give us time to act. At the same time, a Community-wide surveillance system based on early information about actual imports is being set up which should help to draw the net still tighter.
This surveillance will be based on new nroduct categories which are common to all the agreements and other arrangements. These new categories—no fewer than 123 in all—are much more precise than the 60 categories which applied in the past. This will greatly reduce the amount of flexibility between quotas—that is the transfer of unused portions in the one quota to increase trade in another which has been fully used up—and it should also reduce considerably the scope for evasion. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with what I think is a comprehensive answer to his question in terms of the new arrangements.
Mr. Max Madden: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the disparity that seems to exist within the Common Market between the delays that occur in submitting import data? I understand that it is 16 days for the United Kingdom, which is the quickest country, and goes up to 10 weeks for Italy. Can my hon. Friend foresee any standardisation in these arrangements to ensure that import information is passed much more quickly than appears to be the case today?
Mr. Meacher: We certainly intend to be as efficient as possible in passing this information to the Commission. One of the problems in textiles has always been the great delays in the information pipeline. As I indicated, we did not get the full figures for 1977 import levels until
1282
the beginning of April. There are considerable delays in getting information quickly. I think that the United Kingdom is rather better than other countries in this respect. Subject to our capacity to collect that information more quickly, we certainly intend to process it and to pass it to the Commission as quickly as we can. If my hon. Friend is aware of unreasonable delays in that respect, I hope that he will let us know.
Mr. Dan Jones: The Minister asked me whether I was satisfied with regard to the Mediterranean relationship. Frankly, I am not. I think that the agreement with the EEC is remarkable and must, if left to that device, be of immense good for the textile industry. But if the Mediterranean countries are allowed freedom, I believe that that could undermine that good effect. Are we prepared to take steps now to bring under control, in the same way as the EEC has done with other countries, the situation concerning the Mediterranean countries, or, put another way, is the EEC prepared to allow them to participate in the control of the Mediterranean countries?
Mr. Meacher: There are preferential agreements with the Mediterranean suppliers. That is the different relationship that they have with the EEC. I am not convinced that, because of that special relationship, the Mediterranean suppliers will be able to increase their exports beyond what is permitted to the normal bilateral signatories. In effect, we are concerned about the level of imports, particularly of cotton yarn and cloth, from a number of the Mediterranean suppliers. We have given this information to the Commission. I understand that it is at present carrying out consultations with the supplying countries. That is a term of art. It means that the Commission is making it very clear that it does not expect these levels to be exceeded. In certain Mediterranean supply agreements—for example, with Turkey—there are safeguard clauses which we can invoke if need be. We are examining ways in which we can close that gap in relation to other countries where there are not such safeguard clauses.
Another important element of the revised MFA—this is the last point that I want to make—is the introduction—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman leaving the question of surveillance?
Mr. Meacher: I am leaving surveillance. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to make a further point?
Mr. Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the figures quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) were based on a paper recently issued by Comitextil? If there is this tremendous disparity in the notification of this import data—for the United Kingdom 16 days, but for the Netherlands and Italy anything between six, eight and 10 weeks—how can Europe in the present situation efficiently implement a surveillance system and procedure? Will he look at this matter rather more seriously and perhaps take to a European table the fact that we in this House are dissatisfied with the length of time that it takes some of our European partners to supply the import data which is so vital to an efficient and effective implementation of a surveillance procedure?
Mr. Meacher: I agree about the importance of making sure that information is made available so that action can follow. If this is a paper by Comitextil, the remedy lies in its hands. These are the textile manufacturers of the EEC. If they stand to gain from processing this information quickly to the Commission, it is up to them to ensure that their Governments act quickly. I suggest that they put more pressure on their Governments. Certainly the United Kingdom Government cannot require or induce the Netherlands or Italian Governments to operate more quickly. We can indicate by our own example that it can be done by us in a shorter time than by them. I hope that the industries in those countries will put a lot of pressure on their Governments to act more quickly. It is mainly for them to do that.
Another important element of the revised MFA is the introduction of more precise rules of origin and of measures that will require documentary proof of origin to be produced at the lime of importation in respect of imports from all non-EEC countries. These provisions are the subject of the other documents on the Order Paper, R/3375/77 and
1284
R/513/78. Essentially, and at some risk of over-simplification, the former document sets out the new provisions and the latter modifies those relating to proof of origin.
The amended proof of origin provisions have been published in the Official Journal as Council regulation 616/78 and will come into effect on 1st May. It may help the House if I explain that the rules of origin determine the country of origin of a product. The proof of origin is the documentary statement of that origin which is presented to Customs. The combined effect, with some differences in detail between restricted and non-restricted sources of supply, will be that documentary proof of origin will need to be supplied by the exporter and produced by the importer at the time of importation in respect of all commercial imports of textile products of categories covered by the bilateral MFA agreements.
This is a very important point. Without rules of origin it would be possible, for example, for a country with a product under quota to evade the quota ceiling by shipping goods through a country where the same product was not subject to any restriction. The present origin rules lack precision and are open to differing interpretations. This will be avoided by the introduction of precise rules based on the concept that the origin of all textile products will be determined—with certain minor exceptions—by the carrying out of one complete process. For some products, the present origin criteria will be changed. The new rules will also apply to trade within the Community to determine whether goods traded between member States are of EEC origin and thus free from restriction, or of third country origin and thus susceptible in certain circumstances to restriction under Article 115 of the Treaty of Rome.
This is a complex subject. I have not attempted to give more than the barest outline of the purpose of the new regulations and how they will work. But we are satisfied that the combined effect of the revised origin rules will be to close the loopholes, to resolve the ambiguities in the existing rules and to ensure that the intentions of the MFA cannot be evaded by manipulation of the country of origin. If we have succeeded, as I think we have, that is an important point.

1285
The documents that are the subject of todays motion are the outcome of a years' hard bargaining and negotiating both within the EEC and outside it. They are proof of the Government's determination to remedy the defects of the old MFA agreements and to provide our textile industry with adequate protection. As I have already said, there are now agreements or other special arrangements with 28 low-cost suppliers. These agreements provide for over 400 separate quotas, covering 123 separate product categories. These quotas, together with the new safeguard provisions, mean that about 95 per cent. of our low-cost imports of textiles are now under control. If the separate arrangements for State-trading countries are added, this brings the coverage up to 98 per cent.
It is perhaps too early, after only three months' experience of arrangements that will last for five years in most cases, to come to any final judgment. I would not wish to claim that the results are perfect; I am sure that they are not. This is clearly no time to become complacent or to relax our efforts. On the contrary, vigilance must and will continue.
I again pay tribute to the determination and dedication of members of the textile lobby on both sides of the House who provided the Government with the determination that was needed for these negotiations. But I urge the industry to take advantage of the new arrangements and the valuable breathing space that they provide.
We have done all that we could to secure our objectives of adequate protection against disruptive imports and security and protection for those who work in our textile industry. I think that they, and we, must look now towards the textile employers to do their bit and start expanding and investing for the future, so that if demand picks up—as I hope it will—it will be British manufacturers who have the capacity to fill the gap. Much will obviously depend on the general economic climate about which my right hon. Friend has spoken so encouragingly this afternoon. But the Government have recognised the special difficulties facing the textile industry and have taken unprecedented steps to provide help. I have not mentioned the many other areas in which help is provided, such as Industry
1286
Act assistance, TES and other aspects, as these are mainly matters for my hon. Friend who will wind up this debate.
We have done our best to meet the objectives that we set ourselves in February last year. The documents before the House show our concern for the textile industry and those who work in it. We now look to the industry for a positive and determined response.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Cecil Parkinson: First, I apologise to the Minister for missing the first moment or two of his speech. My own early warning and surveillance system failed me. I apologise for missing his opening remarks.
This is the first textile debate in which I have participated, but among my earliest memories is growing up in Lancashire and walking to school past textile mill after textile mill, most of which are now closed. I have had a continuing interest in the industry for a long time.
The background to the debate is well known to hon. Members. On 21st February last year, we had a debate on the state of the textile industry and in particular on the need to renegotiate the then existing Multi-Fibre Arrangement. That debate was marked by the bipartisan approach to the problems in the textile industry and the virtually unanimous agreement in all parts of the House that the Multi-Fibre Arrangement had to be renegotiated. With the full backing of the House, the Secretary of State for Trade went to the many meetings of the Council of Ministers pledged to improve and tighten up the existing arrangements. To give credit where it is due, the final agreement which we are now debating owes a great deal to the Secretary of State's determination and toughness. We pay him tribute for that.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that he was able to take such a firm line because he knew that he had the support not only of his own side but of the Opposition. He knew that he had the backing of a united House of Commons when entering the negotiations.
This is our first opportunity of discussing the long-awaited outcome of the renegotiations, which was finally announced in a characteristically anti-climatic fashion by a Written Answer

1287
in the House of Commons and by the issue of the series of documents that we are now debating. Only the EEC would choose to make such an important announcement about such an important arrangement in a series of complicated and convoluted documents. I am told that it is possible, if one reads and rereads the documents, to understand them completely. I certainly found them extremely hard work.
The satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations was an event of major importance. The impact of them will have a decided effect over the next four years on the livelihoods of many of the 830,000 people who work in the clothing and textile industries in the United Kingdom. The documents represent the conclusion of an important series of negotiations. I hope to explain why the outcome of the negotiations is satisfactory.
There are those who would argue, as John Madeley did in The Guardian of 8th February, that the increased clamour for protection by Britain against imports from developing countries appears to be out of all proportion to the damage that those imports cause to the British economy. Mr. Madeley put forward a detailed argument explaining why he holds that view. His argument, however, seemed to ignore the fact that, even after the renegotiations, the United Kingdom and EEC markets will remain more open to the exports of developing countries than any other comparable market—if there is a comparable market.
The Conservative attitude to the whole question of trade with the developing countries—and it is an extremely difficult question—was set out in a recent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). He was talking about the principle of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and the idea of introducing orderly marketing of the exports of developing countries in the markets of developed countries. He said:
"In ths way"—
meaning via arrangements such as the Multi-Fibre Arrangement—
"it is to be hoped that the developing countries can develop their infant industries without destroying the infrastructure of those industries in the developed countries. Developing countries must takes a realistic view of the rate at which imports can be absorbed where they compete, as they tend to, with traditional and
1288
highly labour-intensive industries in the developed countries."
He might have added that when there is a fast-developing textile capacity all over the world and a world recession, as there is, the problems become even more acute.
This, then, was the basic aim of the renegotiations—to retain access to the EEC and United Kingdom markets for the textile products of other countries, but to do so in a way that would avoid the disruption—some would say the crucifixion—of the home-based industries. Under the new arrangements, the EEC will continue to be the world's largest importer of textiles with a rate of import penetration almost twice that of, for instance, the United States.
In introducing the debate, the Minister mentioned a number of the areas of the new agreement which commended themselves to him. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to comment on a number of the changes and improvements which I see arising from the negotiations.
As a result of the renegotiations, agreements now cover larger number of countries and a larger range of products, and that is to be welcomed. Although they provide a growth rate overall of about 6 per cent. annually over the next five years, the growth rates will vary sharply between different categories of imports and different countries with minimal increases or none for the most sensitive items and for the most dominant suppliers. The global approach which is the feature of the agreement in some of the most sensitive products is to be welcomed.
We welcome the fact that greater opportunities will be given, in spite of the difficult economic climate, to the poorest, who will get better access to our market, although the price that has been paid is a cutback in the share of some of the more advanced countries such as Hong Kong and Korea. There will be a better chance even in very difficult times for the poorer countries, and the House will welcome that.
The new base levels for arriving at quotas, founded as they are on the 1976 levels of trade, are, we believe, much more realistic than the previous quotas, which tended to be based on the pre-MFA access levels. The Minister was made aware of that fact this evening by questions from both sides of the House. We realise, however, that arriving at a

1289
basis for fixing a quota was extremely difficult, and, although there will be reservations about the new basis, it is on the whole a great improvement on the previous one and is probably about the best that could have been obtained.
Like the Minister, we, too, welcome the introduction and development of an effective trigger mechanism. It is extremely important. Although it will be most difficult to operate in practice, as has been mentioned repeatedly to the Minister tonight in interventions, a trigger mechanism for products not subject to existing quotas is absolutely essential.
I welcome the new flexibility and the new proposals for licensing and control which the Minister discussed this evening. If the arrangements are to succeed—this point has already come out very clearly in interventions—it will be absolutely vital for member countries of the EEC to develop common means for monitoring the arrangements. That will not be an easy task. The Minister told us just how many countries are involved and the huge range of products. Frankly, reaching the agreement, difficult though it may have been, may have been the easy bit. Actually making it work will be extremely difficult administratively.
I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises this and that he recognises that the United Kingdom Government will have to press very hard if the arrangements are to work out in practice, as we hope they will, to make sure that there is the development of a consistent system of monitoring and surveillance and that consistent records are kept so that the agreement can be properly implemented.
I always think that it is a mistake to talk about "the textile industry because a number of industries are involved in textiles. The attitude of the various industries concerned seems to be very well summed up in a letter sent to me by the British Clothing Industry's Council for Europe. The sentence that I wish to quote is as follows:
"There is no doubt that the new regime is superior to the old in a number of significant ways."
Even so, it will be no news to the Minister—he has had some of the criticisms already—that there are still criticisms, and I should like to mention just two or three of them tonight. I hope that the hon.
1290
Gentleman will try to deal with one or two of them when he replies to the debate.
As the House will be aware, there is fairly strong criticism of the absence of a recession clause in the agreement. Perhaps those negotiating it could not envisage our being in a recession which was deeper than the present recession, and perhaps it was not regarded as necessary, therefore, to build into the new arrangement a recession clause. However, I wonder how the Minister envisages that the problem will be dealt with in practice if the recession deepens and whether there are any contingency plans or whether Ministers have any ideas for dealing with the problems that could arise if the recession deepens.
Mr. Noble: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that the policy of his party now with regard to a recession clause has changed? I recall that in the Statutory Instruments Committee, for example, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), particularly when he was spokesman on trade for the Conservative Party, argued with me that his party could not possibly accept the idea of a recession clause.
Mr. Parkinson: What I am saying to the Minister is that there are criticisms throughout the industry. A number of criticisms have been made to us. I am pointing out just one or two of them.
One of the criticisms that has been made to us is that there is no provision for a recession clause. I just wondered—because, equally, the Minister must have considered this matter—whether the Government have changed their ideas, perhaps, about the need for a recession clause and what ideas the Government have about dealing with this contingency and raising it.
Mr. James Lamond: Surely the purpose of speaking from the Opposition Front Bench is not merely to wonder about the Government's attitude. On a simple issue such as this, it would be rather nice to hear a plain statement of the Opposition's point of view.
Mr. Parkinson: One of the joys of being in Opposition—
Mr. Noble: Come on.
Mr. Parkinson:—and standing at this Dispatch Box is that it is our privilege

1291
to ask the questions. I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), has like myself, sat through Prime Minister's Question Time and has come to the conclusion that there has been a reversal of roles and that the Government ask the Opposition questions and it is the Opposition's job to give all the answers. That is not the situation. It is the reverse. I am exercising the proper rights of an Opposition in asking the Minister some questions and making sure that the people we cannot mention, who have been brought here tonight, have something to show for their presence.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is splendidly diplomatic.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend.
Another matter which has been raised with us and on which I should also like to have the Minister's comments is the question of suits from the COMECON countries and the basis on which the price clause will be operated. The clothing industry has told us that there are doubts about its value in the agreement because the price comparison is with the lowest price of garments from a third country—which could include developing countries like India and Korea. One would then be comparing the prices suggested by States with centrally planned economies with those of developing countries and not with those of developed countries. I wonder whether the Minister would comment on that.
Mr. Meacher: Perhaps I may do so immediately. On the question about a recession clause, there is a provision for a review if called for by either party after two years. I am not sure whether the hon. Member or his predecessor as a trade spokesman agrees with that. Perhaps he will say.
As for the price comparison for suits or clothing from State trading countries, the provision under Regulation 459/68 of the Community is that the comparison will be made with a product as near as may be to the product from the State trading country. Nothing compels that comparison to be made with a developing country's product. Certainly, under that regulation there is some easing as compared with the 1969 Act of this country.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the Minister for those answers. The one about the basis for a price comparison will be particularly welcome because it has been raised with us by the clothing industry.
To repeat something I said earlier, there is real concern not about the terms of the agreement but about whether administratively it will be possible to make such a complicated agreement stick. I hope that the Minister in replying will say, a little more fully than his hon. Friend was able to do in his opening speech, just what plans the Government have for pushing ahead with making sure that proper administrative arrangements develop to make the agreement stick.
In the debates to which I first listened about the textile industry, one was bombarded with expressions of concern, and if one did not have textile interests in one's constituency could easily have been left with the feeling that the industry was a sort of gigantic corpse into which a few very earnest Members were trying to breathe a little life. Nothing, as we all now know, could be further from the truth.
It was of great interest to me to get reacquainted with the textile industry after a long absence from it. One cannot fail to admire the way in which it has responded to competition or to see the improvement in productivity, the way in which management has invested and installed new machinery and the way in which labour has co-operated with management in improved manning levels to ensure that the productivity which is vital to the industry's continued competitiveness is obtained.
One cannot help comparing this industry with a number of our other troubled industries, such as the motor industry. Far from adding to their problems, in the textile industry management and labour have combined to try to defeat them, to combat the problems that are being imposed on them. Many companies, such as British Leyland, seem to be seeking to add to their own problems and those that the world imposes on them.
The industry has responded to the challenge of competition. It has not merely demanded protection and the right to carry on in its own ways. It has modernised and it has improved productivity. The industry's production of nearly £10,000

1293
million-worth of goods a year is considerable. It represents a substantial proportion of our gross national product. Exports of £2,000 million a year, as were achieved last year, are also very impressive.
Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman has rightly been talking about competition. I wonder whether he is aware that the British Textile Confederation has issued to a number of hon. Members a communication in which it says:
"All the major political parties accept the need for restraints on textile and clothing imports and from countries whose wages, social conditions and trading patterns make competition with them totally unequal."
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that as a fair summary of his party's position? He has been rather reluctant to answer a number of questions put to him, but, for the sake of the confederation and those who are guided by it, could he reassure us that that is the position of the official Opposition?
Mr. Parkinson: That is probably the most superfluous question that has been asked for a long time. The British Textile Confederation issued that document because the people who run it took the trouble to read last year's debates on the subject and the various statements that have been coming out continuously from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. It was on the basis of what it read in debates in the House and statements by members of the Conservative Party, speaking for the party, that it said what it did. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes".
Although the agreement is not all that the industry desired, I am convinced that it was the best available and that the Secretary of State deserves congratulation on his part in obtaining it. I hope that the textile industry will take advantage of the new arrangements to increase its share of the home market and, working from that improved home base, improve its already very impressive export performance.
There can be no doubt that throughout the House we wish the textile industry well. As a result of this renegotiation, it now has the opportunity to plan its future in a rather more predictable market. It has the opportunity to go
1294
ahead with its plans for investment and for improving productivity against a more settled background. We on the Conservative Benches, and. I am sure, hon. Members throughout the House, hope that it will be successful in its attempts.
8.49 p.m.
Mr. Ben Ford: I am very pleased that we are having this short debate on textiles. Like the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), I join my colleagues who are members of the all-party Wool Textile Group and members of the trade in congratulating the Government and the Ministers concerned on the persistence with which they have pursued these agreements to a pretty satisfactory end. As has been said, they are not 100 per cent. satisfactory, but I think that most people would agree that the Government have got about everything that could possibly have been obtained in the circumstances.
It is important that we have such agreements as these. As has been remarked, this industry employs 830,000 people. Only a few years ago, well over 1 million people were employed in the industry. The run-down has been largely as a result of cheap imports, which have undermined the industry. I believe that these agreements will provide a framework for a better order in world trade in textiles and clothing and that this will be an improvement on recent years. I hope that they will provide a framework which will re-establish confidence in the industry and enable us to offset some of the doom and gloom that have come from many of the Jeremiahs in the industry in the past.
I know that the Government are aware that there are certain areas of concern to people in the textile industry, and I will put two specific questions to the Government which I hope the Minister will answer when he winds up the debate.
First, will the Community press for Community action as soon as the EEC is entitled to ask for a quota on a product for which a country with which we have an agreement becomes a significant supplier?
Second, will the Government press for Community action as soon as a low-cost country, with which we do not yet have an agreement, becomes an important supplier of textiles and clothing?

1295
In connection with the last question, I bring to the attention of the Minister the low-cost wool cloth imports from Argentina. This matter is now causing great concern to the wool textile industry. The wool cloth is coming in from Argentina at ridiculous prices which barely cover the cost of the raw material, from wherever it may be obtained. There has been a dramatic increase in volume in the supply of this cloth between 1976 and 1977, and possibly tomorrow the Minister will find a motion on the Order Paper asking him to apply an immediate countervailing duty until such time as we can conclude other forms of agreement with Argentina. We hope that the Minister will take this one out of the basket and activate the trigger mechanism.
Grateful as it is for the agreements that have been arrived at, the wool textile industry merely requires an opportunity to trade in fair circumstances. It is not seeking protection for the sake of protection. It wants fair trading. I am satisfied and it is satisfied that it can do its job for this country.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: The House would feel it presumptuous on my part if I were to intervene at great length. I know that there are many hon. Members with much greater experience and knowledge, as well as obvious local geographical and constituency interest in various parts of the textile industry, and they have by definition, therefore, a prior right, I should have thought, to speak in the debate.
I intend, none the less, to intervene briefly, with the approval, I hope, of the Liberal Party spokesman on textiles, to make one or two points from the Community standpoint, and perhaps also one or two very quick points on the outlines and the framework of the agreements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) and the Minister have said, one would have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House would welcome these agreements and the formulation of the textile protection regulations. I missed certain aspects of the very brief exchanges earlier, when the Minister was speaking and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr.
1296
Roper) intervened, but this is a debate concerning primary EEC legislation as opposed to the usual so-called secondary legislation—and even that is a misnomer—when we are considering directives.
Here, there is no absolute strict right on any national Parliament to consider these matters in the usual sense of processing legislation in the Community. However, that does not rule out what we quite rightly do in this House, which is to scrutinise all sorts of things, including elements of primary EEC legislation such as regulations.
With great hesitation, I disagree very slightly with my hon. Friend on one point which he made at the beginning. I do not think that these documents are particularly extra-complicated over and above anything that we see by way of national legislation.
Mr. Madden: They are all bad.
Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is presumably an enthusiastic supporter of the textile protection regulations. It is no good his glibly and superficially saying that they are all bad and dismissing what the EEC does in that sense. That merely irritates sensible people.
I believe that these documents are as comprehensible as any legislation that we see in this country, particularly when one considers complicated schedules, technical elements attached to Bills, statutory instruments and all the regulations and orders issued by the Government as a result of primary national legislation. There is intrinsically no particular extra complexity in the documents, although the subject matter is itself very complicated. Indeed, I would say to hon. Members who try to single out Community documents and papers for extra special harsh treatment and judgment that if we considered the actual clauses of the regulations we would discover that they are couched in similar terms to domestic Bills.
Mr. Parkinson: The point I was trying to make is that I regard the agreement and the renegotiation as a momentous and important event. The House learned about it officially by way of a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question. Four months after the event, we are now looking at a series of documents which in themselves are not ultra-complicated. But that still seems a slightly anti-climatic way

1297
of this House finally arriving at debating what was a very important renegotiation. That was the point I was trying to make.
Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course I agree with him, but I think that that is more of an aspect of the complicated timetables and timing of these scrutiny debates, some of which are well ahead of any decision in the Community and others of which are, as in this case, well behind. That seems to be perfectly in order. I believe that the House is still coming to grips with learning about the different kinds of Community instruments emanating from the EEC. In this case, regulations are less familiar to us as bits of paper than are directives or other communications.
I should like to ask a couple of quick Questions. These are points that have been put to us by the trade association concerned with clothing, in particular, the European arm of that association. First, can the Minister say anything more about the position of special products from India? I gather that there are still slight question marks—at least, in the minds of some people in the industry—about this aspect. We understand that there will be specific quotas for some garments and a special trigger mechanism for others, but, again, some people consider this to be rather generous.
The price which the Commission has paid by way of quota size is substantial. For instance, I gather that, with regard to the expansion of category 8—woven shirts—imports from India alone have increased from 2,900,000 in 1975 to 8,500,000 in 1978. There is a very substantial expansion. That is one particular esoteric special example from one country only. If we take the generality of all the products from all countries, it is true to say that, although this is an agreement which to some extent by definition has a delimiting effect on trade, none the less it comes from a position in which there has already been a substantial tangible expansion of cheap imports into the Community in products of this kind. Many people in the underdeveloped countries have no reason to complain about the Community's reasonable attempt to create more orderly conditions when the domestic industries are under such an obvious threat.
1298
I would repeat the question with regard to the imports of particular products, especially suits from COMECON countries. Again, I believe that reassurance is perhaps needed on that score, and I hope that the Minister will say something more in his winding-up speech.
I conclude with two separate but related points. In this debate the Government have been praised, and, quite rightly, the Secretary of State has been praised, as have the Under-Secretary for his role in this and other Ministers in the Department of Industry in the sense that they were also involved. The House has praised itself for the united position that it has adopted on these agreements. However, the Community has not been praised except indirectly and perhaps by inference. It has not been praised openly.
I should have thought that this was one occasion when even those hon. Members, for eccentric reasons, are deeply sceptical about the verities of the Community and its importance to the member States in the future would have had some praise for the Community in view of the value of this achievement in the Community of getting nine member States to come together in these textile protection regulations. It is a remarkable feat in itself. I cannot understand why some hon. Members cannot feel able to praise the Community at least on this one aspect even though they criticise it on others. It irritates objective, neutral, sensible members of the public when they see a myopic attitude being adopted by certain hon. Members in refusing to praise what is a remarkable achievement by the Community countries.
Related to that, the industry has been very well organised in putting forward its collective arguments for additional legitimate protection along these lines rather than for some grotesque limitation of trade and in demonstrating that it believes genuinely in free trade. The industry has been successful in pressing for this protection in this country, in France, in Germany and in the other member States. The industries of those countries have themselves acquired a European dimension, therefore, at least in terms of consultation through the equivalent of a European trade association. It means that they themselves are well aware of the importance and relevance of the Community to its members.

1299
As a result of this achievement in these agreements, we all wish the industry well. We recognise that it has had an extremely difficult time in recent years and has faced the cruel blizzards of unfair competition from other parts of the world. It is now up to the industry to show that it can flourish when additional protection of a legitimate kind is provided, without going into regrettable limitations on fair trade and competition. I believe that the British textile industry will flourish enormously in this new regime.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. John Roper: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome this agreement. It is an important and in one way an historical debate that we are having tonight, because over a long period I can remember taking part in debates in this House and elsewhere about the likely impact of Community membership on the British textile industry and whether it would be possible for us once in the Community to get additional protection.
I know that this is not a view that will be shared by all my hon. Friends, but this seems to me to be one of the areas in which Community membership has already paid dividends. As part of the European Community, we have been able, by persuading our partners to agree upon a negotiating mandate for the Commission that was in the interests of the British textile industry, to use much more muscle internationally in negotiations than would have been possible if we had spoken on our own. We have been able to influence the policy of the Community from within in a way that would not have been possible if we had not been a member of the Community.
There is no doubt that great credit must go to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the part that they played in the Council of Ministers in ensuring that the Commission's negotiating mandate was a tough one. However, tribute should also be paid to the Commission's own negotiating team for its work in carrying out that mandate.
I was interested to read what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote about the way in which the Commission had carried out its negotiating mandate. He said:
"For the most part, the Commission have kept very close to the terms of the mandate
1300
—closer, indeed, than might have been expected given the very difficult nature of the negotiations."
This shows that the Commission is able, if given a proper negotiating mandate by the Council of Ministers, to act on the world scene in a useful and effective way in developing an effective framework within which our industries can operate.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): Will my hon. Friend accept that in keeping the Commission negotiators to that mandate a great deal of credit should go to the British Government? Over a long period we exerted a great deal of pressure to maintain the strong negotiating position.
Mr. Roper: I accept that, and I said earlier that my right hon. and hon. Friends played an important part within the Council of Ministers in persuading their colleagues from other countries to adopt a tough negotiating mandate.
Mr. Madden: Before my hon. Friend gets too carried away, has he seen the Press stories this week reporting an EEC agency forecast that, by 1985, 1·75 million European textile workers would be redundant? Does my hon. Friend believe that this report is accurate? If so, does he not agree that we should be negotiating harder than we have been hitherto?
Mr. Roper: I was coming to that report. It was not from an EEC source; it was from an article in today's issue of The Guardian, written by Brij Khindaria from Geneva, about a paper being discussed by delegates to the textile committee of the International Labour Organisation, which is a United Nations agency and not an EEC agency.
I want to follow some of the discussion between my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton) about the effectiveness of surveillance control. Quite clearly, particularly in the area of imports from the Mediterranean countries, surveillance control is very important. We are satisfied that the 16-day period for surveillance reporting in this country is adequate. However, the figures for the Netherlands—which is surprising, because this is usually an efficient and modern Administration—and Italy—which surprises me leas—both seem to be extremely alarming.

1301
Would the Minister reconsider the response given by the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Macclesfield when he suggested that it was up to Comitextil and the industry in the various countries to do something about improving the speed with which reports are made to the EEC in Brussels? The Community should consider this and see whether it is possible by regulation to have a more effective way of reporting the surveillance licences to the authorities in Brussels. I am not satisfied with the answer that we have had today, and I hope that this can be looked at not merely at national, but at Community level.
I return to the article to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) referred, which was reported in The Guardian. This was a paper submitted to the ILO textile committee meeting at present in Geneva. I hope that the Minister will say something about the background to this paper. Was it prepared in the light of the MFA renegotiation or prior to that renegotiation without taking account of the beneficial effects that the renegotiation will have?
The figures that are quoted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said, are somewhat alarming and require further examination. If we look at the old Multi-Fibre Arrangement that existed between 1974 and the end of last year, we see that there were two serious defects. First of all, the basic level for import quotas and the annual rates of growth were appropriate for the importing countries in a period of substantial economic growth. They might well have been appropriate in the 1950s and 1960s. They were totally inappropriate during a period of depression.
Secondly, the old MFA was totally unable to cope with the problems of cumulative disruption—a situation in which import penetration is high and growing but the imports come from a wide range of countries and once we think that we have dealt with one, another source of supply comes up somewhere else, so that cumulatively it was disastrous for the textile industry in this country and in other European countries.
That is why the new agreements mark such a significant step forward in providing an effective framework within
1302
which textile industries in Western Europe can operate. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade—Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—said, the fact that we now have 95 per cent. or 98 per cent. of our imports covered is one side of the matter, but perhaps much more important, or as important, is the fact that the system of control operates with a much finer mesh than was the case under the original MFA, covering 123 product groups as distinct from the 60 or so product groups that were covered under the old arrangement. There is the distinction between different categories of goods, ensuring that the future growth rates will be related strictly to the degree of import penetration in that particular commodity.
The other matter that is of very great importance here, and that extends this agreement beyond the 33 countries with which the Commission has reached bilateral arrangements, is that the trigger mechanism that has been introduced in the new agreement will, I believe, extend protection to new suppliers once they try to enter the market. This is very important, because of the cumulative disruption that we suffered under the old MFA.
Finally, I believe that one of the things that was right and was advantageous in the new MFA was the way in which the three biggest suppliers—Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea—were effectively squeezed in order to provide a larger share for the suppliers in poorer Third World countries. I think that this was right, although, like other hon. Members, I have received considerable representations from Hong Kong about the effect on that particular colony. None the less, if it is a trade-off between Hong Kong and India, the decision taken was the right one.
This is an important step forward in providing what has been described by Ministers as the most effective form of protection that the textile industry in Europe has ever had. I am not quite sure what Cobden is doing in his grave at this time when he contemplates what is happening, but, in general, Lancashire is, I believe, greatly relieved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that Cobden would be against the Common Market. Cobden, of course, was responsible for

1303
negotiating the first of our important trade agreements with one of our Community partners, in the Anglo-French trade agreement of the 1870s. As I suggested earlier, this is an example of the success of the Community in influencing and determining the economic environment in which one of our industries, which has suffered considerable difficulties, can operate.
I am glad to see that the Community is now looking to see what can be done on a similar basis for the footwear industry. I hope that in the near future we shall have an opportunity to discuss the sort of proposals that it can bring forward in that area. This will give the industry an important breathing space. Let us hope that it will take advantage of it to maintain the jobs that already exist and to see a way of extending the important export trade that it has.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Smith: I do not intend to speculate about Cobden, except to say that I believe that he has a worthy successor as Member of Parliament for Rochdale, a position which at one time he occupied.
With the exception of the rules of origin document which we are considering, S/183/78, most of the material in the documents before the House is, as the Minister said, already in operation. Therefore, we are now going through a rubber-stamping operation. I do not complain on that account, but it seems to me that we are in danger of becoming intoxicated and of displaying a spirit of euphoria about what has been achieved without understanding that there are some weaknesses in the system. It is the job of this House to draw attention to those weaknesses.
I do not wish to take any credit from the Minister for the work he has done or for what he has achieved. However, I know that he would take the view that the House would be failing in its duty if all that we did was to pat him on the back and say what a great job he had done without at the same time drawing attention to the worries and fears that still exist despite the agreements.
I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government must be ever vigilant when dealing with the textile industry. We have had quotations this evening from a
1304
letter written by the British Textile Confederation. Perhaps I may quote one sentence from that letter. It says:
"It is important to remember, however, that they"—
that is, the new agreements about which everybody is getting so worked up—
"provide overall for increased and growing access to our market, although at a slower rate than in the recent past."
It is important that we should remember that fact.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that in regard to woven shirts the increase in imports from 1977 to 1978 was 10 per cent., which is a substantial increase in a highly sensitive area?
Mr. Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Later I shall be drawing attention to percentage increases which are greater than the percentage growth in the market. Therefore, that means that there has been greater import penetration into the existing market.
Although I compliment the Government and the Minister on the negotiations and the work which they have put in—it would be churlish of me not to do so—I believe that it is my job as a Member of Parliament to make it clear that things are not as rosy as they are being made out to be. Thousands of textile workers still face the dole or short-time working.
It is to the Government's credit that thousands more such workers would be queuing up at labour exchanges drawing unemployment pay if it were not for the existence of measures such as the temporary employment subsidy. Therefore, although we accept the agreements for what they are, we must all stress that vigilance is still very much required. We want the Government to protect the industry from unfair competition, and we are not entirely satisfied that that has yet been done.
The Multi-Fibre Arrangement is reasonable and passable, but there are already signs, as I have been told by senior men in the industry, that the new arrangements are not perfect and are not working entirely satisfactory. The agreement has not created the confidence which we were told it would bring about. For example, we find that there are no restraints on Japan. That may be difficult

1305
for the Government to do, but Japan is now sending textiles to this country. Therefore, it is not enough for the Front Benches to say that everything is all right—certainly the Conservative Front Bench spokesman took that view—and to pat everybody on the back. There is still cause for concern.
I have mentioned Japan. Turkish yarn imports also continue to cause concern, and they are not directly covered by the MFA.
Mr. Parkinson: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman ever listens to anyone else's speech. If he did not hear us all express reservations, he cannot have been listening. There was none of the complacency about which he is complaining. Perhaps he had better listen a bit more in future.
Mr. Smith: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not as complacent as I thought he was. I assure him that I always listen to speeches that are worth listening to, especially when they are made by people who know something about the industry they are talking about.
I hope that the Minister can tell us what special arrangements have been made—and they are promised in the documents—to control the imports of Turkish yarn.
The documents mention bilateral agreements with a number of low-cost suppliers, but make no mention of Mediterranean associates, some of which are low-cost suppliers. I have already mentioned Turkey. Greece is another such supplier. It is essential to have a clear and effective mechanism for dealing with unfair or disruptive competition from within the EEC and its associates. This will be even more important if the EEC is enlarged to include countries such as Spain and Portugal.
There is considerable concern about Spanish imports. The industry claims to have clear evidence that, while Spain is sending goods into this country at a competitive price, customers, on the basis of complaints about quality, delivery date or something similar, can easily obtain credit notes from Spain which mean that they have the goods at a much lower rate than is shown on the original invoice. If Spain is to join the EEC, I hope that the
1306
Government will pay careful attention to this problem.
Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the discounts—and that is a fair term for them—are often about 25 per cent. and are, in fact, discounts obtained on the fiddle?
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for backing up the point I was making.
The Department's supplementary explanation of the document says that the agreement should provide the industry with greater protection. I hope that this is true, but we have not had much protection in the past. It is the level of improvement which matters and not just an improvement, because that could amount to very little.
In document S/183/78, the Department talks about growth rates being below 6 per cent., but since that is above the market growth of many products, some of which are often below 1 per cent., that sort of import growth could mean the end of the textile industry in 10 years or so. It is all very well for people to tell the industry to brace itself and get ready to meet the challenge of competition, but, if we continue to allow a growth of imports at a higher level than the growth of consumption, our industry will inevitably decline over the years. There is no room for complacency or self-satisfaction.
Document R/3375/77 deals with proof of origin. It is essential that we should try to preserve the principle that Community origin should be given only to products which have been truly and substantially processed within the EEC. 'That is vital. I hope that the Minister will insist on that when he next attends a meeting of European Ministers. We must insist that, if there is a certificate of origin from Europe, the goods must have been substantially produced in Europe.
There are bound to be loopholes in so complex a document. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible in negotiations for the right to be reserved to deal with anomalies or loopholes as they might arise, at least in the initial period. I hope that the Minister will be able to reserve that right.
In the accompanying notes with which hon. Members have been supplied, I

1307
note that Italy, France and Ireland require certificates of origin for goods subject to import restriction. I hope that the United Kingdom will follow those countries in requiring such certificates. Such a requirement would make available to the United Kingdom administrative delay procedures that some other countries are able to use effectively in times of stress and recession.
I draw to the Minister's attention the views of the British Chamber of Commerce about certificates or origin by saying that I hope he will insist that invoiced declarations by exporters are not acceptable as alternatives to certificates of origin except in rare cases—in other words, the MFA quotas that allow for uncertified invoice declarations will be regarded as the exception and not the rule—and that no precedent will be taken for introducing a method of doing away with certificates of origin.
There is much that requires to be done to give the industry the protection that it deserves. The tyre industry, for example, is not unconnected with the textile industry. As the tyre industry is now suffering, largely as a result of the dealings of multinationals in demanding that tyres used within the United Kingdom are produced outside it—certainly that applies to the cord that is used in making the tyres—there are serious problems for some sections of the textile industry. I have tabled a number of Questions about those problems. In addition, there is the denim that is coming in from the United States. Man-made fibres and a mixture of fabrics are also causing concern.
There is a need for anti-dumping legislation. Under the new agreement, we need to stop the bunching of imports so that many of the quota floods may be regulated. In other words, if it is possible for a large proportion of the quota to be taken at the beginning of the year, the market is flooded. That does not happen if the quota is spread over a year. It is to be hoped that something might be done in that respect.
I take the opportunity to commend to the British public the new pamphlet published by the Textile Industry Support Group called "Buy British". I hope that the public will buy British. The textile industry is a modern-equipped essential industry and it must be treated as such. The textile workers of Lanca
1308
shire and Yorkshire deserve better than they have had under both Tory and Labour Governments.
The Minister must make it clear in the EEC that we are seeking a fair deal for the industry. We seek that for the sake of sanity, fair play, honesty and those employed in the textile industry. When the Minister next attends a meeting of EEC Ministers, I hope that he will make it clear that that is exactly what Members representing textile constituencies intend to have, EEC or not.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Mike Noble: I am pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), because he has played a constant role in the battle that we have had for textiles. He has always been present in our debates and has always pressed the industry's point of view on the Government. That contrasts with the official Opposition party.
I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) to our debate. We have seen a number of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on textiles come and go. One of my colleagues mentioned to me that if only the British people would change their shirts as rapidly as the official Opposition change their spokesmen on textiles, the crisis in the industry would be over.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Macclesfield can provide the alternative and the shirts?
Mr. Noble: One of our greatest regrets is that we have not yet seen the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) at the Opposition Dispatch Box in textile debates.
It was significant that a few weeks ago a previous official Opposition spokesman on textiles, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), came to my constituency to address a meeting of Conservative trade unionists on the question of the official Conservative line on textiles. The 20 people who attended from North-East Lancashire, including the speaker, his associates, the party agent, the candidate and his wife and party officials, were disappointed that no line on textiles came from the Opposition. Tonight we can

1309
understand why. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South persistently refused to answer the simplest questions put to him by Labour Members.
The fact is that when the Opposition talk about a bipartisan approach to the textiles industry, we can identify the point where that bipartisan approach developed It developed on 21st February 1977, when the Government announced their policy on the MFA. The Opposition jumped on the Government's back because they knew that there were 14 textile marginal seats in Lancashire. That is the extent of their interest, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
I wish to make some observations on the MFA. I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, the Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—and the civil servants who were involved in the negotiations on the excellent job that they did in getting the Multi-Fibre Arrangement introduced.
I shall not sing a paean of praise for the Common Market. The fact is that the Government adopted a position and were forced to hammer it through the Common Market, at times in the teeth of substantial opposition. I should like to know from those who want to say that this is a Common Market achievement where we would have been had the Government been prepared to adopt the same kind of MFA Mark I as we had in the Common Market. We would have had nowhere near the number of restrictions that we now have. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends deserve credit for that.
I want to comment, as other hon. Members have done, on some of the strengths and weaknesses of the agreement. Since this debate is on Community textile policy in general, I want to base most of my remarks on other aspects of that policy.
The Mark I agreement led to wholesale disruption in the textile industry in this country. It allowed a massive inflow of imports. The agreement was evaded, as far as we can tell, and as a result thousands of textile workers in the North-West and in other parts of the country were made redundant.
1310
The present agreement is a much improved version. It covers a much wider range of commodities and countries. It has an improved mechanism for dealing with significant suppliers, it deals with sensitive products on a global basis and it reduces the level of growth in those products to a considerable extent.
However, there is still considerable cause for concern about the agreement. The fact that it allows a measure of growth of textile imports at a time of recession means that it will be some time before the Multi-Fibre Arrangement Mark II begins to bite. We should bear in mind that, despite all that has been said about the agreement, we are still talking about the textile industry in the midst of a devastating crisis.
Last week a group of us met representatives of the industry—employers and trade unionists. The agenda included 19 items of crisis; 19 items that were bringing unemployment and continuing short time working; 19 items which meant that mills were closing, such as the Tootals Mill, in Bolton, the closure of which was announced recently. That is a situation that we are talking about. In that situation any increased growth of textile imports can be devastating.
One of the specific points about which we are concerned, and which is included in the agreement, is that it allows for a measure of bunching. That means that one can get more of a proportion of imports coming in in the early part of the agreement. That in itself is causing serious problems for the industry.
There are substantial dangers arising out of the informal understanding with the Mediterranean countries. Hon. Members have mentioned these countries already. I was pleased to note that the Minister said that action on Spain can be taken promptly. Some weeks ago I mentioned to him the fiddle involved in the import of Spanish yarn. Discounts can be obtained. I should like some assurances that the fiddle is being tackled and that those merchants who are offering large quantities of yarn for sale from the Mediterranean associates can be stopped so that we can end this damage to confidence.
My hon. Friend failed to clear up another question satisfactorily. These

1311
informal arrangements with the Mediterranean associates are on only an annual basis. I should like an undertaking, regardless of the negotiating position of Spain, Portugal and Greece and regardless of the pressure of retaliation from Turkey, that we shall have no more imports of textile products from the Mediterranean associates next year than we have this year. It is essential that the Government stand firm on this issue and that they demand action from the EEC.
A number of my hon. Friends mentioned the weaknesses in the surveillance and monitoring techniques in the MFA. Its value exists entirely in the effectiveness of these techniques. In Italy there is a delay of about 10 weeks before information is available. Given the nature of the textile industry, in which a sudden flood of imports can lead to massive disruption in a short time, that delay is seriously damaging.
I pause to mention that there is now a further Front Bench spokesman or attendant for the Tory Party in the Chamber. We welcome the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). The 10-week delay compares with the 16-day period involved in this country. There is still a suspicion of free cycling of imports within the Community. The textile unions believe that this is the reason why there is no effective surveillance in Holland. That absence of effective surveillance can result in serious damage to the industry.
What pressures can Ministers bring to bear on the EEC to correct this? The Minister's response that we can only persuade was not satisfactory. If the EEC claims that it is handling this problem on our behalf it must deal with the absence of an effective surveillance mechanism in the member countries.
On the whole the MFA is a substantial step forward. It provides much greater protection than the industry has experienced before. Not only Members of the House but people in the industry recognise that and welcome the stand taken by the Government. We must take action as soon as possible wherever there is a sign of disruption from new sources, and we must secure better control over the Mediterranean associates. We must also improve our surveillance techniques. That is the most urgent requirement.
Perhaps I may take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for
1312
Rochdale on dumping. Many of us are not satisfied that the new arrangements for dealing with the problem of dumping within the EEC are satisfactory. There is a strong suspicion that denim is being dumped in large quantities from Switzerland and the United States, and this is disrupting some of the major producers in this country. Urgent action is required.
There is also the problem of the imports of tyres and tyre cord. I have a letter from the Oldham Tyre Cord Company Limited, which is situated in the Oldham West constituency. That company has had a record of 28 years of all-out production. In the last few months production has been cut back and the company faces a serious crisis, with the possibility of closure. The company makes the point in the letter that
"The major cause of our problem has been the loss of sales of tyres by our customers the tyre manufacturers, resulting from the high level of import penetration. This is affecting them in two ways. Firstly, the importation of cars, which has increased substantially in the last 12 months, particularly from Japan, has resulted in the loss of a considerable part of the original equipment market. Secondly, the importation of tyres for the replacement market."
They point out that this tyre penetration has gone up from 10 per cent. in 1973 to 20 per cent. in 1978. These figures do not include the tyres imported by multinational companies or in the name of rationalisation. The letter continues
"A large proportion of these imports are from Eastern European countries at prices far below the United Kingdom manufacturing costs. This poses the question, 'do these cheap tyres meet accepted safety standards?'".
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this matter up with the Department of Transport with a view to investigation. We have to come to terms with the position of the multi-national companies which in the last 12 months have been switching production around at the expense of British workers' jobs and British companies.
I wish to raise also the question of Government purchasing. During the last four years we have conducted in this Chamber—we have been supported outside by the unions and the employers—a substantial campaign to persuade Government Departments to buy British textile goods. Thanks to the pressure exercised by my hon. Friend the Minister

1313
and some of his colleagues we have had a major success. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself made a recommendation to the effect that Government purchasing departments should buy British. However, there is a strong rumour that this directive to the public sector will expire in July. Perhaps that is the result of some kind of pressure from the Common Market—I do not know whether that is so. If that is the case, that in itself will pose a serious and critical problem for many sectors of the industry, particularly those which are producing for the Health Service and for other Government Departments. The whole question of that directive should now be reviewed. Its operation should be continued indefinitely if there is to be any chance of restoring confidence to the industry.
Let me deal now with the EEC policy for textiles across a wider front. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Harrow, East on the Opposition Front Bench because he told us what a wonderful job the Common Market was doing for the British textile industry. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), who ought to know better, was saying that the Common Market had done a grand job, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) pointed out to him a newspaper cutting he said that that was concerned with the ILO and it did not matter. I have a document which conies from the European Communities—it is a Commission background report dated 5th April 1978, and part of it deals with the textile industry. It refers to
"lame duck industries".
Is our textile industry a lame duck industry? The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South said that our textile industry has a first-rate record in investment, labour relations, marketing, exporting and so on. Here we have the Common Market saying that
"Lame duck industries represent a threat not only to the trading efficiency and competitiveness of the Common Market but also to its unity, because, when demand falls in particular sectors, as for example with steel, textiles and shipbuilding, governments are tempted to bolster up the industry concerned with aid or even with import restrictions."
There we have it. Textiles is lumbered as a lame duck industry.
1314
The document goes on to say that reorganisation is necessary, but
"is possible only if workers can be certain at the same time of effective regional conversion measures being taken"
—that is a bureaucratic phrase; it means "Go out on the dole, lads"—
"including the provision of new jobs and the retraining of the workforce.… The creation of such jobs will first require renewed investment in industry and services, together with an improved economic climate and the application of specific measures for regional development."
There is a very powerful threat to the textile industry coming from the European Community. Whereas the article in The Guardian of today mentions a possible loss of jobs to the tune of 1·75 million in the European textile industry in the next seven or eight years, I have had a figure from a very reliable source—the trade unions within the textile industry—of 1·5 million in the next five years, throughout Europe.
We must ask whether the Multi-Fibre Arrangement is designed simply to create an opportunity to give the textile industry a decent funeral rather than a hasty burial. It seems to me that there are some sectors of the European Community that are determined to do the industry down.
I also have a copy of notes taken on behalf of the trade union delegation which met the Vice-President of the Commission, Wilhelm Haferkamp, who has special responsibility for external relations, when they went to discuss the prospects for the industry with him. Mr. Haferkamp said to the delegation that it was necessary, therefore, that the EEC must give up some of its traditional industries and that there had to be a programme of restructuring and a development of other industries. He said that whilst it had been hoped that a 10-year agreement would be achieved—he was talking about the MFA—only a five-year agreement had been possible. The five years obtained must be used for restructuring the industry. He said that it would be necessary to wait and see what happened in five years' time, but for the present we had to ensure that everything was ready for 1983. What does it mean to say "ready for 1983"? It means 1·5 million workers thrown out of work. We recall the words of Commissioner Vouel when he was talking about temporary employment subsidy and

1315
the subsidising of industries, and said that this might be better dealt with on some occasions by social measures and unemployment rather than propping up industries.
Our case, and the Opposition's case—if they mean it—for the textile industry is that the industry is efficient and modern and that, therefore, it should not need propping up. What it needs is some kind of protection against unfair competition.
I go further. Only a few weeks ago, during the debate on the black list mark I, or at about that time, I introduced into the Chamber a document which was a black list mark II. It was a document from the Common Market. It referred to the fact that certain grants, on the recommendation of the Commission, were to be withheld from certain sectors of the textile industry. I should like to quote a letter from a source of some influence and knowledge within the textile industry. I am not at liberty to give his name, but if any hon. Member wishes to see the letter, I shall be pleased to give it to him. He orginally sent me the black list. He said in his letter:
"As I understand it, the 'black list' is or was to be applied to any form of intervention by the Commission, whether it be for regional funding, social funding or European Investment Bank."
He went on further to say:
"To me it is a negation of the democatic process that decisions, such as these"
—referring to the withdrawal of grants—
"could be taken and actions being implemented which could result in the elimination of small or large sectors of industry without concurrent provision for establishing or introducing new industries and work into the areas so affected."
That has happened in Italy. In the man-made fibre industry, 3,000 jobs have gone. We know what has been meant by "providing alternative work". Of those workers, 600 have got jobs—making plastic flowers. I do not want to see my constituents in the textile industry condemned to manufacturing plastic flowers when they have been highly skilled workers in the textile industry. As the representatives of those people, of the unions and of the employers, we have a right to know exactly what is in the Commission's mind about a future strategy for the textile industry.
What I have said paints a black picture. Regardless of the success of the
1316
MFA, it is obvious that there are significant threats to the well-being of these industries. How can we ensure that they survive and that those workers who lose their jobs are adequately compensated? Some of my colleagues and I visited the British Textile Employers Federation in October and pressed strenuously for an industrial strategy. I am pleased to say that the employers have now come around to the union view that a shape is needed for the industry to take it into 1983, when the present version of the MFA runs out. That is due to pressure by the unions.
This industry must be planned in the interests of its workers. I would say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—that his Department has a substantial responsibility. It goes beyond a sector working party. The industry cannot be healthy when one major company controls such a large section, for example, of the spinning sector. That is a valid area for investment by the National Enterprise Board, where we should seek a planning agreement. I hope that the Minister will look at it in that way.
If the Common Market is planning the rundown of the textile industry to make 1½ million workers in Europe redundant—in other words, to lay the industry alongside steel and shipbuilding—those workers have a right to the same redundancy terms as are available in those other two industries. Some people have worked 40 years in the textile industry. What scope is there for retraining them? How can we retrain a Pakistani night shift worker who has difficulty in understanding English and consequently cannot get promotion in his own firm? They are not ciphers or beings to be manipulated by the Commission or any other gang of bureaucrats; they are people, and if they cannot get work they deserve the kind of compensation given in other industries.
The pamphlet to which the hon. Member for Rochdale referred exhorts us to "buy British". The reason is jobs. We should start shouting that message louder. In terms of quality, price and delivery, the British textile industry can compare with any in the world. It is time that some buyers from our big stores came to terms with that fact and decided to support this country as well as the textile

1317
workers have been supporting it for the last 25 years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate will have to end at 11.30 and five hon. Members hope to catch my eye—apart from the winding-up speech. They can do so only if others will make shorter speeches and at most take less than 15 minutes.
9.54 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall certainly heed your advice, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that all hon. Members who wish to speak can take part in this important debate.
I am pleased yet again to follow the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), who has entertained the House with a controversial and interesting speech in his normal manner. I find myself in considerable agreement with a great deal of what he said, with many of the proposals he put to the Minister and with many of his requests about how the textile industry in this country should proceed.
May I say very strongly from the Opposition Benches that if Europe is planning to phase out the European textile industry—I am naturally particularly interested in the United Kingdom textile industry—and make 1½ million people unemployed, or to try to direct them to other industries, I hope that the House will give a firm answer to that proposal tonight, saying that it is a non-starter. The British textile industry is a vital and strategic industry in this country. We believe that our industry must survive, just as we believe that the textile industries in other European countries must also survive in order to form part of the economy of Europe as a whole, and a very important part of that economy.
Mr. Roper: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is a plot to undermine the European textile and clothing industry. How can that be consistent with the fact that the Commission and the Community have just negotiated what can be described, and has been described by the industry and Ministers, as the most effective protection the industry has ever had?
Mr. Winterton: I remind the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, plays a leading
1318
part in the European Parliament, that the statistic I have just quoted—that 1½ million persons might well be redeployed from the textile industry in Europe—was mentioned a few minutes ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. All I can say is that I know that this matter has been raised and discussed because it has been raised in my presence, and in the presence of the hon. Member for Rossendale, by leading representatives of the textile industry in this country, who have regular contacts with their counterparts within the European Economic Community.
But, having said that and stated firmly that I would not be party to any agreement to reduce the size of the textile industry within the EEC, or within the United Kingdom as part of the Community, I agree with the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) that the Multi-Fibre Arrangement which has been negotiated is certainly the best agreement that the textile industry in this country could have negotiated. It certainly can be considered a considerable triumph for Europe as a whole to have negotiated it.
I pay tribute to all those—the Government and others—who have been party to the MFA, which, whilst I hope it will be good, is very much untried. How right the Minister was to say that we have yet to see how effective the MFA will be. Three months into the MFA is no time to judge this new agreement. Perhaps this time next year or the year after will be the time to judge just how effective it has been.
Mr. Dykes: I find myself in a difficult position, because there is no way in which the Commission or the Community is represented officially in this House. But I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the House into thinking that there is any proposal in the Community to, to use his phrase, phase out the British textile industry or employment therein. Simply because a Labour Member suggested that, quite irresponsibly, in a speech earlier, it would be wrong for my hon. Friend to follow up such an erroneous and misleading idea.
Mr. Winterton: I endeavoured to advise the House that that figure had been mentioned to me outside the Chamber—although it was raised by the hon. Member for Rossendale—by leading representatives of the British textile industry. I

1319
hope that it is no more than a story or a rumour, but it is always best that even a rumour should be scotched at the earliest possible opportunity. I have put my weight behind the argument that that rumour must never start. We have a duty to a vital and strategic industry.
I went on to pay tribute to the negotiations carried out by Europe as a whole in the renegotiations of the MFA, which overall has produced what has been described by hon. Members on both sides of the House as a very satisfactory agreement, a very useful package, which we most feverently hope and believe will be helpful to the British textile industry.
I should like for a moment to comment on a remark made by the hon. Member for Rossendale. I think that he was a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who opened for the Opposition, and to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). Although I have not been elevated to the Opposition Front Bench, or even to the second echelon of Opposition Front Bench speakers on trade, employment or industrial matters, I believe that in a small way I have had some influence on my colleagues who have responsibility for these matters. I therefore think that the hon. Member for Rossendale was very unfair in saying that my colleagues in the House were advancing a particular policy merely for electoral reasons. I am delighted that I am joined in this view by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), was instrumental in producing a paper which led my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives to make the proposals that he made during the debate in February 1977.
Although I do not sit on the Opposition Front Bench, I hope that I have some influence on my colleagues, having taken a very serious interest in all textile matters. I feel that the hon. Member for Rossendale was somewhat unfair in doubting the sincerity of the proposals put forward by the Conservative Opposition in the House. Having said that, however, I remain deeply concerned about the position of the textile industry in this country, despite the renegotiated MFA.
1320
It has been mentioned that Tootal, a very substantial employer in the textile industry, has sadly been forced to make a number of redundancies. Only a few weeks ago in this House I raised a matter relating to Tootal, which had closed a mill in my constituency, although it had indicated two or three years earlier that the production in that mill was likely to continue in my town of Congleton well beyond the end of the century. But reorganisation and rationalisation of the industry have meant that the company pulled out production from Condura Fabrics in Congelton and moved it up to Cumbria, where it no doubts benefits the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Page).
This clearly shows that the MFA has not as yet had any marked effect upon textiles, and the very serious situation that we have been experiencing in recent years continues. Unemployment in the industry is going up. Mills are closing. Although investment has been made, we still face very unfair competition.
One of the main areas of importance is the monitoring of the surveillance which is all part of the MFA. As has been so clearly stated by a number of speakers in the debate, it is no good the United Kingdom having a 16-day reporting record if the Netherlands, Italy, Germany or France cannot supply the vital information in or about that time. The Netherlands at the moment is expected to have delays of about six or seven weeks, and Italy eight to 10 weeks, but, as the Minister said, perhaps that is not totally surprising. For the Irish Republic and Belgium the time is within four weeks, provided that special arrangements are made. For West Germany, 28 days is regarded as acceptable, and the delay for Denmark, 24 to 30 days, is also acceptable, as is that for France, 25 days. The United Kingdom is at the top of the league with 16 days. If we can do it, I do not see why the other members of the EEC cannot also achieve that result.
I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Farnworth that we were a little disappointed in the Minister's reaction to this matter when he spoke for the Government earlier in the debate. I hope that the Minister will take note of this point and ensure, through the various bodies, organisations, committees and

1321
commissions that exist within the EEC that the countries which comprise Europe will tighten up on this matter and provide this vital data very much faster, in order that the surveillance can be effective.
This is an important debate. It is not only about the existing MFA and whether that will work. It enables hon. Members who serve textile areas to put forward their concern on behalf of the industry and to say how they see things developing in the future.
I very much share the views expressed by Labour Members about the performance of the industry and the extent of rationalisation that has taken place. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South paid tribute to the industry for its fine industrial relations record and its fine record with regard to exports. It is a major industry, but it has suffered for years from what I can only describe as unfair competition. We are not after protection for a lame duck industry. We are not after protection for an industry which has not rationalised or invested with the most up-to-date, technologically advanced equipment and machinery. We are not trying to protect an industry where the trade unions are on strike every other week. This industry has a fine record in all these areas. Tonight we are expressing our concern that the MFA, as it has been renegotiated, may not be sufficient to ensure the future of an industry for which I have considerable admiration and respect.
I am concerned about surveillance because that is really the linchpin of whether the MFA, as it has been renegotiated, will be successful. There are a number of other matters to which I could have turned my attention, particularly the quota coverage. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was right to highlight that and other matters.
However, it is worth repeating what the Minister said. About 86 per cent. of the United Kingdom's low-cost imports of textiles and clothing are now covered by MFA quotas. The figure would be increased, and is increased, to 98 per cent. if State trading suppliers and potential new quotas under the trigger mechanism
1322
are also included. It is perhaps also worth pointing out—again, this is where the EEC can take some credit—that the EEC has introduced a new product categorisation providing a sub-division of some 120 items compared with only 60 items under the previous arrangement. That means that MFA can be very much more flexible and that it will cover many more items which perhaps escaped under the old situation.
The hon. Member for Rochdale was absolutely right to refer to growth rate. I should like to mention the excellent document produced by the Textile Industry Support Campaign entitled "Why Buy British? Jobs! That's Why". It asks "What is the answer?" and summarises the key concerns as follows:
"Annual growth rate of our domestic market is less than one per cent. It is essential that the import growth rate be brought into alignment with the growth of the domestic market"
The hon. Member for Rochdale made that point and I believe that he was right to do so. It seems irrelevant, stupid and irresponsible if the MFA as renegotiated allows for growth rates of 6 per cent., 7 per cent. and 8 per cent.—in the case of woven shirts there is likely to be a 10 per cent. increase—between 1977 and 1978. If our own home market has a growth rate of only 1 per cent., we are further and further eroding our own home market, which is vital if our home textile industry is to continue to produce the fine export record which it has achieved in the past.
This has been a useful debate. I am pleased to have contributed to it. I hope that the strong stand which has been adopted in the past will continue in the future in order to guarantee the success and prosperity of the 800,000 people who work in this excellent industry.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Dan Jones: My first act in rising to my feet is to look at the clock. In deference to Mr. Speaker's appeal, I hope to conclude what I have to say in five or six minutes.
Partisan politics to one side it is always a pleasure to be called immediately

1323
after the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in a textile debate. He has made a herculean effort to help the people concerned, and I follow his example in supporting the industry.
I at any rate congratulate the Government on their efforts within the EEC. I am not unaware that this achievement has been stimulated by members of the present Government. Full marks must go to them. They have done a splendid job and if they build on what they have achieved we can look forward to a greater period of industrial stability in the industry.
I want briefly to refer to the speech today of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of which he spoke of the future economy of the nation. It was significant to those of us who understand industrial economics as distinct from financial economics that my right hon. Friend was saying that the ability of this country to export in the future would be a very valuable contributory factor in preserving the economic equilibrium of the nation and that any failure to do so might return us to the situation from which we have just emerged of high inflation and the ugly possibility of even more unemployment.
I feel sometimes that our Ministers have the right aims in mind without quite knowing how to achieve them. I could go on for some time about the engineering industry, in which I worked, and about the lack of apprentices there. However, this is not the occasion for doing that. But I hope that all of us who have been involved in textiles for some time will pay homage to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), who perhaps stole a little too much time tonight but who nevertheless for years has devoted a great deal of intelligent effort to this industry, and I feel that we should thank him for doing so.
I have certain misgivings about the Mediterranean countries, and I hope that the problem which appears to be arising there will be tackled in precisely the same way as that in the other low-cost countries. If we do that, we really have a better situation before us. If we do as well in this concord with the EEC as the EEC has done for itself, it will not be a bad job at the end of the day.
1324
We have heard references to the steel industry and to the automobile industry. They are industries which have been assisted financially on an extremely generous scale. I do not ask for a penny for the textile industry, but I should like to see a fairly substantial sum of Government money devoted to propagating the British textile industry with our major buyers.
I sometimes ask myself how much people like Harrods, Derry and Toms, Selfridges and others spend on British textiles and how much they spend in Switzerland, for instance, where they can get a fashionable name attached to their products. I hazard a guess that they spend more on the Continent than they do in this country for precisely that reason. That is why I urge the Government to spend money on propagating a cause which is fully entitled to it.
I have in mind the occasion in 1948 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the late Sir Stafford Cripps came to Burnley and begged the people to hold firm to textiles. At the time there was a great deal of foot-loose industry, but the people responded. I am loth to quote the old cliche that the nation's bread hangs on Lancashire's thread, because it rings a bit bloody empty now. But the people of that old Lancashire town responded to the appeal and turned their backs on foot-loose industry. Now it is time for the Government to appreciate that in a practical way and spend some millions of pounds on propagating the value of the British textile industry and its comparability with anything that can be done abroad.
That is the kind of contribution that the industry makes. It has helped the EEC in the MFA and it keeps a tight control on Mediterranean countries. It has spent money propagating the sale of British goods in line with the observations made by the Chancellor this afternoon. I am certain that it has a damned sight better future now than it had during the years when it was sustained under the sometimes intolerable hardships of the 1960s. The Government have started to do a decent job of work. If they continue, they will do a rich service to the textile industry, which has been of great value to this country.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. James Lamond: This has been an extremely interesting debate. However, it seems that we discuss textiles either just before Christmas or on the evening after the Budget Statement—times when the remarks of hon. Members will receive the minimum publicity. Nevertheless, it is still important that we should have this debate.
It has been interesting to note the way in which one or two hon. Members have attempted to use the debate as a vehicle to lavish praise upon the EEC. The ears of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry have been burning red with anger as he has listened to all the praise being given, unjustly perhaps, to other members of the EEC. I think that we could have made better arrangements operating on our own—
Mr. Cryer: Pour it on.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think anyone knows what is wrong.
Mr. Lamond: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to hear you calling me to order, but I am rather surprised to hear the Under-Secretary doing so.
Mr. Cryer: I did not. I said "Pour it on", which is an Australian expression.
Mr. Lamond: The fact is that a very large proportion of the textile industry within the EEC is to be found in Britain. Therefore, as with the CAP, we have a particular interest in it because it affects us more strongly than any other member State.
I think that we could have struck a better bargain had we been outside the EEC. Of course, that is a matter for conjecture and no one will ever know the answer to that. We have achieved a new Multi-Fibre Arrangement which hon. Members have generally praised. But there are certain drawbacks. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has drawn attention to these, and almost every complaint put to us by the industry has been aired tonight.
I am sure that the Minister will say something about other Government measures to help the textile industry. I hope that he will mention the TES, which has
1326
been most useful to textiles particularly. I quote from the remarks of Mr. John Longworth, the secretary of the textile industry support campaign, who said recently that he could not stress too strongly that in his opinion the TES was the most effective preserver of jobs that had ever been devised. He did not write that without thinking about it carefully. We should all recognise the importance of that sentence in his letter to me.
I am very glad that the Government were able to announce recently the extension of TES for a further period and the strengthening of TES to include the new areas and to assist firms to which TES is available but which have exhausted it. All those things are very important for textiles. The Government should be thanked and praised for what they have done in that respect.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell the House how many jobs are supported by TES in the textile industry? From my researches in my constituency, I am amazed at the number of jobs in textiles and allied industries which are supported by TES.
Mr. Lamond: I should not like to put an exact figure on it. As has been mentioned by the Opposition Front Bench, the textile industry covers a multitude of industries, including garment manufacture and all the rest, but it must run into tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in the textile industry as a whole. It is, therefore, extremely valuable.
I want to say something about what I hope the Government will do in the future. They have exerted a supreme effort. They have obtained the MFA. They will not sit back. We are assured of that. There is much to be done in tightening up the surveillance and so on. I believe that the fair competition which is mentioned in the documents includes obtaining in the countries which compete against us the same sort of safety conditions, working hours and wages as we have in this country. For that purpose, in my opinion strong trade unions are necessary in all the competing countries.
I realise that so many countries are covered by the arrangement that it is impossible for our Government to see that the correct provisions are applied in those countries for the development of trade unions, but there is one country

1327
which exports a great deal to us—namely, the Crown colony of Hong Kong. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Foreign Office has commissioned Professor Turner to prepare a study of labour relations in Hong Kong. Many of us are awaiting publication of that report with keen interest, as are many of the textile unions in this country. We want to see the opportunity given at least for textile workers in Hong Kong to be able to organise themselves in trade unions.
A number of papers have been prepared for submission to Professor Turner by organisations of one kind or another, including Chinese, in Hong Kong which are already trying to organise unions, and trade unions in this country have given him the benefit of their thoughts. In those papers they have revealed conditions which I think would be intolerable to most hon. Members. For instance, until recently no trade union was permitted to have a full-time organiser, and many possible trade union members in Hong Kong are fearful of joining trade unions and becoming organised in case they are labelled as trouble-makers and deported back to the Chinese People's Republic because of their activity. With threats of that kind hanging over their heads, there is great difficulty in organising trade unions. I hope that the Government will turn their attention to this matter.
With those remarks, and joining with my colleagues in congratulating the Government on what they have already achieved, I hope that they will have regard to what I have said and will study the matter more closely.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Max Madden: Enthusiastic supporters of the Common Market, who in this House are often referred to as Euro-fanatics, have been extremely busy in this debate. I view membership of the Common Market in the same way as I view the man who was found bashing his head against a brick wall. Asked why he did it, he replied "It is so nice when I stop."
I think that the same can be said of the difficulties which EEC membership has imposed on the British textile industry. It is remark able in this debate how supporters of the EEC, when con-
1328
cronted with difficulties which membership has imposed on the British textile industry, try to claim whatever credit they think they can derive for the Common Market.
We all remember—and this applies to those who are listening to this debate—that the outcome of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement was secured not because of enthusiastic support by the Common Market but at the insistence over months and months by British Ministers who pressed the Common Market for a much tougher negotiating position than it was initially prepared to adopt. Therefore, in my view no credit can be given to the Common Market for the outcome of the MFA negotiations for Britain.
Equally, we must remember that the temporary employment subsidy, which has played such an important part in helping and safeguarding employment in the British textile industry, is being removed next year, again under pressure from the Common Market. That also must be seen as a serious setback to the British textile industry—a setback which has arisen as a result of pressure from the Common Market.
Finally, there has been mention in this debate, not for the first time, of the need for much more effective action on dumping. We must remind everybody that primary responsibility for taking action against dumping now rests with the European Commission and that Britain is no longer a free and independent agent on dumping matters. All these difficulties which have arisen as a result of Common Market membership must be seen clearly by all sides of the British textile industry, and I know that they are clearly recognised by many workers in the industry.
The British Textile Confederation, in a letter which it sent to many hon. Members, has been referred to several times in the debate. I should like to refer to a part of that letter which highlights the three main areas of concern felt by the confederation. The first is that in 1978 substantial growth of imports can take place before quotas begin to bite. Secondly, the confederation is concerned that the arrangements with the Mediterranean countries, including Turkey, Greece, Tunisia, Morocco, Spain and Portugal, offer a potential loophole. Thirdly, it is concerned about the effectiveness of the agreements, which are

1329
dependent on rapid monitoring of imports and rapid corrective action when necessary.
A number of hon. Members in this debate have expressed serious doubt and concern about the effectiveness of the current arrangements. I shall not dwell on those arguments. I hope that in replying to the debate my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to concentrate on what I believe should be the major issue flowing from it—namely, the question "What is the strategy for the European textile industry in the next 10 years?"
I believe that the MFA must be seen as an important foundation in that strategy, and I wish to endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), who has saved me a considerable area of argument because he has pointed to the serious concern which exists. Whatever the source of the figures, it is beyond argument that there are leading and influential figures within the Common Market and the Commission who see a rapid decline of the European textile industry, with massive redundancies. Figures as high as 1 million, 1½ million and 1¾ million have been suggested.
We must recognise that Britain is the largest textile country in the Common Market. We have the largest share of the industry and the largest number of employees, and traditionally we have borne the largest amount of imports. Therefore our involvement, concern and interest in this matter are very much greater than exist in the rest of the Common Market countries.
There are often conflicting self-interest groups in the Common Market, and we must recognise that we face a prospect that is not faced by many other EEC countries. We must have the greatest concern and involvement in these matters, and I should like to hear from the Minister what position the Government will be adopting in the discussions on the textile industry which must inevitably take place in the foreseeable future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) expressed the concern that exists about woollen and worsted imports from the Argentine. In
1330
terms of quality, weight and design, these imports are coming in at anything up to 50 per cent. less than the cost of production in this country. I and the British woollen and worsted manufacturers would like to know what prospects there are of an early countervailing duty being imposed on these imports, which clearly are subsidised and represent grossly unfair competition.
In addition, what is being done about Japanese imports and the prospect of still more imports from that country? I understand that in the past few days China has signed a five-year trading agreement with the Common Market. What implication does this have for the British textile industry, what imports of textiles can we expect from China and, in return, what efforts are the Departments of Industry and Trade taking to ensure that we get some trade with China as a result of this agreement?
I should also like to know what success the Government are having in their extensive discussions with the Americans on reducing the effective 50 per cent. tariff which British wool exporters face when exporting to America. This very high tariff is extremely unfair and we can see no need for it. If the American desire for freer trade is genuine, we expect an early response from the American authorities towards reducing this very high tariff against British goods.
Arguments are often advanced by those who oppose selective import controls that these controls would deny the British people sources of cheap goods, including textiles and clothing. But many of us, when we see these supposedly cheap imported textile goods in the shops, find that they are not as cheap as they should be and we wonder where all the money is going.
Does the Minister accept that the time has come for an investigation, perhaps by the Price Commission, into the profit levels of importers, wholesalers and retailers who specialise in imported textiles and clothing? It would be extremely interesting to see the extent of British involvement in imports of this sort and the extent to which profiteering is taking place. It would be a helpful study. Is the Minister prepared to make representations to his right hon. Friends along those lines?

1331
Workers and management in the textile industry regard the MFA as a useful advance but are not sanguine or complacent about the protection it offers. They realise that it will be only as good as the machinery to achieve its objectives is capable of being worked. There are considerable doubts about the effectiveness of the existing monitoring arrangement, and there is great cynicism. It is believed that the British are the last gentlemen left in Europe, and certainly in terms of textiles and clothing. It is believed that we are the people who observe the letter of each and every agreement, the people who always say and do what we say we shall do, who do the decent thing and who at the end of the day always seem to come off worst in trading agreements.
The time has been reached when we must say firmly to our so-called European partners, and to many other countries with whom we have agreements, that we want agreements that stick, agreements that are mutually observed and agreements that everybody observes. There is growing hostility and cynicism without our textile industry about the extent to which many of those against whom we are competing are genuine and honest in these matters. There are many stories that every hon. Member has heard from textile manufacturers and textile trade unionists about the loopholes, devices and manoeuvres to which our competitors resort. They are prepared to sign the agreements and to say that they will observe them, but in reality, in day-to-day competition with us, they do not observe the agreements. We should be much more alert and aware of the problems.
To return to the European strategy, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must recognise that there is great determination among textile unions to take a much more aggressive and involved position than they have done hitherto. I look forward very much to that new approach. It is only in co-operation and joint action with European trade unions that we can get effective protection for our industry, which I believe is of paramount importance. I hope to hear from my hon. Friend what assistance he is offering the trade unions and the industry to ensure that that sort of move is initiated and that every possible support is
1332
given to those who wish to see an effective and realistic European textile strategy evolved, and evolved quickly.
10.38 p.m.
Mr. Giles Shaw: In following the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), I am conscious that in many of his remarks about the EEC I cannot share his opinion. That will come as no surprise to him or to other hon. Members.
It is somewhat sterile that in a debate on textiles in the light of the MFA we should spend so much time determining whether the EEC has played fair on the issue or whether we might have done better outside the Community. The facts are that we are within the Community and we are staying within it. The sooner we learn to abide within the Community and to fight hard from our own corner, the better. It is right that Labour Members have given due credit to the Ministers concerned in the negotiations for the stout ring that they held as regards the MFA. We shall be as good within the Community as the commitment of our Government seeks, and for no other reason.
If we can find good cause for saying to our partners in the EEC that there is a strong national interest that we shall see is protected, in the end good sense will triumph and we shall obtain protection for our national interest. As regards the textile negotiations, I feel certain that the strong effort put in first by the industry's representatives—I think all hon. Members recognise that the British Textile Confederation and, in my neck of the woods, in Yorkshire the wool textile delegation has been able to put a totally united view to the Department concerned primarily with the negotiations—has helped immensely to strengthen the hand of the British Government in their negotiations with our Community colleagues. Do not let us start casting aspersions about whether the EEC did us proud. The important thing is that we have arrived at the MFA negotiation, which is a stepping-stone to the future of the industries that we all seek to represent.
I come now to the major points in the debate. It seems that there are three major concerns for all hon. Members, and they cut across all party lines. The first is the anxiety about monitoring or surveillance procedures. This stems from a long history of doubt about whether

1333
the mechanisms currently available to provide the Government with the information they seek are sensitive enough to provide that information early enough for action to be taken which can prevent a difficult situation becoming critical.
I refer, for example, to the position on clothing imports last year or 18 months ago. It took a great deal of time before there was sufficient evidence available under the anti-dumping procedures to enable the case to be made. The Under-Secretary of State played a strong and excellent part, but he would be the first to admit that it took a long time for the information to be made available to allow the case to be made. By that time, many clothing companies had already suffered irreparable damage.
When we bring matters up to date and look at certain other textile import problems—the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) raised the question of Argentine wool cloth imports, as did the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden)—the question that we have to ask is, what is the minimum amount of information that the Department requires to make use of the powers that it possesses to prevent what appears to be a dangerous situation from becoming critical?
We are not interested in being able to prove beyond peradventure that it will cause damage. The causing of damage, in order to prove it, means irreparable damage. Therefore, we would have to prove to the Department of Trade that so many hundred jobs had been lost or that five, six or seven companies had gone bankrupt and the situation had become virtually intolerable.
I am sure that the Government recognise that that is asking for too much. What we have to establish with the Minister, and he with our colleagues within the EEC, is the minimum requirement of information that will enable the Government to use the powers at their disposal either to take countervailing action or, with the co-operation of the EEC, to start taking action throughout the Community. I think that the Under-Secretary of State in his reply might suggest the minimum terms required, because we cannot allow ourselves to wait and see companies go to the wall before action is taken.
1334
My first point is that monitoring and surveillance are all very well as a concept, but we need that concept defined in such a way that the industry can have some confidence that it is a practical solution to bankruptcy. If in the end bankruptcy has to come before we can provide countervailing measures, that is no good to any hon. Member.
Secondly, there is the question of opening other markets. Hon. Members have rightly suggested that we should look beyond the MFA, which is a useful and important milestone in the control of imports, to the more positive side of our trading initiatives. What steps can the Community take or can we take unilaterally to start to make other markets available to the United Kingdom's textile industry?
This country faces severe tariff barriers at the gates of many of the world's most important developing markets. Reference has already been made to the stringent tariffs on wool fabrics in the United States. It is ludicrous for the Prime Minister and President Carter to discuss the liberalisation of world trade if they cannot get down to some nitty-gritty detail as to where United Kingdom interests would be best served. I can think of no single change which would benefit the wool textile industry more than for some sensible concession to be made concerning the virtual 50 per cent. duty imposed by the United States on the importation of British manufactured wool cloth. I hope that we might get some indication that that kind of item is on the shopping list of discussion with the United States.
It is not only the United States, though that is easily the most developed market which denies access in competitive terms, but Brazil, with its 205 per cent. duty on cottons and on woollens. What steps are being taken by the Government to try to liberalise trade into South America? These markets must have a major part to play in the development of our wool textile industry. The South Koreans have an 80 per cent. tariff on imports into their country.
Those countries have in recent years exported a substantial amount to us. British consumers have certainly done more than their fair share to provide an adequate market for Korean merchandise. But, with an 80 per cent. tariff against us in that country, what chance do we have

1335
of making a reciprocal trading arrangement that makes competitive sense? These are the kinds of questions we should be asking ourselves in considering where we can open up new markets for our textiles. I suspect that it is only with new markets that we can look forward to a developing future for our industry.
I turn now to the need for flexibility in the management of our textile companies. I make no apology for standing four square behind the record of the wool textile industry in this regard. Through historical accident it has developed into a wide range of small manufacturing units, which allows them to be extremely flexible over design and type. In my constituency, companies which have been denied traditional outlets for their material have diversified rapidly into such things as billiard cloth or piano felt. One has become a large wholesaler of caravans in addition to the textile operation. These companies have shown great skill for diversity. It is no use this House taking views on the future of the industry without recognising that there will be no future unless there is flexibility in the management of the companies. They must be encouraged to be entrepreneurial, which was the reason for their creation.
Today's Budget and the changes that the Chancellor is proposing for small businesses are good stuff for the woollen textile industry because most of the companies are small businesses and many of them are family businesses. But flexibility of design and of marketing and a branching out into allied industry, if that is possible, are encouraging aspects which should be well understood in the industry.
In the context of the EEC documents, we must draw two conclusions. First, the MFA negotiations have been successfully concluded as a result of strong British Government and industry pressure backed up by hon. Members in this House. We cannot expect the Community to do our job for us. We must do it ourselves. But the MFA is merely a staging post through which the development of textiles is to proceed. What really counts is the second conclusion, namely, that the future of the textile industry will always be as good as the management and entrepreneurial flare of those industries.
1336
I fully understand the anxieties expressed about the numbers of jobs and about TES and other aids which are available to allow persons to continue to be employed in the industry. But those aids cannot guarantee that the industry's products are updated to meet the demands of the market or that the price of its products will be competitive enough to take business off the South Koreans or the Taiwanese. They certainly cannot guarantee that ultimately management is sufficiently quick on its feet to make the right decisions to ensure that truly competitive products are marketed. The industry's potential is crucial to the economic well-being of the nation.
This point was well taken in the 1978 progress report of the Wool Textile EDC, which made it clear that it wanted the Government to
"strive for a substantial reduction in the US tariff on wool cloth … The Government should be prepared to negotiate on EEC textile tariffs only if US textile tariffs are included in the negotiations."
It continued:
"The EDC welcomes the market entry scheme, but recommends that the Government reconsider the decision to put back on BOTB support for joint ventures."
I would like to see a greater development on the exporting front to encourage this industry and to make certain that it can take advantage of any trading opportunities that can be created.
The impetus will come, certainly, within the Community if it provides a more stable base from which the home industry can regenerate itself. The structural position of the wool textile industry in particular is sounder today than it ever has been. The Section 8 changes have largely gone through. The shake-out—be it of unwanted plant, of poor management or, tragically, of additional employment—has already taken place. Certainly the wool textile sector is now better poised to take full advantage of marketing opportunities than at any time before.
What we really require is a feeling not only that the Government will act on our behalf on the MFA to prevent wholesale penetration from unfair competition—no one in the wool textile industry is frightened of fair competition—but that the Government will use their endeavours to see that other countries likewise start

1337
reducing their tariffs against imported woollen material.
10.51 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): This has been a thoroughly worthwhile and interesting debate. Many hon. Members have displayed a great deal of knowledge. For myself, particularly as a Member representing part of the textile industry in a woollen textile area, I have been very pleased to listen to the debate and all the valid points that have been made.
I welcome the Conservative Party's support for the MFA. I well recall, when I did not hold my present position as a pillar of the Establishment, that many Labour Members were pressing very heavily for a tough line on the whole of the textile industry, and that the Conservative Opposition were somewhat divided about the position. I am pleased that they appear to have moved some slight way in the direction of the Labour Party and the Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) raised a number of points which I should like to answer. The first was the question of surveillance and making the agreement stick. I shall elaborate a little on the method of surveillance shortly, but certainly we want to ensure that the agreement will stick. We shall use our very best endeavours with the Commission to ensure that what the Commission has said it carries out.
One of the points that I made in an intervention was to the effect that certainly the Commission's policy and its implementation was to a significant degree brought about by the pressure from the Government. One recalls, for example, that in October last year the negotiations did not start because the Government prevented the Commissioners from embarking on the negotiations until it was made absolutely clear that the mandate would be adhered to.
I am not making any great praise of the Government. It is simply a question of fact that it is not something that the Commission has achieved by itself. The Commission achieved it only because we brought pressure to near on it to stick to the mandate to the end. It was certainly a very difficult job, both for the
1338
Ministers and for the civil servants, who, day after day and night after night, had to follow the negotiations, because clearly they were at second hand, and to keep a check on them in order to make sure that the mandate was being followed.
Therefore, certainly after that background, we have no intention of allowing the agreement to slip through our fingers.
On the question of the price clause, raised by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, when he intervened, was taking the question on the basis of anti-dumping, not on a price clause. But only the agreement with Roumania contains a price clause. Suits from Eastern Europe are, of course, covered by voluntary price undertakings. It should be added that the quota on Romanian suits has been reduced from 384,000 in 1977 to 281,000 in 1978. We are not happy about the price clause, but it was introduced by the Commission very late in the negotiations with Roumania, with very little consultation. We are examining the position.
I was very pleased that the hon. Member concluded with the phrase that the industry now has an opportunity to plan its future. That is, in fact, an attitude that commands our support. We want a much greater element of planning in industry across the board. I very much hope that, in view of his attitude, the hon. Member will encourage firms such as Courtaulds, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), to enter into a planning agreement, because only in that way can we compete internationally with our world-wide competitors.
I was also pleased that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) took note of the measures to aid small firms and mentioned, quite correctly, that quite a large number of West Riding textile firms will benefit from these measures. Certainly I hope that firms right across the board will benefit, in both the cotton textile industry and the West Riding woollen textile industry.
On the question of monitoring and surveillance, I emphasise, first, that the Department of Trade itself carries out surveillance at present. But we expect that there will be three separate systems, comprising one of the Commission, one of

1339
the United Kingdom textile industry and what is termed a Whitehall system. The industry system is being formulated. The Commission system should be ready very shortly. The Whitehall system should be fully operational thereafter.
A separate Whitehall monitoring and surveillance system is necessary as an independent check on the other systems and as an objective basis for Government action. The surveillance system that I am talking about will be very sophisticated. It will be computer-based and will operate on the principle that "alarm bells" will start ringing when imports approach restraint levels. Information will be provided automatically.
The setting up of such a system from scratch is a complex task, but it is well under way. Until the system is fully operational departments will continue to monitor by manual calculation imports of sensitive products and imports from sensitive sources. Already the United Kingdom has alerted the Commission to some cases where the limits seem to be under threat.
We have indicated clearly to the Commission our concern that delays in statistics from some member States should not delay Community action. The Commission has shown itself sensitive to this problem and has indicated that it is considering ways of overcoming it—for example, by extrapolating from firm figures to cover the necessary period. We would very much welcome positive pressure from Comitextil to improve statistical information in all member States.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I trust that the Minister will forgive me if I suggest that what he has described seems to be a labyrinth of systems. Would the industry concerned—or the sector of the industry concerned in relation to textiles, be it cotton or woollen textiles—have some say in the threshold at which the alarm bells start ringing?
Mr. Cryer: The threshold has already been generally decided under the agreement. We have worked very closely with the industry through all the negotiations and are currently working closely with the industry in the establishment of the industry system of surveillance and monitoring. So basically the answer is, yes, we are working closely with the industry.
1340
While the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a certain element of labyrinthine complexity to it, that is not entirely unknown within the EEC. As he pointed out, we are members of the EEC, and it looks as though we shall have to live with some of its disadvantages, some of which my hon. Friends have mentioned. It may be that we shall try to improve on them the whole time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) asked a number of questions. He asked whether the Government would press for the triggering of quotas. The answer is, yes, we shall. Where quota levels have been nearing the limit we have brought this to the Commission's attention.
My hon. Friend also asked whether action would be taken against non-bilateral-agreement countries. The Commission has stated that countries which have not signed a bilateral agreement will be subject to the same kind of safeguard procedures as those which have signed an agreement. We shall look to the Commission to fulfil this declaration to the full.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of Argentina. I know that the industry has expressed concern about the matter. It is a little complicated, in that import penetration for all types of wool cloth is only 4·3 per cent. and Argentina's share of the United Kingdom market is only 1 per cent. That could make it difficult to justify a request for consultations at this stage.
However, I recognise that the main difficulty for the United Kingdom market is caused by imports of medium weight worsted cloth. There are two main points on which we are taking action. First, a quota case is being made out for the medium weight worsteds. That is important, but we have to satisfy the Commission that the imports in a particular sector are damaging and intrusive when the general importation level across the board is so low.
There have been some complaints about a 25 per cent. export subsidy which the industry claims is being operated by Argentina. Officials have discussed this in detail with the industry and are at present considering whether a case can be made to the Commission for antidumping or countervailing action. So we are taking action on the matter. We

1341
regard it as important, but, as in all such cases, we must present a case to the Commission. The Commission cannot simply accept our claim: it must be substantiated. However, this is a matter of great concern. As a Bradford Member, my hon. Friend will know how important it is to his area.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) gave great credit to the Commission. I have answered them by explaining how we presented a very hard case and, I think, encouraged the Commission to adopt a firmer stance. But my hon. Friend and others also mentioned the ILO report quoted in The Guardian today. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the rumours which have been circulating. They cause great anxiety.
In October 1977, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat said:
"The Commission is examining ways in which the Community can assist the industry to restructure itself during the breathing space which a restriction on imports will create. Some of this restructuring can take the form of improving efficiency and of concentrating our textiles resources more on those parts of the industry where our competitiveness is good. Inevitably, however, restructuring is likely to mean an overall reduction in capacity, which means that some textile workers will have to be found jobs in other industrial sectors. The Commission recognises the difficulties of this and therefore intends to submit to the Council of Ministers as soon as possible proposals which will assist the textile sector to restructure. Among other things, these proposals will cover the co-ordination of the measures taken by individual member States, the intensified use of the Community's financial instruments and the promotion of appropriate scientific and technological research."
I did not regard that speech as particularly helpful in the context of the reports and counter-reports and the rumours that the hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned. It is not helpful if a Commissioner goes to Rochdale or anywhere else and makes speeches about "restructuring the industry" and "the pace of technological innovation". Those words send cold shivers down the necks of textile workers because they have heard them so many times.
I remember the cotton textile reorganisation scheme in 1959 which was going
1342
to clear up that industry in Lancashire. A little technological development and improvement was going to end all the industry's problems. Yet, thousands of lost jobs and hundreds of mill closures later, people are still making that sort of comment. It is not particularly helpful. The Commission has not yet put forward any formal proposals but I understand that it is proposing to recruit extra staff to undertake the work.
Mr. Roper: I asked my hon. Friend a specific question about the ILO conference, which has nothing to do with the European Economic Community. But will he please investigate that report—the British Government are a member of the ILO and are represented at its conferences—and make sure that we get some background information as to the basis for the report?
Mr. Cryer: Certainly. We are concerned. It is only a very recent report, which we have not seen, but we shall examine it very seriously.
Mr. Madden: While doing that, will my hon. Friend also contact Mr. Tugendhat to ask him which industries he believes will be in a position to offer jobs to redundant workers, whether from the textile industry or any other industry?
Mr. Cryer: The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is an interesting one. One cannot speak of an industry in isolation, particularly with a total level of unemployment of about 1.5 million. Where people are threatened with restructuring, they like to see jobs available so that they can be restructured into some gainful employment. My hon. Friend's point is very relevant.
The main United Kingdom concern is that member States must be fully consulted by the Commission at every stage of the development of a Community policy. The Department of Industry considers that it is qute unrealistic to believe that, whatever restructuring takes place, the Community industry will be in a position, after the new MFA expires, to meet low cost competition without protection. The Department of Industry also considers that a very close watch will need to be kept on any Commission proposals for harmonisation of State aids in the textiles and clothing field which would

1343
inevitably reduce Her Majesty's Government's freedom of manoeuvre and could have serious implications for other sectors.
Mr. Dan Jones: The Minister will know the case that I submitted to the Department of Industry in October last year. It has shuttled between the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade during the months between. I believe it has been in the Minister's own hands. People could become unemployed unless some measure of assistance is possible under the legislation relative to small firms. Will the Minister have a look at it and let me know what is likely to happen?
Mr. Cryer: I will have a look at that case, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) has expressed very great concern on a number of occasions.
Mr. Parkinson: Is the Minister aware that many of us share his reservations about this European grand design, global restructuring approach to various industries? But does he not see that it is a direct logical extension of his own Government's approach to sectoral planning and planning agreements? The logical outcome of his approach is the Christopher Tugendhat approach.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is stretching things a bit when he suggests that planning agreements are the basis for European-wide organisation of the industry. We have never even ventured towards that sort of activity, and the notion that, for example, because a nation State can plan its industry, a central bureaucracy should adopt the same logic and plan the whole of European industry, seems to me to be somewhat distorted.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) mentioned the drawbacks of the MFA, which are, of course, very real. They are accepted and understood, but, as he will also appreciate and understand, it was a long and difficult negotiating period. As I have explained, it meant that a large number of people were involved in pressing the Commission on a number of issues to retain the mandate, which, in our view, was extremely important. Inevitably, in a negotiating and bargaining situation, some parts are stronger than others. However, we understand
1344
that the MFA forms a very good framework, but that framework must be built on. There are still areas where action and constant surveillance and vigilance are needed.
The hon. Member asked about Japan. The Community decided not to continue its agreement with Japan because Japan is no longer seen in general as a low cost supplier. It is worth pointing out that the British Textile Confederation's pamphlet on the future of the textile and clothing industry does not regard Japan as in general a low cost supplier. However, Japan will be covered by surveillance. If, in fact, there is a degree of penetration which is causing concern, we shall have the information and will be able to press the Commissioners to take action.
The hon. Member for Rochdale also raised the question of Turkish yarn. Certainly imports from both Greece and Turkey have this year been rather higher than we would have wished. We have reported our concern to the Commission. The levels of imports will be closely monitored, together with an arrangement with Turkey which allows for appropriate safeguard action by the EEC if levels look like being exceeded. Incidentally, discussions are taking place within the Commission with regard to Greek imports, which are in a somewhat similar position.
Both the hon. Member for Rochdale and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale mentioned tyres and the production of tyre fabric. I know that this has caused a great deal of concern in the industry on two points. One is the question of the importation of low cost tyres from Eastern European countries, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. He also raised the point about safety standards. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport what has been said. Clearly, if there is any question whatever of safety standards being below those required, they should be examined.
With regard to the production of fabric, a large source of demand from Goodyear has diminished because Goodyear has decided to place 50 per cent. of production in Luxembourg. As hon. Members will appreciate, Goodyear is a multinational concern. We cannot require it to place

1345
its production in any particular mill in any particular area. Moreover, Luxembourg is a member of the Community. Therefore, we are not in a position to exert action over that particular source, as we would if it were outside the Community. This is a question which is causing us concern, but unfortunately we are in such a position that we can only persuade and argue but not require.
Mr. Noble: My information is that the request to Government Departments to buy British may lapse in July. Would it not be possible to re-examine any tyre purchases to ensure that tyres purchased by Government Departments, particularly such Departments as the Ministry of Defence, are manufactured entirely in this country?
Mr. Cryer: I was coming to that point. With regard to Spanish sharp practice, which my hon. Friend described, we are taking up the matter with the Commission and it is pressing the Spanish Government on this issue. This is also the case with the dumping of denim. We have asked the companies concerned to provide evidence, and we shall assist in the presentation of the case.
With regard to public purchasing policy, which this Government have emphasised, I am advised that an EEC public supplies directive comes into force on 1st July which is designed to prevent "national preferences" being given. As my hon. Friend will know, directives are not open to negotiation or argument. That is one of the difficulties which we must face in this situation. No doubt those people who are so fervently in support of the Common Market will have some ready explanation as to how we can get round that. At present that is something to which we are giving our undivided attention.
Mr. Winterton: May I suggest that perhaps the Government could have an informal agreement with Government and public bodies?
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should in some way circumvent an EEC directive. Of course, I am surprised that he should raise such a point. This is clearly a matter of concern to all of us. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting a widespread application of
1346
planning agreements—Conservative Members seem to want to put planning agreements all around Europe—all I can suggest is that he concentrates on getting a few in this country first.
Mr. Roper: Is the directive to which my hon. Friend referred one to which the British Government have given their agreement? It has to be agreed in the Council of Ministers, and presumably it comes into effect only if the British Government have agreed with our Community partners that it should do so.
Mr. Cryer: It is a directive which has followed the usual procedures, and this is one of the difficulties that we currently face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale referred to planning agreements, and certainly the firm which he mentioned, which I take it is Courtaulds, dominates the industry. We would welcome a planning agreement with such a large and important firm.
On the issue of the EEC document, a lame duck industry and a black list, we are always grateful to receive evidence of these influences from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale in order to take them up as and where necessary. These matters are of course of concern to us and, if he will provide us with this information, we shall examine it with great care.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr Lamond) about working conditions in Hong Kong and elsewhere. As international Socialists, he and I and all Labour Members are concerned for working men and women throughout the world, and we want to see the system of exploitation prevailing in so many countries eroded away, with conditions being brought up to the level enjoyed by work people in this country. It is only in those conditions that fair competition can be said to exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby mentioned a five-year trading agreement with China. I understand that this agreement is of a very general nature and that no steps have yet been taken or are envisaged to apply it in any sector. If any steps were to be taken, they would, of course, have to be in line with the Community's policy in the textile sector,

1347
including the global import ceilings especially.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the United States tariff against our West Riding woollen industry exports. We are pressing the Commission to present a case, and it has done so in negotiations with the United States, to reduce the tariff, which is far too high, under the multilateral trade negotiations. This is under way. We are concerned because, although the West Riding woollen textile industry is doing reasonably well in America and is penetrating that export market surprisingly well despite the tariff, there is no question but that the tariff is still a severe hindrance and that we want to see it diminished.
Incidentally, I hope that my hon. Friends do not mind my use of the old-fashioned name of West Riding. I do not think that a Conservative local government Act should get rid of these names at a stroke, as it were.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East referred to the temporary employment subsidy. There is no doubt that it has been of enormous benefit to the textile and clothing industries, which are very important industries. They represent the third largest employer in the country, and this is frequently forgotten in our general discussion on industry. Some 160,000 jobs in the textile and clothing industries have been supported by TES since its inception, and this represents about 45 per cent. of all TES support.
Following a request from the EEC Commission that the scheme should be amended to ensure that textiles, clothing and footwear should not be given this degree of benefit and subsequent discussions with the Commission, the Secretary of State for Employment announced on 15th March that the TES scheme would be extended for a further 12 months but with special arrangements being made for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries.
From a date in May to be announced, new applicants for TES in these three sectors will be limited to assistance for not more than 70 per cent. of the total labour force in any establishment for the first six months and to not more than 50 per cent. for the second six months. From the same date, an interim short-time working compensation scheme will be in-
1348
troduce for these three sectors, which is intended to compensate for any loss of TES. The interim short-time working scheme allows workers who could have been made redundant to be put on to short-time working and receive 75 per cent. of their gross pay for each day's work lost. Employers will be fully compensated by the Government for the costs involved. This scheme will also be available to those firms that have already exhausted all their allowance under TES. That is one of the most important elements for the textile industry.
The Secretary of State for Employment on the same date announced the extension of the small firms employment subsidy to firms employing up to 200 employees outside the special development areas to the development areas, intermediate areas and inner city partnership areas, which means that firms are being given a real cash inducement to take on an additional worker, and the cash grant is for 26 weeks.
On those counts, TES is very important. When the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) makes remarks about excessive subsidies and excessive support, my heart quakes for the industries that have been given strong support by TES.
It has been said that this is no time for us to be complacent. On the contrary, our vigilance must continue. We regard the new arrangements that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has described as the beginning, not the end, of a policy that will provide a significantly better regulatory framework for imports from low-cost sources over the next five years. However, it is only a framework. True, it is in many ways much more comprehensive and precise than anything that we have had in the past, but it remains a framework. How effective it will be depends on the use made of it, and I assure the House that we shall make very strong use of it. Having negotiated it with sweat and blood, we are hardly likely to ignore it.
In particular, there is, first, the need for effective monitoring and surveillance. The Commission has accepted this, and so have we. In due course, there will be, both at Community and member State level, computerised monitoring systems which will be greatly superior to those that we have had in the past.

1349
Secondly, there is the need for speed once there is a clear case for action. The Commission has given an assurance that action, once called for, will become effective within three months. We shall be monitoring closely the speed with which action is taken.
Thirdly, there are the terms upon which new restraints and annual growth rates are agreed. We shall look to the Commission to show the same resolve in the many negotiations yet to come as it showed when negotiating the main agreements before Christmas. In all these areas we shall do our best to ensure that the new agreements are fully effective. We shall in turn, however, look to the industry to do its bit in making good use of the breathing space afforded by the new arrangements in order to become more profitable and more competitive.
There are various forms of Government financial assistance available under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972 for modernisation and rationalisation projects in development areas and nation-wide.
There is the selective investment scheme for bringing about major new investment projects which would not otherwise have proceeded as proposed, and the product and process development scheme to support the design and development of new products and new processes. We hope that our industries will take advantage of these schemes and the other more general forms of assistance with which hon. Members will be familiar.
In this way we hope that industry will place itself on a sounder footing for the future. The Government have worked hard to preserve the industry and to preserve jobs. We shall continue on our determined and vigilant course in the interests of working men and women in the industry, who are a vital part of the industry and whom we want to see, through all sections, bring prosperity to themselves and the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of Community Documents Nos. S/139/77, S/183/78, R/3375/77 and R/513/78 (and the Supplementary Memorandum submitted on 21st March 1978) on Community Textile Policy.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, (SOUTH-EAST KENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
11.24 p.m.
Mr. Keith Speed: I am glad to have the opportunity tonight to draw attention to the breakdown of the services to many patients in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who later will seek to catch the eye of the Chair.
I wish to make it clear that my remarks in no way imply criticism of the doctors, nurses, supporting workers or administrators in the South-East Kent district, all of whom are carrying out a first-class job in most difficult circumstances. But the Minister should appreciate the background, namely, that within this district the borough of Ashford has been designated by the Kent County Council as a growth point over the next decade and in its structure plan. Indeed, already various Government Departments are being helpful by way of industrial development certificates and considerable housing, and industrial expansion is taking place within the town of Ashford itself. There are also the problems of the Shepway District Council related to the elderly population and pressures in both boroughs on the community services.
On 3rd March this year the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) initiated an Adjournment debate on the problems of the Kent Area Health Authority. He argued that within the whole of the South-East Thames Region the Kent area was worst treated. I think it is fair to summarise the Minister's reply by saying that he accepted that argument. I put it to the Minister that the two worst treated districts in the Kent area are Medway—which I understand the Minister is to visit later in the year—and South-East Kent.
The Kent Area Health Authority has received a boost to its revenue with an additional £3·3 million being made available from 1978–79 onwards. However, looking ahead, I understand that the regional health authority estimates that Kent will need an extra £38 million over

1351
the next 10 years to equalise services throughout the region. Of this, Kent needs £12 million just to maintain standards of service to the increasing population. Thus, a serious future problem remains.
In this connection I look particularly at what the Minister had to say about the Resource Allocation Working Party—RAWP as it is called—and the Minister might be able to say a little more about the matter tonight because it is of great importance. It has been represented as a battle between the London teaching hospitals and the area health authorities further removed from London. I hope that the matter is not seen in that light. Nevertheless, there appears to be a clash.
In the Adjournment debate on 3rd March, the self-same Minister who is to reply to this debate spoke of changing
"the pattern of care towards comprehensive district-based services."—[Official Report, 3rd March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 943.]
That is something I would very much wish to see. Indeed, in the South-East Kent district we could go a long way along that path if phase two of the William Harvey Hospital was proceeded with, but I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
I should like now to deal with the financial figures for the South-East Kent district. I understand that in the 1976–77 revenue allocations per head of population in the Kent Area Health Authority £35 went to Medway, £41 to South-East Kent, and £69 to Maidstone, while Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury and Thanet, and Dartford were up in the £80 per head range. The average for the South-East Thames Region was £76 per head. Therefore, South-East Kent, at £41 per head, was well below the average.
However, I accept that those are somewhat crude figures, and if we take the 1978–79 figures, adjusted for mental health and other services received—and perhaps these are more sophisticated figures and give a more accurate indication—I understand the position is that per head Medway received £44, South-East Kent £55, Maidstone £56, Dartford £70, Canterbury and Thanet £77, and Tunbridge Wells £77. Therefore, again Medway and South-East Kent are "tail end Charlie" and at the bottom of the queue in that form of measurement.
1352
This means that the problems currently faced by my constituents in some cases are quite serious. At the beginning of this year figures given to me for normal waiting times at the hospitals in Ashford for outpatient clinics were high and in some cases rising. Seventy-nine weeks was the waiting time for seeing the orthopaedic consultant for surgery, 16 weeks for rheumatism and rehabilitation, up to nine weeks for general medicine, 20 weeks for ophthalmology, up to 31 weeks for general surgery and 12 weeks for ear, nose and throat operations. Those are waiting times to see the consultants, who are desperately overworked, and are sometimes struggling hard and are starting very early in the morning to see their patients. On top of that there is the additional waiting time for the operation. I know from personal cases of which I have had experience that if people wish to have an operation in the South-East Kent district they have to wait a number of years in the case of some specialties.
This may arise because there is a deliberate policy—this is what is happening in fact, anyway—that a significant proportion of the patients in South-East Kent should be treated either in London or in Canterbury, or outside the district. It has been brought to my attention that this is the case. The resident population of the district is 240,000, and increasing, while the catchment population is 180,000. I believe that the difference is for those who are supposed to be treated outside, far away.
The Minister will know, looking at what he said in the Adjournment debate on 3rd March and also because he is a sensible man, that the cost of public transport is growing. It means a very real burden indeed if the friends and relatives of patients have to commute from the South Coast or Ashford to London. There is almost a total lack of public transport where I live, in Rolvenden, in the borough of Ashford, and to get to Canterbury by public transport and back is a day's hike, although the actual distance may be only about 30 miles. It is an area with which you will be well acquainted, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I believe that these waiting times contrast badly with other districts in the region. From the figures that I have had I can say that they certainly contrast badly with the waiting times in hospitals

1353
in the London area health authorities. Apart from complaints by patients—I have had many of them—for the first time in my history as an hon. Member in this House for nine and a half years I have received complaints from general practitioners who, in desperation, have written to me asking whether anything can be done about it.
The new William Harvey Hospital is, as the Minister will understand, the linchpin of the provision for health services in the district. There are some questions that I want to ask the Minister about the hospital. First, will he confirm that phase 1, when the hospital opens, will provide only 30 extra acute beds in the district? I accept that these are high quality buildings and high quality services—but I believe that that is the situation.
Secondly, I understand that only five, or, at the most, six, operating theatres instead of the seven that were expected will be available. Is that so?
Thirdly, I understand that the 10-bed isolation ward that was originally planned is not to be opened, and that staffing submissions by all the departments in the new hospital are expected to be cut by 10 per cent. The medical photography department will not be opened, and there will be no physiotherapy department. This is quite important from the orthopaedic point of view, because I am told that patients will have to be bused from the William Harvey Hospital across the town of Ashford to the old Ashford hospital, a couple of miles, and back again, for that kind of treatment. I do not think that that is satisfactory.
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us when the opening day will be, because from articles that appeared recently in the local Press there seems to be considerable confusion. The information that I have received, from talking privately to people, is that, although the commissioning team is working flat out—I do not criticise it—I understand that it will be a further year before the first outpatients are treated at William Harvey, and it could be 18 months before the hospital is commissioned. I am sure that all my constituents and those of my hon. Friend will be most interested in any up-to-date news that the Minister can give us on that matter.
1354
I say to the Minister with all humility—because this hospital has been planned under both Governments and I am in no way criticising him personally—that the William Harvey as it stands at the moment is only half a hospital. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will confirm what I understand to be the situation, that many of the services, such as power, heating, and the pathology laboratories, are designed and have the capacity for a 700-bed hospital, including phase 2.
If phase 2 went ahead, it would include high priority facilities to which the Minister and his Department quite rightly pay attention—geriatric and mental illness accommodation, rehabilitation, and the physiotherapy department that I have already referred to. If this were allowed to go ahead, it would provide a balanced hospital, good career prospects for those working in it, and a proper and comprehensive service for the 250,000 resident population in the South-East Kent district. This population increases considerably in the summer months.
Can the Minister clear up whether phase two is dead—I hope that it is not—whether it is deferred or whether we can expect that, some time in the future, it will go ahead? Any sort of definitive statement would be enormously helpful for many of my constituents inside and outside the medical profession.
My hon. Friend and I have been told on a number of occasions that when the William Harvey Hospital is opened there will be a 24-hour casualty service. I am sure that the Minister is aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced that work is due to start this summer on construction of the M20 motorway between Folkestone and Ashford and, within the next couple of years, on the section from Ashford to Maidstone which will then link up right through to London.
The William Harvey Hospital will be within a few hundred yards of an access point to that motorway, which will carry very heavy European traffic down to Folkestone and along to Dover, which is the biggest passenger port in the country and which is expanding fast. I see the role of the William Harvey Hospital in relation to the M20 as similar to that of the Luton and Dunstable Hospital in relation to the M1. Apart from serving constituents, it will be important for the

1355
hospital to serve a long and busy section of motorway. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that there will be a 24-hour casualty service and that there will be enough consultants and registrars to operate it. We shall be most concerned if that were not to go ahead.
In resources and services, the South-East Kent area has been a Cinderella for too long. I am concerned that the undoubted advantages that the William Harvey Hospital will bring may be used to stifle improvements elsewhere and that the facilities at the new hospital will not come up to earlier expectations. We heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier about hospitals and waiting lists, and perhaps I can put in the first bid just a few hours after his Budget.
I hope that the Minister will accept that I put these suggestions and questions in a constructive and unpartisan manner, and I shall listen with very great interest to the answers he gives.
11.38 p.m.
Mr. A. P. CostainI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) for sparing me three or four minutes of his precious debating time. I heartily support all he has said. I could read out the waiting times that I was given when I telephoned local doctors today, but they are similar to those given by my hon. Friend and I shall not delay the House on them except to say that one doctor told me that there was an 18-month wait before he could get an orthopaedic case into an outpatient department for examination. That man is out of work. It is an appalling situation.
The Minister will realise that the difference in procedure at the Royal Victoria Hospital caused a great deal of concern in Folkestone. More than 20,000 people signed a petition within a week of the announcement and the petition was sent to the Minister. The Shepway District Council has put a strong case for a community hospital and the South-East Kent District Plan confirms that, but we have had no information that it will continue along those lines.
I wish to make a special plea about the casualty unit. We have a main motorway close to two of the largest passenger ports in the world, yet the accident service
1356
closes at 5 p.m. I am afraid that my constituents are not so clever that they have accidents only between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The position is appalling. In the summer we have a quarter of a million people in our area. However, we do not have accident hospital facilities after 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening. After those hours it is necessary to go on to Canterbury.
Another problem is the ambulance service in Lydd. The service shuts down in the evening and the men are put on call. That situation is now being examined by the Kent county authority. I hope that we shall get some result. If we do not, I assure the Minister that I shall be coming back at him. The problem is acute, and I hope that he can give us some assurance that he is doing something about it.
11.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): My colleagues and I in the Department acknowledge that the people of Kent are at a disadvantage in the provision of health service facilities compared with other parts of the region. Hitherto we have examined some of the broader implications, but we have tended not to examine the alleged deficiencies in detail. The debate allows us some opportunity to remedy the situation in at least part of Kent.
I concentrate first on the specific aspects of the health services in Kent that were referred to by the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I shall then move on to consider some of the wider issues of general health service provision within Kent and the South-East Thames Region of the National Health Service.
I note that the hon. Member for Ashford has absorbed a large part of what I said on 3rd March. There is not a great deal of hard advance on that.
We regard the William Harvey Hospital as a major step towards correcting the deficiencies in the NHS in South-East Kent. The project has taken longer than we would wish. Planning for the new district hospital started about 10 years ago, and successive Ministers have continued to regard it as a worthwhile development. When it is opened it will provide over 300 acute beds and a full

1357
range of supporting services. I believe that it will bring a noticeable benefit to the people of South-East Kent. I cannot, unfortunately, comment on the extra number of beds that will be provided, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the opening date. I regret that there has been some further delay in opening the hospital. Full in-patient service is not now scheduled to be available until February or March next year. Outpatients are likely to be admitted about a month earlier. This has resulted from a delay of four months, from April to July of this year, in the handover from the contractors. The commissioning of a new hospital is a complex and somewhat lengthy business. Commissioning will not be able to begin until July, with hand-over taking place in February or March of next year.
The population of East Kent is fairly widespread and, therefore, no single location for the hospital could be expected to please everybody. However, Ashford has a great deal in its favour. I understand that the hon. Gentleman visited the construction site in January 1976 and at that stage said that he was favourably impressed with the range of modern facilities that could be provided. I believe that when the hospital comes into operation next year many of South-East Kent's health problems will start to be seen in a different light.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about services at the hospital. The Kent Area Health Authority would want to see further development on the William Harvey Hospital site. In other words, it would like phase 2 and it intends to build it. However, once phase 1 is completed phase 2 will have to contend for priority with much needed developments in other districts such as the Medway district. At this stage I do not know how the order of priorities will eventually sort themselves out.
It is also the authority's intention to operate a 24-hour casualty service at the William Harvey, but the way of achieving that continues to be a matter for discussion. It is essentially a matter of medical organisation. There are some who consider that, for the time being, the best course on medical grounds would be to concentrate the accident and emergency
1358
service on existing facilities at the Kent and Canterbury hospital.
Mr. Costain: Rubbish.
Mr. Moyle: That is the view of some of the southern medical people there. These matters will have to be argued out.
A small physiotherapy department is being set up for in-patients, but as the hon. Gentleman supposed, for the foreseeable future outpatients will have to receive this service at Ashford Hospital.
There will be seven operating theatres, as planned, but it is thought probable that no more than six theatre teams will be required to meet surgical needs in the first phase.
Both hon Gentlemen referred to the question of waiting lists. Unfortunately, this problem has been with the National Health Service for many years. Some of the waiting lists reflect limited resources, but do not always reflect limited financial input. This is particularly true of orthopaedic surgery where recent developments in surgical techniques make new treatments possible and they have created a greatly increased demand. This is combined with the blocking of orthopaedic beds by an increasing number of frail, elderly females who break the necks of their femurs and things of that sort. This rapid increase in demand, plus the bed blocking, must be related to the many years that it takes to produce the appropriate consultants, who are coming along, but there is still a substantial gap.
A further contribution towards improving the waiting list position in South-East Kent should result from the extension and improvement of the orthopaedic ward at the Buckland Hospital, Dover. This programme is due to start in the current year, and its effect should be felt in about two years. Other developments include geriatric wards at the Queen Victoria Hospital, Deal, and a geriatric day hospital at the Royal Victoria hospital, Folkestone.
Inadequate management may also be a cause of lengthy waiting lists. We are therefore actively engaged in an exercise to improve the management arrangements for hospital waiting lists with a view to a reduction of waiting times. A circular has gone out to all health authorities publicising the techniques of good management with regard to waiting lists—for example, the advantages of holding

1359
waiting lists for hospital in-patient admissions which are common to a number of consultants within one specialty, increased use of day surgery and five-day wards, and the provision of regular information about waiting lists to consultants, management teams and general practitioners so that patients may be given the opportunity of accepting earlier treatment at a hospital farther from their homes.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe raised some cross questions about Folkestone hospital. I am well aware that the fate of the acute services provided there has been a matter of concern locally since early 1976 when the district management team initiated discussions on the rationalisation which might result from the opening of William Harvey.
The provision of an accident and emergency service for a seaside town was raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is a common problem in seaside towns. I regret that there is no ideal solution. The answers that we have so far been able to give are the result of a thorough study by the health authorities. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 22nd September last, saying:
"I have been assured that the Area Health Authority and the District Management Team are very anxious to ensure that the best possible service is provided within the resources available to them and that the need to retain a minor injuries service at Folkestone will continue to receive their close attention. They are very conscious of the genuine concern of local people and as soon as a firm and realistic decision can be reached, details of this will be generally publicised."
I take issue with the hon. Member for Ashford on the title that he gave to this debate—deterioration of the NHS in South-East Kent. I appreciate that he does not want to make party points. On the other hand, I would like to defend the National Health Service. The district's throughput of patients, as measured by deaths and discharges per available bed, has increased steadily in both the medical and surgical specialties from an overall average of 18¼ patients per bed per year in 1974 to 19½ patients per bed per year in 1977. I feel that in time, as the planning system improves, genuine deficiencies in service will be remedied.
I turn now to the Resource Allocation Working Party formula as it affects Kent and the South-East Thames Region. Redistribution carried on under this has resulted in the South-East Thames
1360
Regional Health Authority obtaining only one-third per cent. growth per year.
The hon. Member for Ashford put in what he regarded as an early post-Budget bid. Perhaps I can give him an early post-Budget reassessment of the South-East Thames Region's position. It is very tentative. It is likely that the region's rate of growth will double as a result of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, and this will probably mean about £1 million extra for the region. Some of this, of course, will be hypothecated to various purposes such as kidney machines, and other various priorities which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and it will not all be available for revenue funding for the region or the area.
Let me give some statistics. In 1977–78 the allocation was £78 per head being spent in the Kent catchment population compared with £108 in Greenwich and Bexley, and £122 in Lambeth. Southwark and Lewisham.
I should deal here with the problem raised by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe with regard to the Kent Area Health Authority. I am happy to say that the authority has announced an allocation of funds to provide a 24-hour ambulance service at the Lydd ambulance station, which serves Romney. Discussions with staff on arrangements for the services are now in hand.
On the allocation of resources in London, the indications derived from the RAWP formula are largely hospital based. The GP service in Kent is of very good quality.
Another message I should like the hon. Gentleman to convey is that people in South London tend to say that they have spent a great deal of money on their social services in recent years and that they are not sure that the people of Kent have done the same. They sometimes think that weakness in the Kent social services has been used as an argument for taking health service resources from South London. They say they have played the game properly for many years. I am not saying that this is true, but it is a message that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to convey.
On national policy, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said:

1361
"I am determined that the resources of this national service should be more fairly shared. Redistribution must not only be between regions but within regions as some of the biggest inequalities are between rich and poor areas or districts. But in seeking a fairer distribution I am equally determined not to destroy the quality of excellence in the National Health Service, the opportunities for new discovery or the tradition of medical education of which we are rightly proud."
This is a big problem in that most of the riches of the London region are locked up in three major teaching hospitals. The people of Kent will want the resources of those hospitals in the future to man their health services. When allocations were made for 1977–78, the RHAs were told that resource targets should be assessed for areas. It was discovered that it would be very difficult to
1362
make the allocation for that year stick when there was no growth and there was therefore a standstill last year. At its last meeting, however, the regional health authority considered the allocation for 1978–79, and it felt able to recommend a modest first stage of improvement in Kent's relative position, both in terms of capital and revenue funding. I hope that this will be the beginning of an exercise that will continue steadily in the future.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Cardiff Prison
  Cardiff Prison
  Prisoners (Complaints Procedure)
  Prisoners (Complaints Procedure)
  Departmental Emergency Services
  Departmental Emergency Services
  Disasters
  Disasters
  Police Interviews (Tape-recording Experiment)
  Police Interviews (Tape-recording Experiment)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs Authority
  Eggs Authority
  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT 1959
  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT 1959
  BUSINESS PREMISES (TENANTS' PROTECTION)
  BUSINESS PREMISES (TENANTS' PROTECTION)
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power Costs
  Nuclear Power Costs
  Coal
  Coal
INDUSTRY
  Gwynedd (Project Assistance)
  Gwynedd (Project Assistance)
  Oil Production Licences
  Oil Production Licences
  National Enterprise Board (Appointments)
  National Enterprise Board (Appointments)
TRADE
  Pan American World Airways
  Pan American World Airways
  Foreign Manufactures (Export Credits)
  Foreign Manufactures (Export Credits)
  KIRKBY
  KIRKBY
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL (COPENHAGEN MEETING)
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL (COPENHAGEN MEETING)
  NEW ZEALAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  NEW ZEALAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  GRAVESEND
  GRAVESEND
  SEMICONDUCTORS
  SEMICONDUCTORS
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (TAOISEACH)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (TAOISEACH)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
  BIRMINGHAM
  BIRMINGHAM
  HARROW
  HARROW
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Loans (Interest Rates)
  Loans (Interest Rates)
  Pan American World Airways
  Pan American World Airways
  Royal Annuities
  Royal Annuities
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Halfpenny Coin
  Halfpenny Coin
ENVIRONMENT
  Kepone
  Kepone
  Exmoor Study
  Exmoor Study
  Windscale (Parker Report)
  Windscale (Parker Report)
  Council Properties (Modernisation)
  Council Properties (Modernisation)
  Thornton Road, Thornton Heath (Planning Apeal)
  Thornton Road, Thornton Heath (Planning Apeal)
  Chiswick House
  Chiswick House
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Ordnance Survey (Archaeology Division)
  Ordnance Survey (Archaeology Division)
  United States Air Force Bases
  United States Air Force Bases
  National Water Council
  National Water Council
  Building Societies (Expenditure)
  Building Societies (Expenditure)
  Canvey Island
  Canvey Island
TRANSPORT
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Roads Policy
  Roads Policy
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Namibia
  Namibia
  United Arab Emirates (Visas)
  United Arab Emirates (Visas)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Debt Repayments
  Debt Repayments
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
SCOTLAND
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Mergers and Monopolies
  Mergers and Monopolies
  Arthritis and Rheumatism
  Arthritis and Rheumatism
  Bread
  Bread
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Ealing Hospital
  Ealing Hospital
  Resource Allocation Working Party
  Resource Allocation Working Party
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Married Women (Benefits)
  Married Women (Benefits)
  Personal Files
  Personal Files
  Hallam Hospital, West Bromwich
  Hallam Hospital, West Bromwich
  Mental Health Act 1959
  Mental Health Act 1959
  Doctors' Staff (Pensions)
  Doctors' Staff (Pensions)
  West Sussex Area Health Authority
  West Sussex Area Health Authority
  Private Medical Sector
  Private Medical Sector
  Renal Dialysis
  Renal Dialysis
  Royal College of Nurses
  Royal College of Nurses
  Chiropractors
  Chiropractors
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Benefits (Value)
  Benefits (Value)
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
  Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Dental Charges (Exemption Form)
  Dental Charges (Exemption Form)
  Tonsillectomies (Children)
  Tonsillectomies (Children)
  Low-Income Families (Heating)
  Low-Income Families (Heating)
  Bed Sores
  Bed Sores
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Acceptance of Patients)
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Acceptance of Patients)
  Worthing and District Community Health Council
  Worthing and District Community Health Council
  Dentists (Trent Region)
  Dentists (Trent Region)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Private Institution Patients
  Private Institution Patients
  Chemist Contractors (Pay)
  Chemist Contractors (Pay)
  Emergency Services
  Emergency Services
  Ambulance Men (Training)
  Ambulance Men (Training)
  British Association of Immediate Care Schemes
  British Association of Immediate Care Schemes
  Cancer (Nuclear Installation Workers)
  Cancer (Nuclear Installation Workers)
  Supplementary Benefit (Administration)
  Supplementary Benefit (Administration)
  Hammersmith Hospital
  Hammersmith Hospital
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Mrs. M. O'Hara
  Mrs. M. O'Hara
  NHS Staff (Removal Allowances)
  NHS Staff (Removal Allowances)
  Breast Cancer (Screening)
  Breast Cancer (Screening)
  Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body
  Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Reception Centres
  Reception Centres
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Huntington's Chorea
  Huntington's Chorea
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  "Discovery"
  "Discovery"
  Teachers and Staff
  Teachers and Staff
  United States Air Force Bases
  United States Air Force Bases
  Music Schools
  Music Schools
  Blind Children (Opticon Reading Devices)
  Blind Children (Opticon Reading Devices)
  Vocational Preparation
  Vocational Preparation
  Art Galleries (Grants)
  Art Galleries (Grants)
  Extended Education (Certificate)
  Extended Education (Certificate)
EMPLOYMENT
  Distributive Industry (Levy)
  Distributive Industry (Levy)
  Civil Pilots (Training Board's Report)
  Civil Pilots (Training Board's Report)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons and Vacancies
  Unemployed Persons and Vacancies
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Fur Wages Council
  Fur Wages Council
  Kepone
  Kepone
  DEFENCE
  DEFENCE
  Police
  Police
  Aldershot (Service and Civilian Personnel)
  Aldershot (Service and Civilian Personnel)
WALES
  Construction Contracts
  Construction Contracts
  Mountain Rescue
  Mountain Rescue
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Local Government Employees
  Local Government Employees
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons

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

EMPLOYMENT OF BOGUS DOCTOR
Lord CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the Press reports that an unqualified person posing as a doctor was involved in "quite major operations"at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, and was subsequently employed at Redhill General Hospital as an orthopaedic registrar; and whether they are satisfied that steps have now been taken to prevent similar occurrences in future.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I confirm that a man claiming to be a doctor was employed at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, as a locum orthopaedic registrar from 13th to 26th October 1977. While he was there he was involved, under close supervision, in no more than three operations to repair fractures. He was subsequently employed at Redhill General Hospital, again as a locum orthopaedic registrar, from 4th to 29th November 1977. The Government are satisfied that they have already taken, and that the two hospitals concerned are now following, steps which should help to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether in the cases of both these locum appointments this unqualified person was the sole applicant? Would not the most effective means of preventing these abuses be to make the posts more attractive so that a pool of applicants could be made available and some competitive element injected into these appointments?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware that he was the sole applicant. I am aware that he was introduced to Roehampton hospital by a doctor on the staff of that hospital who believed him to be a doctor, and he was in fact allowed to carry on his work as a locum orthopaedic registrar. It was only when he did not produce the proper documents that the hospital was then able to deal with the matter.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he was better or worse at his work than the qualified doctors?
Lord CROOK: My Lords, can the Minister say what the facts are as to the re-employment of this man? He is reported as having taken part in operations at Queen Mary's where there were some irregularities—"and we began to smell a large rat". That being so, he was then taken on at the other hospital within three weeks, where he took part in operations, and was dismissed because of failure to put in a pin during an operation. His employment was justified, according to newspaper reports, by the fact that he had the right documents and answered the questions at the interview because he knew all the jargon.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I told your Lordships how he came to be introduced to the Roehampton hospital. His work as a surgeon was very closely supervised by the senior registrar who was present the whole of the time in the operating theatre; and this, of course, would minimise any risks to patients. When he was asked to produce the right documents which hospitals require, a certificate of registration together with proof of identity, he failed to do so, and when he was pressed again he said he had put them on the desk of the administrator and they must have been mislaid. This caused a search to be made. When he was told he must produce proof of identity and certificate of registration he left the hospital. He then went to Redhill, but at Redhill the senior doctor soon became concerned about the quality of his work and insisted that before he operated in future he must seek higher authority. He took exception to that and he left the hospital. I have been asked where he is now. Our information is that he is in

447
Canada. The General Medical Council of this country have notified the appropriate medical body there that this man is working under three different names.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, surely this man must have had some medical experience. Had he been a medical student and perhaps got as far as the fifth year, or something of that kind, or had he been a male nurse in the operating theatre? He could not possibly bring it off unless he had some medical experience, could he?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my information is that when he was interviewed he was able to give a very good and what appeared to be a plausible account of his experience in orthopaedic surgery in Australia.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, is it true that he has gone to Canada to become a tree surgeon?
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend explain to the House what steps have now been taken to prevent a recurrence of this abuse?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in January 1977 a document was sent round to all the Regional Health Authorities laying down the precise procedures which must be adopted before a person is taken on the medical staff of a hospital. I must say that these procedures were not followed in respect of Roehampton. A further letter has been sent round calling attention to the fact that if these procedures are adopted and hospitals do not use a doctor until he has produced a certificate of registration and been able to show that he is a member of one of the medical defence unions, and has been able to produce evidence of his identity, then this sort of thing should not occur in the future.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, has the noble Lord considered whether a criminal offence has been committed, and whether it is extraditable, and, if not, ought it not to be?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble and
448
learned Lord, but I shall obviously take this matter back to my right honourable friend because it is one that ought to be looked into.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, does the noble Lord know to which town this man has gone? Could it be Medicine Hat!

MAGISTRATES' COURTS: JURISDICTION
2.45 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 it is their intention to divert to the magistrates' courts some of the categories of crime which can at present lead to trial by jury; and if so which categories; and at what date they anticipate the changes will be made.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE: My Lords, when Part III of the Criminal Law Act 1977 is brought into force in the summer, certain offences which can at present be tried at the Crown Court will become triable only in the magistrates' courts; and some other offences formerly triable only on indictment will also become triable in the magistrates' courts if the accused and the court consent.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, but I should like to ask whether he is aware that the magistrates are quite agreeable to exercise duties in respect of suggested matters to be submitted to them. Is he aware that the necessary steps for adequate staffing would have to be taken—that is all that stands in the way at present—particularly in view of the fact that the Crown Courts are very heavily loaded and there is considerable delay in the trial of cases?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said. As he rightly said, the Crown Courts are working at

449
present under very great pressure. As a result of this new procedure, about 6,000 cases a year will be transferred from the Crown Courts to the magistrates' courts. I very much welcome what my noble friend has said about the attitude of the magistrates.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said, the magistrates' courts are very much overworked and also desperately understaffed. Until there are more clerks and perhaps bigger buildings, I do not think that there is any way in which the magistrates' courts, however willing, will be able to cope with the extra workload.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am well aware of the fact that magistrates' courts are working under very great pressure at present. I should not seek to deny that for a moment. On the other hand, I believe that the situation is as stated by my noble friend; namely, that the magistrates, notwith-standing all their very substantial difficulties at present, will, in fact, deal with the matter with their customary efficiency when the commencement order is made.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while I accept, of course, what has been said about the magistrates, may I ask whether the noble Lord will remember that there is a body of opinion which believes that nothing will really go right with the magistrates' courts until they are transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that raises a number of quite interesting questions which I should prefer not to deal with at the moment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, although I do not want to involve myself in the somewhat complicated and arguable matter that has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, may I ask my noble friend to ensure—particularly in view of the heavy burden that has been placed upon the clerks and their staffs in the magistrates' courts—that he will supplement the numbers of those staffs as quickly as possible? Moreover, in view of the dedicated services which are
450
rendered by the magistrates and which they are anxious to continue to perform for the benefit of the country, will he see to it that the matter is dealt with as speedily as possible?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as I have indicated, I am well aware of the point and I shall gladly, given the fact that it has been raised on both sides of the House, mention the matter to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that any proposal to deprive people of their right to trial by jury, where their general reputation, character and integrity are at issue, will meet with fearsome widespread opposition?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord's question tends to take us back to some of the interesting debates that we had last year. I think that we all stated our position very clearly at that time.

ARMED FORCES' OVERSEAS ALLOWANCE
2.48 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: 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 the overseas allowance is cut off from families in Germany when their battalion is posted away for duty in Northern Ireland.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. If a soldier's family remains in Germany, he continues to receive what we term the family element of the allowance. This amounts to about 70 per cent. of the full allowance.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has consulted any lady accustomed to running a house about how much saving is to be made in having one less mouth to feed when all the overheads still must be met,

451
and whether, in fact, a competent man in the house does not, if anything, save overheads?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a matter that arises in the domestic experience of many of us. However, the point is that a decision must be reached as to what is done under these circumstances in view of the terms of the military salary. The decision that has been reached is that the Serviceman receives 70 per cent. of the allowance, he consuming apparently 30 per cent. of it.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, what happens to the men posted to Belize? What percentage do they get?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM:My Lords, that is another question, but I presume that they receive an overseas allowance because the cost of living in Belize must be different from the cost of living here.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord have any information about the percentage of the families left behind in Germany, when the unit goes to Northern Ireland, that have to resort to social security?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that. It must vary from month to month and from unit to unit. However, I will inquire into the matter and let the noble Lord know.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the situation and why the 70 per cent. figure pertains. In view of the very real fear in this country about the pay of the Forces—and in particular about the pay of those in Northern Ireland—would the Government be prepared to review this matter?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, during Question Time, I could not commit the Government to such an action. But the noble Lord's standing in this area as a former Secretary of State must weigh heavily with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, I should like to make one point. The operational situation in Northern Ireland has been recognised by extending field conditions to all who serve there. That means that single personnel do not pay anything
452
for their food and accommodation, and married personnel who are accompanied by their families have their married-quarter charges reduced by the single accommodation charge—that is, reduced by 40p a day for ranks up to and including corporal; and areeither fed free by their units or receive 50p per day food allowance in lieu. In addition, Northern Ireland pay of 50p a day is given to all who serve over 14 days in that part of the world. So while the soldier in Northern Ireland may have his family element reduced by 30 per cent., he does receive free food and £1 a day in addition because of service in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, when an investigation is made, whether a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of families living in Germany in fact inflicts some kind of reduction in standards of living or some hardship?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I simply cannot answer a question like that. As I said, it must inflict more hardship on some individuals and units than on others, and on the date in question the state of the balance of currency and prices in the two countries must be taken into account. Unfortunately, one must have precision in this matter, and 70 per cent. remains with the soldier while he does a stint in Northern Ireland while his family remains in Germany.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, does not that answer give great weight to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the matter should be reviewed? It does not seem to us to be very satisfactory at all.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as the House will know, the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Board has, in fact, been handed in and I hope that your Lordships will have an early view of it. This is part of the whole re-assessment of the remuneration of the Armed Forces.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that none of us wants to make a Party issue of this? Feeling has been addressed to the noble Lord from all parts of the House. Will he not remember that a General Election is coming, and he might be wise to pay attention to what we say?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that that is a stupid threat. Basically, the threat is not from the Conservative Party but from outside powers. What the Forces are paid must depend upon the actual need for the Armed Forces, which I am certain your Lordships' House agrees is paramount.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is it not a fact that the cost of the overseas allowance for troops in Germany, or the allowance paid to families who are on the strength of troops in Germany, is borne as a charge against the offset agreement which is recovered from the German Government? Therefore, is not the answer that the Minister has given rather a typical Civil Service answer?—because they are a little afraid that if they give away on this, they may be giving something away in Belize or elsewhere?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this particular factor must have been considered by the Review Board. I would hope that your Lordships will wait until we see the Government's reaction to the report of the Review Board. As I said, the report should be coming before your Lordships soon.

THE "AMOCO CADIZ"AND OIL SPILLS
2.54 p.m.
Lord HALE: 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 part the Liberian merchant navy has played in the international struggle to save the Liberian supertanker "Amoco Cadiz"from complete destruction or in mitigating the damage threatened to French, Channel Islands and British coasts by the discharge of its cargo of oil.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, measures to assist stranded vessels and to deal with oil spills from them are primarily matters for the owners of the vessel and the coastal State. The flag State is not generally in a position to assist if the casualty occurs elsewhere.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this small country, with a population of about 1·5 million and with a wonderful history, is listed in Lloyd's List as owning the largest merchant navy in the world? It has a great new port at Monrovia. Up to 1946 this merchant navy included 11 of these dubiously dirigible leviathans, with delightfully African names like "Esso Japan"and "Amoco Cadiz". The owners of the "Amoco Cadiz"are based in Chicago and the leviathan is unsuitable for navigation on Lake Michigan. The whole story of these ships is based on their rapid changes of name, their rapid changes of ownership and their leasing to charter parties. In view of the danger that has been caused to interests in the Channel, is the Minister satisfied that the whole system of flags of convenience ought to be internationally approved and allowed to continue?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, when a ship becomes a casualty off the coast of any country it is for that coastal State and not the flag State to provide the assistance or to intervene to protect its own interests. The salvage of the vessel is primarily a matter between the owner and the salvage company, but a coastal State has the right, under the 1969 International Convention, to give directions to those in charge of the stricken vessel or to take direct action itself in order to prevent or minimise any oil spillage or to mitigate its consequences. If it were one of our tankers in trouble off, say, the coast of Africa, we would not expect to wait for Her Majesty's Government to send salvage ships out there to deal with it; we would expect the coastal State affected to take the necessary action.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Baroness suggest anywhere in the world or any circumstances in the world in which this flag State would be likely to be of assistance to anyone, except itself?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Liberian Maritime Association is the registering agent for a great number of tankers and other vessels. My information is that it is now taking a strict line in providing that all these vessels arc sea-worthy and are staffed and manned by the right sort of crew. I think that it

455
comes ill from any other country to criticise what a recognised country and State is doing. We have our obligations as a registering nation and Lloyd's act on our behalf. As I have said, the Liberian Maritime Association is trying very hard and working very fast to put its house in order and to reach standards acceptable to countries all over the world.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in case there is any misunderstanding, is my noble friend aware that the Liberian Government do not own the largest number of merchant ships in the world; that such ships are simply registered in that country; and that many of them are actually owned by British owners and shipowners in various parts of the world? That is not the trouble. The trouble is that in Liberia they do not exercise effective control over the selection of crews, particularly the navigating officers. I have ventured to put this matter before the House previously; but unless we have efficient, qualified navigating officers, accidents are bound to happen.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend has said, but I can only repeat that the Liberian registering organisation is carrying out checks of its vessels and crew. I understand that so far as possible it is its ambition to check every vessel at least once a year, which is the sort of system which we like to apply ourselves. It is not perfect, but we are doing the best we can within the international conventions.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether I am right in thinking that if you are a British subject you cannot have a vessel registered under the Liberian flag? That was certainly the case when I had an interest in shipping. I am sure it is the law at the moment too.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is something I should have to check on, but I shall certainly do so and write to the noble Viscount.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whetherthe Law of the
456
Sea Conference now in session is considering the two matters which have been raised in this exchange: first, the responsibility for meeting the costs of these disasters; and secondly, the fact that a small nation can register so many merchant ships from so many territories?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords; I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend an answer to that question, but again I shall check on it.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many of the tankers involved in incidents have been registered under flags of convenience?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, not without notice.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what offers of assistance by Her Majesty's Government were given to the French Government at the outset of the disaster? Furthermore, may I ask what reasons were given by the French Government for turning down the initial offers of assistance?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I am not competent to say what reasons were given by the French Government as to why they did not need our help earlier. It is a matter for the coastal State concerned to decide when and what kind of operation shall go on. The British Government made expert advice and help available to the French immediately we knew of the disaster, and before the clearing up operations were well under way we had a frigate and six tugs there which were helping to spray the water with chemicals to try to disperse the oil. We were available to provide help from the time the disaster happened, but as I tried to explain yesterday in answer to a Question, one cannot just make off-the-cuff decisions as to whether one is going to burn the oil off or what one is going to do. You have to look to see how much you can salvage, and it is for the coastal State to make such decisions.
Lord HALE: My Lords, does the noble Baroness think—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we have had a good run on this Question.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I ask my noble friend—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord PEART: I will have a word with my noble friend if the noble Lord wishes to ask something further of her. She will gladly answer any questions. I think we have had a good run.
Lord HALE: I just wish—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord PEART:No; I think the noble Lord must accept what I have said.
Lord HALE: I think I am doing that. What I want to ask the noble Baroness—
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that we shall conclude now.
Lord: I do not know what the noble Lord said. I do not know whether anybody else does.

EXPORT GUARANTEES AND OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a pure consolidation Bill consolidating three Acts: namely, the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Act 1972, the Export Guarantee Act 1975, and the International Finance Trade and Aid Act 1977. It makes no alteration to the existing law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
458
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

OATHS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Like the Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading, this, too, is a pure consolidation Bill consolidating the Oaths Act 1838 and the Oaths Acts 1888 to 1977. These Acts also include provisions as to solemn affirmations. The Bill makes no change in existing law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

SCOTLAND BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think it would be convenient if, before we start these Amendments, I ask for clarification about the state of the Marshalled List, because there are difficulties today about printing. I understand that no papers have been printed at all today. Most of us are in possession of what is called the Second Marshalled List of Amendments. So far as I know, that is the last one that has been printed and it was available yesterday. I understand that the only addition is described as a manuscript Amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. That has in fact appeared as a separate annexe, although it is printed, and I would ask the Government whether they can confirm

459
that those two documents are the latest and represent the present position of the Marshalled List. Earlier today, it was rumoured that a third Marshalled List was coming out, but none of us has received a copy of that yet.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): I can confirm what the noble Lord has said. We do not know of any third Marshalled List, and we have copies of the manuscript Amendment.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Assembly]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 3, after first ("The") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is consequential on an Amendment made to Clause 1(1). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.17 not moved.]
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No.19:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is the same as Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert:
"(4A) Fifty initial additional members of the Assembly shall be elected by the system of proportional voting set out in Part V of Schedule I to this Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent ordinary elections to cast a second vote, such votes being referred to in this Act as 'party votes'.
(4B) The number of additional members of the Assembly other than at the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly shall be half the number of constituency members at the ordinary election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number)."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment will take a little longer, but not very long. It is the first of the Amendments designed to give effect to the decision of your Lordships that the Members of the Assembly are to be elected by the system of proportional voting specified under this measure. This Amendment needs little explanation. I hope it is tolerably clear. The explanations will come on Amendment No. 33, which is rather more complicated.
The Amendment simply does two things. First, it provides that half as many additional Members as there are constituency Members—that is, initially 50—shall be elected under a system of proportional voting. Secondly, it provides that the system of proportional voting shall be that set out in Amendment No. 33. The basic feature of the system is that electors will be entitled to cast an additional vote for the Party over and above the vote, or votes, that they may cast for constituency candidates. The additional vote is called the Party vote. As I explained this on Second Reading, your Lordships may think it unnecessary for me to elaborate further now. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We are indebted to the noble Lord for his further short explanation. I should say at this early stage that our attitude to this, as to other related Amendments, is that they are seen as consequential upon the Amendment which the Committee made following a vote, and accordingly they are regarded by the Government in that light.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 9, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH The Earl of PERTH moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
"(6) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the

461
first ordinary election of members of the Assembly review the system of voting prescribed by this Act and may by Bill amend that system.
(7) Notwithstanding section 17(3) below a Bill under subsection (6) above shall not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until it has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: As your Lordships will see, this is an all-Party Amendment. I believe it is one which introduces an important principle; namely, that the Assembly that we set up should be looked on as a responsible body which has the right to judge whether the way it is chosen is suitable for Scotland. That is the real purpose behind the Amendment, to which I am the first to speak.
I would observe that, so far as I am aware, in the original Bill there was no provision for any sort of change at any time. In other words, if the Bill had gone through in its original form what we had would stay for all time unless Westminster, at its goodwill and in its own time, decided otherwise. We know how often in those circumstances nothing is done at all.
In the Amendments which were originally moved by the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Banks and Lord Ritchie-Calder, there was, in Amendment No. 21, a third clause which would have allowed for change if it was thought suitable. But that change would only have been in relation to the added Member system, of which your Lordships approved by a large and important majority. It was felt by the movers of that Amendment that it would be better that this particular Amendment stood on its own because it introduces such an important principle and because under certain circumstances it could stand; and the Assembly would have the right to amend things even if the Amendment that has already been passed by your Lordships for the additional Member system was not accepted by the other House. That being the case it was felt in every way right that this Amendment should stand on its own.
Coming to the two clauses, Clause 6 is quite straightforward: namely, that after the first election the Assembly may review the system of voting and may amend that system by Bill. If, for example, they thought that even the additional Member system had a weakness—and I
462
remember that certain of your Lordships felt that—of two classes of Members of Parliament, it would be open for them to make a suggested change.
I very much hope that your Lordships, and the Government themselves, will accept this Amendment in view of the second clause that stands in this Bill and the fact that Amendments, if put forward by the Assembly, have to be approved by Resolution of each House. In other words, we are not by this Amendment just giving the Assembly authority to do what it wants without reference back. In the light of that, it is my hope that the Government will accept—or, if not, that the Committee will show its approval of—the Amendment in the form in which it now stands. I beg to move.
Lord TANLAW: I too hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that this Amendment cuts right across Party lines and really contains the spirit of this Bill. It was said on Second Reading that the motives of Her Majesty's Government were suspect in producing this Bill. I do not believe so. I believe that if this Bill contains the noble Earl's Amendment, to which I have put my name, it will prove to the outside world that the Government's intention is that of goodwill and belief in the future of the Scottish Assembly.
When one considers that the Assembly will be dealing with one-Chamber Government, one realises it will need to have the maximum representation. The whole idea is still experimental and there may well be needs for change which can only be applicable in Edinburgh while having no relevance down here in Westminster. I hope that the Government will also remember that there are three or four main Parties in Scotland which will be making up the Members of that Assembly. This Amendment will then give an opportunity for the Assembly to feel its way in its new form of administration. I trust therefore that the Government will take kindly to this Amendment, which was perhaps overlooked, or put right an oversight in the original Bill.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: As one of those who put their names to this Amendment, I feel there is nothing very much more that I can say as the subject has been very well covered. However, I think it is important to realise that the

463
Assembly will be a democratically elected body. I can see no earthly reason why they should not have the power to alter the form of representation if they so desire. There are very many good reasons for this. There is the possibility that another place might throw out our original Amendment for proportional representation—and that might not be popular in Scotland. It does give a chance of avoiding a general mix-up and bad feeling. I think that it could do no harm and nothing but good.
Lord HUGHES: Reference has been made by those who have already spoken to this Amendment to the Amendment on voting, to which the Committee agreed. I would remind your Lordships that that vote was a free vote of this House. But we must bear in mind, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, reminded us, that the other place rejected the system of proportional representation by a substantial vote, also on a free vote. I think, therefore, that it would perhaps be carrying optimism a little further than would be justified if we expected the other place, again on a free vote, to reverse the decision it has already taken. But it would not be unreasonable to express the hope and the wish that Her Majesty's Government would not oppose this Amendment, which, after all, still leaves the decision on the system of voting finally in the hands of this Parliament. I think it is reasonable that if, after the first election, the Assembly wishes to consider another system of voting, it should have the opportunity of putting that view before this Parliament. For these reasons, I do not think I need add any more to what has been said, but I hope that the Government will not compel a Division to be taken on this Amendment.
3.19 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: As my noble friends and I withdrew our Amendment in in favour of this Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to add a word or two to what has already been said. It is surprising that there is no specific provision in the Bill for a review of the electoral provisions, other than in Part II of Schedule 1. Assuming that it is desirable to have some provision for review of the Bill, we have to decide whether it should be the
464
Assembly or Parliament that should initiate a review of the system. Under the Amendment, Parliament will, of course, have the last word. So the question is: Who is to initiate the review? There can be no question of the Scottish Assembly simply amending the electoral provisions all on its own. Parliament would have to approve of that.
It may be said that if the outcome of the elections were such as to give one Party an absolute majority of votes over all other Parties having received a proportion of votes far short of an absolute majority, the last thing that Party would be willing to do in the Assembly would be to throw away its advantage, however unfair. That could happen only under the system that was originally in the Bill, the firstpast-the-post system. But surely public opinion in Scotland would react so strongly that that Party could not; to do so would bring into contempt the system, not only of elections but also of devolution itself.
The Westminster Parliament would be much less concerned to give time to the Scottish Assembly for an amending Bill. That is the point that must be remembered; it is very difficult to get time to do anything in the Westminster Parliament. There seems to be a very strong argument therefore in favour of allowing the Assembly to initiate the review and put up proposals through the usual provision of legislation to Parliament. It seems to me that the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment, or at least, if they are not able to accept the principle or the drafting of the Amendment in detail, give it further consideration. I strongly support the Amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: This Amendment is another example of what I would call a surface approach to a fundamental question because, while I do not necessarily oppose the Amendment, what are the consequences that might flow from it—indeed, which would flow from it? One can put it that strongly in the light of recent experience. If power is given to the Assembly to initiate a new voting system, whoever has the majority in the Assembly, they will initiate a system which they think will best suit them or that group. There is no argument about that and that may not be in the best interest of the United Kingdom as a whole.

465
If they do something wrong for selfish reasons, there is the safeguard, in the second part of the Amendment, of the Westminster Parliament being able to veto it; it must get Westminster's approval. However, the minute that were done we would have the cry, "The fascists in Westminster, the Whitehallites, are trying to tell Scotland what to do". We would be building in all the elements of this conflict—this dynamite, as 1 referred to it on Second Reading—and I suggest that we should be giving deeper thinking rather than just surface thinking to this whole question of who might initiate something. The things that could flow from this are of real consequence. That is not to say that I shall oppose the Amendment. I thought this was a good opportunity to underline once again the dangers inherent in the whole of the Bill as it stands. The whole thing should be taken away and looked at again.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I wish to underline what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said. Assume for a moment that the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is allowed. Assume that another place does not overthrow or change our minds for us on the proportional representation clauses which we have already passed. Assume that, as in the case of Northern Ireland, one Party were to get a majority under the PR system. Then assume that that Party is the Scottish National Party. The Scottish Nationalists could say, "Let us ask Westminster to give us back our first-past-the-post system", because that would further increase their electoral advantage, which is exactly the point I believe Lord Harmar-Nicholls was intending to make.
Unless there were a major case of abuse being introduced into the voting system, I cannot see Parliament doing anything but agreeing to it, for the reasons advanced by Lord Harmar-Nicholls. What other chamber, discussion group or representative body—parish council, county council, district council, borough council or city council—has the right to change its voting arrangements? I cannot support the Amendment, for exactly the reasons Lord Harmar-Nicholls finds he can only just support it.
Lord BURTON: I support my noble friends Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord
466
Onslow and I would draw a parallel with what happened in South Africa; when the present Party got into power they immediately abolished the coloured vote and thereby assured their continuing return. I am not suggesting that the situation here would be as bad as that, but they could fiddle the proportional representation arrangements or various changes could be made which might secure their continuing return in subsequent elections. This is an extremely dangerous situation and, as has been said, it could cause further friction between the Parliament here and the Parliament in Edinburgh.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I cannot allow noble Lords to get off with accusing us of surface thinking. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we in Scotland have been considering these matters for 20 years; they have only just realised that all this thinking has been going on. The logic of the matter is inescapable. The fact is that if Parliament were asked to endorse a system put in for selfish reasons, they would look at once at the total number of votes cast in Scotland and then Parliament would be able to see whether the measure would or would not he just and fair. Thus, the Amendment is entirely logical, and I urge noble Lords not to accuse other noble Lords of surface thinking when in fact we have been considering this issue for far longer than the noble Lords concerned have known the subject existed.
3.27 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that he is quite wrong to say that we in Scotland have been considering this matter for the past 20 years. We in Scotland have been considering the issue of devolution not for 20 years but since 1707. There was an occasion in the first decade following the Treaty of Union when a Motion was put before your Lordships' House demanding that the Treaty be revoked, and I think it was only narrowly defeated. Since then, we have been talking from time to time quite vociferously about devolution.
What your Lordships are concerned with today is not just the principle of devolution but the Scotland Bill which has been presented to Parliament. There is a

467
widespread feeling in Scotland—expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, despite what Lord Mackie said--that the Bill has inherently many dangers for the unity of the Kingdom and for the good government of Scotland. Relevant to this Amendment are only those matters to which Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Onslow referred, and in my view Lord Harmar-Nicholls was right to accuse some Scots of thinking too narrowly about it.
Of course, if one asks a Scotsman, "Are you for devolution?", he will always say, "Yes", and he has said, "Yes", ever since 1707. I can remember as a young man, in the 'twenties, when we almost elected a Scottish Nationalist to be the Lord Rector of Glasgow University. I was, for my own interest at that time, deeply disappointed that they preferred one of our former Prime Ministers, Stanley Baldwin, to Mr. R. B. Cunningham Graham, a descendent of Scottish Kings. The Amendment focuses on what many of the Amendments we have yet to discuss will focus; namely, that built into the Bill are many dangers for the unity of our Kingdom and for the good government of Scotland.
Viscount THURSO: Before the noble Lord sits down, he might like to know that the students at Glasgow University finally saw the light and elected my late father, the Liberal, Sir Archibald Sinclair.
Lord KILBRANDON: May I add one word to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, has said. When the Bill to set aside the Union was being debated in this House—I think it was in about the year 1712—the then Duke of Argyll made so offensive a speech about the Old Pretender that two bishops who were sitting in the House with proxies in their pockets left the Chamber. If they had remained and voted and operated their proxies, the Bill would have been carried. That is a minor matter, but to keep the historical side right perhaps I might mention it. I think it gives great offence in Scotland when it is suggested that thinking in Edinburgh is shallow and thinking in Westminster is wide. There is nothing in that at all, and I must say that I slightly resented the suggestion that, whereas the Assembly in Scotland in
468
deciding how its Members should be elected would be inflamed by unworthy Party political motives, such a thing could not possibly happen in Westminster. The utmost purity in these matters always prevails.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: May I say for the sake of the record that my recollection is that exactly that happened at Westminster, which is why I made the comments I made a minute or two ago. We have very clear evidence within the lifetime of most of us here how, when the present Prime Minister gerrymandered the electoral boundaries' decision after the Election, he thought to bring it in before the following Election would be to their disadvantage. It is precisely on that sort of evidence that I made the comments that I did. They are just about as sinful in Scotland, no more and no less, as we are in England.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I am astonished at this debate. Is it not a fact that there has never been a Government in this country since the last war which commanded a majority of the electorate? Is it not a fact that the other House said that this is what will happen to the Scottish Assembly? But this House has said that it does not like the idea; it prefers a system of voting which may secure a better answer in proportional representation. But it fears—and 1 think it is a reasonable fear—that the other House may not accept the view of this House. Is there any better solution to that problem than to allow the Scottish people to decide—or at least to initiate—what they would like for themselves? Surely this is an opportunity that they are entitled to have.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I do not see why we are saying "Scottish people". This Amendment does not say, "the Scottish people". It says that the Party caucuses in the Assembly should have the power to do this. That seems to me a different thing altogether. It may not say it in the Amendment, but I am sure the noble Lord knows almost as well as I do that that is what would in fact happen.
Lord BROWN: I should like to support this Amendment and what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said. The situation in the United Kingdom is rapidly developing

469
to a stage where a majority of the electorate wants proportional representation but the Parties in power do not want it. It is an absurd situation. One does not want to leave the Scottish Assembly in the position where, even if the Scottish people and the Scottish Assembly wanted to change the proportional representation, they would not be able to do so. It would be an absurd situation and I heartily support this Amendment.
Lord WIGG: I entirely agree that the Scottish people want to decide their own affairs and that they should have the right to do so. From the beginning, when I read the vast amount of papers, Bills and orders that have centred on this publicity, I got into my head that what is good for the Scottish people is also good for the English people. The idea—the informed principle—behind this Bill is an attempt to head off the more irrational, more extreme expressions of Scottish rights, particularly as they affect the Scottish people.
There is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and myself in hoping that the unity of the United Kingdom is going to be preserved, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, thought it was a bad Bill. The noble Lord also, although supporting proportional representation, hopes that the unity of the United Kingdom will not be affected. But surely this Amendment, if put into practice, will affect that unity. For example, it does not seem to be a very startling assumption that the Scottish Nationalists will get considerable representation in the Assembly—perhaps sufficient, with their allies, to voice the views expressed by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches—and the Assembly, having gathered together, may say, "Right, we have tasted blood; let us have a bit more of it and we will now put forward a proposal for having a system of election which suits us.". So the very tensions that those who support the Bill have been seeking to avoid will at once come on to the stage with brass band and all, because it is more than likely that the demands that will be made will not have been modified by victory; they will have been accentuated, and demands will be put forward to give the Scottish people more rights; and that can surely only be at the expense of the English electorate.
470
My views about this are precisely the same as my views about the Common Market. I am not in principle opposed to the Common Market in what it set out to do, or in principle against the Scottish people having the right to run their own show, but I believe that the methods by which this is being secured, as indeed those by which the Common Market was secured, have glossed over the difficulties and that the day will come as surely as night follows day when the British people—and the English people particularly—will wake up to the fact that they have been sold a gold brick—but that it is not gold at all but made of some very inferior metal. This trouble is going to happen. Spokesmen for the Conservative Party speaking from the Front Bench on the debate as to whether there should be a Speaker's Conference made just that point. The day will come when the English people will find that something essential to them has been thwarted by Scottish voters. Then the demand, regardless of the consequences, for their right to have their say will, I think, find the jack out of the box with a vengeance.
To my mind, this Amendment reeks of liberalism in the worst sense of the word—or perhaps, if you like, the best sense of the word. Their bleeding hearts have run away with their bloody heads. They have not thought the thing through. It sounds all very reasonable that an Assembly, having gathered together, may decide, "Well, perhaps we can do it better in a more acceptable way if it wears a kilt". All right, kilt, bagpipes and all, they will start out to do it. Then it will come back to both Houses and it is not likely that the fears which have been expressed, particularly in another place, will be quenched by the way in which the battle is going to be fought in Scotland. It is not going to be fought in a particularly reasonable way. It really is going to be bagpipes, kilt and all and, "Let us reverse the anniversary of Culloden!", which occurs in five days' time, which settled things for quite a while. We shall have this with a vengeance.
I was particularly struck with the point made by Mr. Tam Dalyell—not exactly a supporter of the Bill. He recounted that the previous weekend he had a really rough ride at a club in West Lothian—I think it was the British Leyland Club.

471
Eighty people were there and they howled him down. They were all jacked up in their SNP trimmings. What was the row about? Why did he get howled down? Not on the issue of his opposition to the Scotland Bill, but because of his vote on the question of salmon fishing in one of the local rivers. That is what they were after in force and that is the thing that matters!
Noble Lords will watch the results of the by-election in Scotland this week. It will be a great victory for the SNP or it will be a great defeat for the SNP! Stuff and nonsense! That by-election will be fought not on Home Rule for Scotland, but on the fact that there is 20 per cent. unemployment in that constituency. That is the kind of issue involved. That is the stuff of which democracy is made, not hypothetical situations of this kind which have conflict built into them. I should have thought that there were enough matters in this Island at the moment on which we could quarrel, without finding another. So far as I am concerned, assuming that somebody else will put in a Teller, I shall unquestionably vote against the Amendment.
3.40 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: Strange as it may seem, the strongest argument yet adduced in the course of the debate for the Amendment has been developed by my noble friend Lord Wigg, because he apprehends that if the Assembly, when in existence, decides to amend the form of election, and decides on proportional representation, the example will be followed by England. I am very glad to hear it, because that is precisely what I want. After all, what is it about? The Scottish Assembly, when all the procedural elements involved in this measure have been gone through, and when it is operating, may decide in the circumstances, and because Scottish people prefer it—after all, they have to be considered in this matter—to amend the method of election, and decide on a form of proportional representation. Let it be understood that the decision will not rest entirely with them. It has to come back to Westminster. That is the form of the Amendment, and presumably Westminster will decide one way or the other. If they have any commonsense, they will take into
472
consideration the opinion of the Scottish people.
Judging by the opinions expressed in the course of the debate, there seems to be some fear that if we decide to accept the Amendment our friends along the corridor may be disturbed. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Hughes who said (following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in a previous debate) that we must not disturb the other side unduly; that it is not proper; that it is not the kind of thing expected of us. Well, it does not worry me in the least—not in the least. For, after all, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, so succinctly said in putting the whole case, the Scottish people should decide.
To listen to some of the expressions of opinion, one would imagine that the Scottish people are not in this at all; that it is a matter for Westminster, a matter for us, and that the Scottish people are not interested. That is not as much as the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches said when be talked about devolution being a subject which has been constantly under discussion in Scotland. I must say that in the long period of years I resided in that country, after having it mentioned in my Election address in 1918 (as I believe I have told the House before) I heard very little about it afterwards. We are discussing the matter now.
It was obvious from the previous debate that, regardless of whether we are a little confused about the form of devolution, generally speaking we agree about the principle of devolution; in other words, some form of autonomy for the Scottish people. As to the form, that is a matter for consideration, but we generally agree about the principle. The Scottish people agree about that. If the English people do not accept that, there must be a reason for it. Are they afraid that they may have more autonomy, or less autonomy? I cannot understand that argument at all.
My suggestion is that we should accept the Amendment. If there is a little trouble with the people along the corridor, we will do our best to overcome it, and if in the long run we are defeated, we will accept it with our customary fortitude, albeit with a few additional swear words. But do not let us be worried about them

473
very much. What I am worried about is what my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench is going to say. Is he going to be overwhelmed by the logic of the arguments that have been adduced? Or will he tell us that we must not have trouble with the other place; that the Government have given this the fullest consideration, and it has been constantly under review, as well as a few more political and Parliamentary clichés, which I could quote almost by the thousand from long experience? After all, he represents Scotland in this assembly, as well as representing the Government, and I think that he ought to get up and say that, having listened to all the arguments, he has come to the logical conclusion that at any rate he will ask his right honourable friends to give the matter the fullest consideration, and will not ask us to enter the Lobbies and vote against the Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: In regard to this Amendment, I believe that there is a great danger of acrimony between Scotland and England. On Second Reading we heard that there is great danger of acrimony over the Bill, and I would find support for the Amendment if subsection (7) were omitted. If there is to be a Scottish Assembly, and if it wants to change its system of voting, it should be allowed to do so. If it chooses a certain system and then, as some other noble Lord said, Westminster says, "No, you cannot have that", there is bound to be great acrimony between the two countries. While it may be impossible to avoid acrimony between Scotland and England in the Bill, it is very important to try to do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said something about Glasgow. I cannot remember what it was exactly. I think it was about Glasgow University. But I am told that in Glasgow two-thirds of the Scottish National Party are Irish.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: I should like to put the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, right, if I may. He said that nobody is opposed to devolution, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I am opposed to devolution in Scotland. I am not at all opposed to decentralisation, which is a very different matter. I have noticed that on a number of occasions we are all inclined, myself
474
included, to mix up the two. Decentralisation I do not mind, but the moment there is a devolution suggestion, one is up against the very problem which we now find in the Amendment. It goes all the way through the Bill.
In my view there is nothing particularly wrong in allowing the Scots to make up their own minds, once they have their Assembly—if they do—how they wish to elect each other. That does not really worry me. But there are dangers to it, so immediately we have to put in another clause to safeguard the so-called sovereignty of Westminster. This happens time and time again in a Bill where the sovereignty of Westminster is being challenged by the Bill itself. Every time something is suggested which is supposed to safeguard the sovereignty of Westminster one immediately looks at it and says, "That is going to cause violent trouble between the two countries", and, far from helping the two countries to stick together, it is almost guaranteed to make it more difficult for them to do so.
It is in the nature of the Bill that subsection (7) has to be included. Therefore, although I am not against the first part of the Amendment, I would for this very reason be against the second part. I am against it because I am against devolution, and I am against devolution because I do not believe it is going to hold the two Kingdoms together.
Lord WIGG: I should like to put one thing right. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did not talk about devolution or decentralisation. He went much further than that. He said that we were all in favour of autonomy. I am certainly not in favour of autonomy, and I do not believe he would say he was in favour of autonomy when he had thought about it. Lord Shinwell makes brilliant speeches off-the-cuff, but sometimes they are a little superficial. On this occasion he was more superficial than usual.
4.1 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We are well accustomed to my noble friend Lord Shinwell giving us a personal account of past history, but today he has shown us a surprising acumen for predicting the future. He has said so much of what I am likely to say that I am indeed overwhelmed.

475
May I make a preliminary point? I am certainly overwhelmed by one thing which I should like to mention and pay tribute to. We have listened to 17 speeches in the course of 47 minutes. Some people predicted that your Lordships might seek to delay the Bill, and I should like publicly to acknowledge that this Committee has not sought to bring about any delay at all, either last week or today.
Turning to the merits of this particular matter, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, specifically used the word "oversight". He wondered whether the absence of this provision from the Bill was perhaps an oversight. That is not so. May I begin by referring to the Kilbrandon Report? I have a copy of the relevant passage with me so that I will not misquote it. The Kilbrandon Report, in paragraph 1140, envisaged an Assembly as being a single-Chamber body of about 100 Members directly elected for a fixed term of four years by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation; and it went on to say that consideration might be given to the exceptional use of the alternative vote system in single-Member constituencies. Then it then went on to say:
"All matters relating to the franchise and elections to the assembly (but not elections to local authorities in Scotland and Wales) would be reserved to Parliament".
So that was the considered judgment of that distinguished body under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. The Government agree with that view. The view of the Government is that the responsibility for the maintenance of, and possible changes to, the essential democratic, representational framework of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements should be exclusively reserved to Parliament, which should remain the sole custodian of constitutional matters; and that is seen by the Government as a point of firm principle.
It does not follow from this that identical systems for elections and franchises need to be maintained for different representative institutions. Indeed, this is not at present the case. For example, Peers can vote in local government elections and it is proposed that they may do so in Assembly elections. The principle is that Parliament alone, representative as it is of the United Kingdom's
476
interests as a whole, should have the responsibility for determining what those systems should be. It will be Parliament that proposes the devolution settlement to the people in Scotland, including the form that devolution is to take, the powers to be devolved and the protections to be afforded, and only Parliament, in the Government's view, will be able to contemplate the modification of that settlement. The electoral arrangements to be adopted at the outset or in the future will he central to the working of devolution in practice, and responsibility for them must remain at Westminster.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hughes, pointed, of course, to the second part of this Amendment, the provision proposed in subsection (7); but in the Government's view the principles involved here are not met by that provision. It is true, and I acknowledge, that it would allow Parliament to reject proposals that the Assembly had reached for changes in voting arrangements or the franchise, and that such proposed changes could not be put into effect without the approval of Parliament. But, acknowledging that, Parliament would be in the position of having to approve or reject an Assembly Bill without further modification. That Bill would undoubtedly be one which had been under consideration and scrutiny within the Assembly for some considerable time; and I would agree with those who have said that that would be a recipe for conflict between the Assembly, on the one hand, and Parliament, on the other.
Perhaps I might add that I have been in your Lordships' House for only a fairly short time, but on many occasions I have listened to the compelling argument that your Lordships' House, and Parliament generally, does not like having to consider an order or a matter of that kind which comes forward on a "take it or leave it"basis; it likes to examine these matters and make such changes as it can. The Amendment which is before us today is of a kind which would enable Parliament either to say "Yes"to the proposed Bill or to say "No"; it could not make any modification, and accordingly, in our view, that is unsatisfactory. Perhaps I may also point out that the Amendment does not provide for any sort of test or criterion which Parliament might apply in its consideration of

477
such a Bill, and in this respect, therefore, is very different indeed from what the Bill provides for the protection of reserved matters in Clause 35.
Other noble Lords have drawn attention to the fact that the Scots arc entitled to have a view on this; or, rather, that the people in Scotland are, because in the context of this Bill I do not like to use the terms "the Scots"or "the Scottish people", because the Bill applies to those who inhabit Scotland. If there developed a strong feeling in Scotland that the electoral arrangements for the Assembly should be changed, and if those views were sufficiently reflected in the Assembly itself, surely it is reasonable to believe that these views would come to have a very considerable influence at Westminster. They certainly could not be ignored for very long; and to this extent an elected Assembly which truly represented the Scottish people would indeed have influence in seeking such changes, the changes to be made at Westminster.
A further point which was made in the debate and which I should like to pick up is that changes in constitutional practice and constitutional matters are always likely to prove difficult and contentious. This is certainly the experience of this Parliament, and there could be other issues in the future which would illustrate the same point. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, suggested, it is an inevitable feature of debates on such matters that allegations are made that the proposers of any particular change are seeking that change for some political advantage or for the promotion of some political interest, and such suggestions would inevitably arise on the consideration in the Assembly of changes in electoral arrangements. As the Government see it, as its first task this Assembly will have the job of demonstrating the contribution it can make to the better government of Scotland. It will inevitably take some time to adopt its role and develop its own character. Is it not better to relieve it of the possibility of that kind of acrimony on as fundamental a question as this—this question of electoral arrangements? It would be unfortunate indeed if, instead of getting on with its real tasks, legislative and administrative, within the devolved areas, the Assembly were to spend all
478
its time studying its own constitution. That, as I see it, would be the public equivalent of hypochondria. For these reasons, the Government ask the Committee not to approve this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I would start by thanking the noble and learned Lord for his gracious acknowledgement of the brevity of the speeches which have been made in this debate. As he said, following the debate today and the proceedings on Tuesday of last week, no one can accuse your Lordships of wasting time on this Bill, but it was good of him to point it out from that Bench.
As the sponsors of this Amendment have explained, their intention is to give the new body (we call it the Assembly for the moment, at any rate) an opportunity to review, after the initial election, the system for elections; and the second subsection, numbered (7), ensures that Parliament at Westminster would still have to give its approval. But it has been pointed out that that approval has to be complete, and the only alternative is rejection of the system. There is a disadvantage in that, because a great deal of work would have gone into preparing the system and yet it would just get thrown out if either House disliked it. I think it would perhaps be better to approach it another way—this is my personal view—so that that situation would be avoided. But the pros and cons in regard to this Amendment have been briefly and ably presented in the speeches.
I differ from the noble and learned Lord in giving this new Assembly the credit for more responsibility than that, in its first months, it should spend a great deal of time on this subject. I would say this: As the Amendment is at present drafted, it says that at any time after the initial election this matter of the review of the electoral system can take place.
There is an argument that it would be a good thing to allow the Assembly to settle down with the new system for an election or two—whatever that system is, whatever is the first system. be it firstpast-the-post or some form of proportional representation—before starting to consider a change. That is a reasonable argument; but I would not put it in the way that the noble and learned Lord put

479
it because I think that he regarded the Members of the Assembly as being somewhat irresponsible if they were going to give up a great deal of time to that consideration instead of all the other matters they would have to deal with when starting their deliberations.
There was considerable support in this House last week for the set of Amendments introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn; and I, myself, supported those Amendments. I must confess that I am not as enamoured of the Amendment before us today. I will not elaborate on the reasons which have been given in the debate; and 1 mentioned a consideration or two myself. But I want to say from this Bench that we do not seek to guide noble Lords in how they may wish to vote on this Amendment. We regard this as a matter for individual Peers to decide as they think best.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: I hesitated in getting up at all. I saw my noble friend Lord Perth rising and possibly committing himself to a Division. I do not know what his intention is; but I think that there is a good deal in the argument that the Assembly should have a chance to settle down before it starts talking about a revision of its voting arrangements. I was rather struck by the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to this Amendment when he said that it would have to be on a "take it or leave it"basis. If my noble friend felt inclined and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, should show some sympathy, I was wondering whether it might not be better to postpone a vote on this Amendment until the Report stage, so that more thought could be given to the exact form in which to try to achieve the object that my noble friend Lord Perth has in mind.
The Earl of PERTH: We have had a wide-ranging debate. Those who support this Amendment have been called shallow thinkers, have been accused of reeking of liberalism—which is not a bad thing, perhaps—and so forth. We have also been referred to by others as being the equivalent of local authorities or even compared with the Government of South Africa. Never mind. That is all part of
480
the wide-ranging debate. It has also been pointed out that this Amendment may, in two respects, be weak or faulty. The point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and mentioned by my noble friend Lord Home, was that at the present time we say,
…at any time after the first … election".
There was a particular purpose in that; it was that, if the House of Commons decided not to accept the additional Member system (which we have already approved) and therefore the first Assembly was chosen under the Westminster firstpast-the-post system, there would be no opportunity to change. It was for that reason that we put in the words:
"at any time".
On the other point—the all-or-nothing situation—it is difficult. I think it is something that we certainly should consider. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that the Amendment be voted upon as it stands and that, at the Report stage, we see whether we can change it taking into account those two points. I suggest that for this good reason: We have heard the noble and learned Lord say quite categorically that this was a matter of principle, that the right to decide how the Assembly should be chosen was a matter—and I am sure he used these words—exclusively for Westminster. I, on the other hand, believe it is right for the Assembly to consider whether they would like to make a change in the way they are chosen and, if they so decide, they should put this before the Westminster Parliament. I would accept that, if this Amendment is carried by the Committee, at Report stage we should see whether we could not find a way of ensuring that Westminster had not got to take it hook, line and sinker, or nothing at all.
I hope that your Lordships will feel with me that this matter of principle is so complete and absolute, that the lines are so clearly drawn, that unless the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment, we should go to a Division.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No.24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 100.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Fortescue, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Ailsa, M.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Airedale, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Garner, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Allerton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amherst, E.

Glendevon, L.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Platt, L.

Arran, E.

Gray, L.

Porritt, L.

Auckland, L.

Grey, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Avebury, L.

Gridley, L.

Reigate, L.

Avon, E.

Hampton, L.

Roberthall, L.

Balerno, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ballantrae, L.

Hertford, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Banks, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boothby, L.

Hood, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Davids, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hughes, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brown, L.

Hunt, L.

St. Just, L.

Byers, L.

Ilchester, E.

Seear, B.

Caccia, L.

Inchyra, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chitnis, L.

Inglewood, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clancarty, E.

Keith of Kinkel, L.

Sligo, M.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kilbrandon, L.

Slim, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Tanlaw, L. [Teller.]

Cromartie, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Thurlow, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinross, L.

Thurso, V.

De Freyne, L.

Kintore, E.

Tranmire, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Vernon, L.

Eccles, V.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Lovat, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Westbury, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Energlyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Winstanley, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Marley, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Faithfull, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fulton, L.

Maelor, L.

Balogh, L.

Gage, V.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Birk, B.

Gardiner, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Blyton, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Melchett, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Merrivale, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Greenway, L.

Middleton, L.

Burton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Monck, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Haig, E.

Monson, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hale, L.

Morris, L.

Champion, L.

Hamnett, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hampden, V.

Northesk, E.

Clwyd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hawke, L.

Onslow, E.

Cudlipp, L.

Henderson, L.

Oram, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Hives, L.

Parry, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Digby, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Robbins, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Rochdale, V.

Dowding, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Luke, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elles, B.

McCarthy, L.

Shepherd, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Soper, L.

Ferrers. E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Spens, L.

482

483

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Tweeddale, M.

Wigg, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wall, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Walston, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wells-Pestell. L.

Wise, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

White, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Torphichen, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
(6) No election to a Scottish Assembly shall be held until the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland have been revised so that the electorate of the average Scottish parliamentary constituency immediately after such revision is no smaller than the electorate of the average English parliamentary constituency."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is threefold: to ensure justice for the people of England who, let us not forget, comprise the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom; and, following on from this, to prevent the United Kingdom from being torn apart, whether this occurs in the short, medium or long term, by suspicion, resentment and jealousy. Thirdly—and on a slightly anti-climatic note—it is to enable the Scottish Assembly, if and when it comes into being, to start its life off on the right foot, that is, with the maximum possible goodwill from the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
I need hardly say that this Amendment is in no sense anti-Scottish. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would hardly have added his name to the Amendment if that were the case. Moreover, a considerable number of honourable Members in another place representing Scottish constituencies either tabled or spoke to Amendments with similar broad objectives. It is common knowledge among Parliamentarians and other politically aware people that Scotland has for many years been substantially over-represented at Westminster. However, it is not common knowledge so far as the Englishman in the street is concerned. This is a matter of considerable potential political significance. Various reasons (or excuses, depending on how one looks at it) are trotted out in an attempt to justify this state of affairs. Very few of these will stand up to objective examination, as I
484
hope to demonstrate in a moment. But so long as the status quo continues, so long as there remains one sovereign Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, Scottish over-representation can to some extent be overlooked, or at any rate grudgingly accepted.
However, should the Bill before us become law, then radically different considerations will apply, We will then be faced with the prospect—indeed, the certainty—of Scottish MPs exerting a powerful and often decisive influence upon such contentious matters affecting England alone as family planning; abortion; adoption; housing; rent rebates; caravan siting; rating valuations; rate support grants; new towns, and whether and where they come into existence; the control of pollution, an important issue; aerodromes and transport generally; forestry; ancient monuments and historic buildings; public holidays; betting; gaming and lotteries; liquor licensing, shop opening hours; legal aid; sexual offences; criminal penalties; compensation out of public funds for victims of crime; and so on and so forth.
Against this, the Englishman will have no voice whatsoever in such matters, in so far as they affect Scotland alone. I suggest that the people of England are going to find that intolerable. A Scottish Nationalist Member in another place thought this to be of little consequence. On 31st January last (at column 397 of the Commons Hansard) he declared:
"The people of England have no say in this matter. It is up to the people of Scotland and not to the House of Commons or the people in England."
With all respect to the honourable Member, I disagree. It is a matter for Parliament and for the people of England, and I am sure that the Committee will support me in this contention.
Let us look for a moment at the justifications hitherto advanced in favour of Scottish over-representation at Westminster. They number no more than

485
three. The first is the cultural homogeneity of small self-contained geographical units such as the Orkneys and Shetlands. Second is the distance from London, the seat of Government, and the allegedly prosperous South-East. The idea that the South-East is markedly more prosperous than other parts of the United Kingdom is somewhat illusory nowadays. Third is the low population density of certain constituencies whch makes it difficult for MPs to visit all their constituents.
However, it is impossible to deny that many English and Northern Irish constituencies also suffer from these disadvantages and yet are not more favourably treated in consequence. Strive as one can to see the other point of view, on close examination it appears that there are only five Scottish constituencies where a certain degree of over-representation is perhaps valid and justifiable: the Orkneys and Shetlands, the Western Isles, Argyll, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness and Sutherland. As for the others, they are comparable in most respects with "disadvantaged"—and that is a word that I do not particularly like—English constituencies of similar character; for example, Birmingham, which is represented by 12 Members of Parliament. Accordingly, one might expect that Glasgow, with only five-sixths of the population of Birmingham would be represented by no more than 10 Members; yet in fact Glasgow sends no fewer than 13 MPs to Westminster! Birmingham has all the same problems of inner city deprivation as Glasgow: what earthly excuse is there for Glasgow being over-represented to the tune of 30 per cent. as compared with Birmingham? It is hard enough to justify that today and it will be impossible to justify if devolution becomes a reality, so that 13 MPs from Glasgow are able to cast perhaps decisive votes on matters intimately affecting the people of Birmingham, from education and housing down to licensing laws and shop-opening hours, without the MPs representing Birmingham having any say whatsoever on comparable matters affecting Glasgow.
Nor is this an isolated instance. The electorate of Leeds is slightly larger than the population of Edinburgh: yet Leeds has six MPs to Edinburgh's seven. The mining constituencies of Lanarkshire
486
are over-represented compared to the mining constituencies of the North-East of England. The electorate of Galloway is only 60 per cent. of the electorate of Hexham, a similar agricultural constituency, not contiguous but fairly close to Galloway across the Border. I think these comparisons demonstrate that the excessively favourable treatment of Scotland is not, with the very few aforementioned exceptions in the remoter Highland regions, justified in any way even under present conditions—and how much more so will that be the case if the Assembly comes into being?
It is gratifying to note that the official Liberal view on this matter is, if anything, even more forceful than my own. A Front Bench Liberal spokesman in another place declared at column 319 of the Official Report of 31st January:
"The Liberal view throughout has been that there should be a common United Kingdom general electoral quota. … the disparity between … Scotland, … England and … Northern Ireland cannot he defended… . The problem has nothing to do with devolution… It is a matter which deserves rectification in its own right.".
It was doubtless because the Conservative Amendment then being debated in the other place was somewhat halfhearted and inprecise that the Liberals felt unable to support it in the Division Lobby. I believe that this Amendment conforms rather more closely to Liberal principles, and therefore I do not doubt that they will give it their full support.
A consequential effect of this Amendment, if it is carried, will be to reduce the number of Assembly seats from 150 to about 120—or at any rate that would have been the case had not the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, been carried. These Amendments have rather thrown my earlier calculations into the melting pot and I am not certain what the precise effects would be. I do not want to reiterate in detail the arguments for reducing the proposed size of the Assembly but I must point out to your Lordships that 150 seats would make the Assembly proportionately as large as, if not slightly larger than, the New Zealand House of Representatives, the uni-cameral legislative chamber for a completely independent self-governing country. Is there not a danger that, if Scotland has an Assembly of the size appropriate to an independent

487
self-governing country, pressure will inexorably grow to adapt Scotland's institutions accordingly, thereby leading in the long run to total independence? Surely the Province of Ontario is a much more apt unit for Scotland to model itself on, and not merely because of the large number of Scots who populate Ontario in general and the city of Toronto in particular. On that basis, the Assembly would have 100 seats or fewer.
However, this Amendment is deliberately drafted to leave open a number of options. For example, if it is carried, there is no reason why, at a later stage, other Amendments should not be moved which would have the effect of restoring the number of seats in the Assembly to 150, if that is what your Lordships wished. The Amendment does not seek to lay down exactly how Scottish representation at Westminster is to be reduced—whether it is to be by means of a Speaker's Conference or by straightforward legislation. Nor does it lay down whether Scotland should have parity with England, or with Northern Ireland on a Stormont analogy, although 1 would not personally wish to go quite as far as that. It is also compatible with either the acceptance or rejection, as your Lordships may decide, of Amendment No. 210, which bears the names of noble Lords on both sides of this Chamber. The important point is that it paves the way for something vital and necessary which must be done to rectify what is increasingly seen as a glaring injustice. That is, after all, what we are here for. I beg to move.
4.28 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It is absolutely right for the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to emphasise that this Amendment is sponsored from all parts of the Chamber, which prevents it from being dubbed as having any Party political motive behind it. The noble Lord himself sits on the Cross-Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who has a similar Amendment following on, has given a clear indication of his view. Before the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, produces a bit of history that I have not heard about, I would have to say that on 16th November 1977, at column 620 of the Official Report in another place, Mr. Steel, the Leader of the Liberal Party, said:
488
"I would accept the Kilbrandon proposal of reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to the correct number proportionately."
So all parts of the Chamber accept the justice of the levelling down or levelling up that this Amendment would bring with it. For my part, from these Benches, I think I made my position quite clear on Second Reading. On matters of constitutional change, I believe that merit, fairness and logic should be given priority over mere political expediency.
It may be convenient for the Government to ignore the clearly accepted fact that, compared with England, Scotland is over-represented at Westminster, because they think that the existing situation is worth a few votes in the Lobby on certain occasions. But the unfairness is such that it is likely to provoke repercussions which will shatter the hopes that anybody may have that this devolution policy will be accepted and will work amicably in the future. I believe that this underlying sense of unfairness will make it almost impossible for this policy to work in the kind of spirit that is desirable.
One can only repeat the facts for the argument itself to be almost unanswerable. The average size of an English constituency is 66,000 yet in Scotland there are now 11 constituencies with fewer than 40,000 voters. A reduction of these 11 seats is the minimum that we should accept; certainly the minimum that I should accept, in order to feel that the true interests of the Westminster Parliament are being looked at. Reducing the number of Scottish seats from 71 to 60 will still be a generous recognition of the size of the constituencies in Scotland and the extra acres that they cover. A figure of 66 in England and 40 in Scotland would give ample room for acreage to be taken into account.
But it is not only in Parliament that there is some unanimity on this matter. H' we look at the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, we find that they say:
"Scotland is at present represented in Parliament by 71 Members, and this number would be reduced to 57 if Scotland's total representation in proportion to population were to be the same as that of England."
Then they go on:
"In the case of Scotland, for example, should it remain at 71, be reduced to 57 or, following the

489
example of Northern Ireland, be reduced even further? "
They go on to say later in their report:
"On the other hand, it is possible to argue for the removal of the over-representation of Scotland and Wales on the grounds that it would both be undemocratic and constitute a grave injustice to the people of England."
Those are very clear expressions of view, from an impartial and objective Commission which has taken evidence and looked into the matter in depth, in the real meaning of that term. They go on:
…the amount of this reduction would be a matter for discussion in the light of the extent of devolution, and it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules ".
It is because I accept that view of the Commission that I suggest to my noble friends that it may be a good thing to debate this Amendment and to put our views on the record, but not to vote on it, making it perfectly clear that, when we get to the Report stage, we hope that the strength of the arguments that we have presented, plus the evidence which we have produced from our side, will have put the Government in a position where they see the justice of our case and will give some guidance on how this matter, which is generally accepted, should he dealt with, in order that this policy can work without any unnecessary friction.
I have quoted the Liberal Party, through the mouth of their leader; one is expressing one's own view from these Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has given his view from the Cross-Benches. Here 1 have a pamphlet issued by the Labour Group which calls itself the "Vote No"Campaign. It is useful to have on the record what this important section of the Labour Party thinks about this subject. This is what they say in their pamphlet:
""W ' is for the so-called West Lothian Question, whereby under the Scotland Act, 71 Scottish Members of Parliament will be able not only to talk but to vote money on the gut issues of politics, and socialist priorities, in relation to West Bromwich or West Ham, but not West Lothian. How long can such a situation possibly endure? (Not least since the average Scottish Constituency consists of 53,000 electors and the average English constituency of 65,000 electors). The fact is that the day there is a United Kingdom Government of one political colour, and an English majority of another, the ' settlement between Scotland and England' created by the Scotland Act will simply crumble. It is one thing having a Labour Government and an English Conservative majority at present, when the United Kingdom Parliament is responsible for the whole of Britain. It is an entirely different
490
matter having an over-representation for Scotland deciding the most controversial matters of English domestic politics—matters for which the Scots MPs have no responsibility in their own constituencies. Such a position is neither logical nor lasting. The reason that the Government have not answered the West Lothian Question is that there is no answer to give. It was one of the rocks on which the Scotland and Wales Bill perished in February, 1977, and it is still there ".
This is not extravagant language. This is a very real risk which will undermine good government in both Scotland and England, and indeed in the whole of the United Kingdom.
I suppose that one of the reasons why one has been given the honour of joining your Lordships' House is that one is sometimes able to bring evidence as to what has happened in the past. I remember vividly the period between 1964 and 1966, when the then Labour Government had a very narrow majority indeed. The then Prime Minister used extreme language against the 12 Unionist votes that came from Northern Ireland. He used to argue that they ought not to be allowed to vote on nationalisation and matters of that kind which affected this country. I quote that from my own recollection, merely to show that these are not just negative, destructive arguments that one produces when one tries to point out, from time to time, the danger that there is in this Bill to the unity of the United Kingdom and the powers that it can have in the world, and the way in which it could undermine the very endeavours that we ought to use to help strengthen ourselves, at a time when competition in the world needs the extra strength which we must have if we are to maintain our present living standards.
So I feel that, because it is recognised on all sides that this over-representation exists, we ought to deal with it. We might not have wanted to deal with it, had there been no suggestion of this devolution Bill and the risk of eventual separation which may flow from it. But if we are to concede the need for an Assembly in Scotland, this is the ideal time for also settling this question of over-representation. If we ask for the over-representation to be remedied at the same time as we are suggesting setting up the Scottish Assembly, then it is a decision that is likely to be accepted in Scotland, which will be for the general good of the whole United Kingdom. But if it is left to some

491
different time, it will be judged to be another Sassenach attempt to undermine the separateness and individuality of Scotland itself.
So that on grounds of logic, on grounds of fairness, on grounds of merit and on grounds of good sense in wanting this Bill to work, if it ever becomes an Act, I suggest that, even if we may not vote on the Amendment now—if that is the decision of my noble friends—the Government ought to find ways and means of seeing that running alongside this Bill is an alteration in the representation of that country, so as to avoid the dangers which have tried to describe.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: In supporting this Amendment, I agree that, if devolution goes through and the Assembly is set up, it is essential that it should be a success, and essential to ensure that it will work. In order to do so, it must be seen to be fair. It must be seen to be fair to the English majority representing no less than 83 per cent. of the electorate in the United Kingdom. Nothing will be more disastrous than a smouldering resentment, capable of being fanned into an English backlash blaze, as a result of unfair overrepresentation in one part of the United Kingdom—that is to say, Scotland—representing only 9 per cent. of the electorate, in the changed circumstances that will exist if the Scottish Assembly is set up.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has just pointed out that the average size of a Scottish constituency is 53,000 electors. This has to be compared with the average size of an English constituency which is 65,000 electors. Purely on a statistical basis, England, therefore, is some 14 seats short, Scotland has about 12 too many, Wales has four too many, while Northern Ireland is four short. Nobody expects there to be rigid adherence to statistics, but the present position is not practical if devolution goes through.
I feel that the absurdity of the position is rather highlighted by the case of Northern Ireland. During the 50 years or so that Northern Ireland had its own Parliament at Stormont—which admittedly had somewhat greater powers than those envisaged for the Scottish Assembly—Northern Ireland sent only 12 Members of Parlia
492
ment to Westminster: there was an average of 86,000 electors per constituency. Now it is rather belatedly proposed, as a result of the Speaker's Conference, that there should be 16 Members, which would result in the average size of a Northern Ireland constituency being 65,000 electors —exactly the same as in England.
If and when Northern Ireland again has Home Rule of some kind or another I cannot believe that it is very likely that the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster will be reduced to only 12. Now that Scotland is to have a substantial measure of Home Rule, no one is suggesting an average constituency of 86,000 electors. Of course not. It is imperative that Scotland should have fair, proper and full representation. I would say that, eventually, all four parts of the United Kingdom should, so far as possible, have equal representation at Westminster on the basis of population.
I find it difficult to see what is so sacrosanct about this number of 71 Members of Parliament. There may have been valid reasons for it in the past, both historical and geographical, but for the first time since the Act of Union was passed the position is now to be fundamentally changed. Scotland is to have a home Parliament; I prefer to call it a Parliament and be done with it rather than have all this talk of an Assembly or a Convention. Nobody wants to see vast rural areas represented by one Member, but we are living in 1978 and not in 1928 or at the turn of the century.
Despite the worst that British Rail, industrial action and so on can do, modern means of communication, such as radio and television, reaching into every home surely mean that the position is rather different now to what it was 50 or so years ago. I do not see why it should be harder to reach Westminster from Aberdeen than from, say, Londonderry or from the Western Isles than the Scilly Isles. In any case, gross disparity in the size of constituencies is commonplace in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I should have thought that any reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster should surely come not so much from the rural areas as from urban areas such as Glasgow where, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson,

493
has pointed out, there are 13 constituencies with an average electorate of only 42,000. This is 20 per cent. below the average for Scotland and one-third below the average for England. I feel that the Government must face up to the fact that this problem—the"West Lothian anomaly"as it has been called—just will not conveniently disappear. On the contrary, it will continue to haunt and plague the Government.
I was rather disappointed with the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to the Amendment put down last week by my noble friend Lord Morris. I believe that the noble and learned Lord said that the Government would, because delay might result from a redrawing of constituency boundaries, regard such an Amendment as a wrecking Amendment. Without such an Amendment, however, or without some action to put right this matter, it seems to me that it is the unity of the United Kingdom which is liable to be wrecked.
when English people wake up to what is being done they will just not put up with it. To do something after the Assembly has been set up and after the next General Election, which no doubt the Government hopefully think may just go their way with the block vote of their Scottish Members of Parliament, will be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. One can imagine the kind of reaction there would be if we had a Government which abolished independent education, ended private medicine, banned the sale of council houses, nationalised agricultural land and so on. And what would be the reaction if all these measures were brought about in England by a Government who were in power after devolution only because of the large number of Scottish Labour Members of Parliament? It would inevitably be regarded as absolutely intolerable.
I feel, therefore, that the Government should be very careful to ensure that there is fair play in a matter which involves the most fundamental change in the Constitution since the Act of Union. If there has to be devolution, I think it is far better to have a delay of several months or a year in order to get everything right, or at least to get everything as right as possible, rather than have the present botched-up arrangement, which could so easily lead to disaster and to the break up of the Union.
494
Lastly, surely the referendum question is being put to the Scottish people upon a false prospectus. I understand that it is being put to the Scottish people on the basis that Scottish representation at Westminster will be unaltered, although it is surely obvious that Scottish representation must and will be altered—if not now, then at any rate very soon.
4.48 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, referred to the Assembly and suggested that we should sweep away this nonsense and call it a Parliament. It will not be a Parliament. The Westminster Parliament is sovereign. The Assembly that will be formed in Edinburgh after the passing of this Bill will not be sovereign. The Westminster Parliament will be sovereign and will be able to dissolve that Assembly at any stage.
This is the first time that I have intervened on this Bill, although my association with it has been just as long as that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I saw the Bill in its very first stages and I saw the very first papers. I am a convinced devolutionist. I believe that we need to devolve more and more power away from central Government and the centre of London. However, I shall not hide from the Committee my growing sense of disquiet as I looked at the papers and proposals that came before us. That is not meant to be a criticism of the proposals. For the first time, we are trying to introduce a form of written Constitution. I hope that the Committee will support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that there should not be a vote on this Amendment. The Committee has had a debate upon it and views have been aired. I understand the sense of risk to which the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, referred: that, if one devolves certain powers to an Assembly in Edinburgh while retaining the same number of Members of Parliament as were provided by the Act of Union, one makes a nonsense, or at least that the matter is open to a degree of critical review.
I am quite certain that whatever change is made in the membership of the House of Commons, whether it results in more Englishmen or less Scotsmen, that change should not be brought about by this Bill.

495
If we were to bring it about by this Bill, I do not believe that any other Bill would bring about what we all want to see; namely, the retention of the unitary State. I believe that, if there is to be change, that change should be made outside these proposals. Let these proposals stand, let them be worked and then let Parliament, through its normal procedures, consider not only the representation of Scotland but the representation of Northern Ireland. When the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, quoted the average sizes of some of the Scottish constituencies, I thought of the size of the constituency of Newcastle Central. Perhaps it is indefensible and no doubt it will be dealt with but, in terms of Scotland and the sizes of the constituencies—I am not a Scot but I appreciate the position because it is a country which I visit fairly frequently— there are vast distances and there is great difficulty in communication. Therefore, as a consequence, there is bound to be, and there ought to be, some degree of over-representation.
I beg the Committee, whatever may be the value of the arguments which are adduced in another place in regard to the changes which should be made, not to tie it to this Bill because I believe that, if we were to do so, there could be no greater recipe for disaster, and by that I mean the break-up of the unitary state.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: It has probably not escaped your Lordships' notice that this Amendment stands in the name of three Englishmen and one Scotsman. Therefore I would claim that it is a British Amendment, a claim which would be more fully justified if it obtained the support of one speaker from Northern Ireland today.
A noble Lord: And one from Wales.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: I am intruding into this debate because I have spent much of my life working in, I believe, the interests of Britain, with Englishmen. I have always been treated with courtesy and goodwill by them and have obtained their full co-operation. Accordingly, I do not like to feel that we Scots have—fortuitously, it would seem—obtained a proportionately greater influence in decision-making in another place than our
496
English colleagues. Of course that has not always been the case. In what I believe was the first Westminster Parliament which included Scottish representation—that of June 1653, which was known, I believe, particularly by schoolboys, as the"Barebones Parliament"—Scotland had five seats out of 140 and it was under-represented in all Parliaments for the next 230 years. Under the Cromwellian Ordinance of Union, Scotland got 30 seats out of 460. Under the Act of Union in 1707, the Scottish Commissioners accepted an allowance of 45 seats while England and Wales got 513.
To put it another way, in relation to population, Scotland's quota was one seat for 24,000 of the population, England and Wales getting one seat for 10,700 of the population. That situation remained practically unaltered for the next 125 years, for the first Reform Bill, that of 1832, gave Scotland one seat for every 45,000 of the population and England and Wales one seat for every 28,000. In fact, Scotland remained under-represented until the Reform Act of 1884 when seats were first allocated strictly on the basis of population, with the result that Scotland got 72 seats out of 670 and from that date Scotland could not complain of being under-represented at Westminster.
Under the 1918 Act, on the basis of population, Scotland got 74 seats which, with the abolition of the university seats in 1948, was reduced to 71, at which number it stands today. But there has been a very dramatic change in population since 1918 and, as has already been stated today, the Kilbrandon Report found that, on the basis of population, Scotland's representation should he reduced from 71 to 57. Scotland is accordingly over-represented by some 14 members and England is underrepresented.
It is that situation which this Amendment seeks to redress by making the electorate of the Scottish constituencies no smaller than that of the average English constituency. I cannot see how any Scotsman can possibly object to such a change. It is just, it is fair and the time would appear to be appropriate when it is proposed under this Bill to transfer so many functions from another place to a Scottish Assembly. Accordingly, I wholeheartedly support the Amendment.
Lord WIGG: I shall not detain the Committee long, but I was a little struck by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who held out great fears if this Bill were to change anything and, so far as I could understand it, his argument was that it does not change anything. Of course, he may be arguing against a change in numbers or sizes but surely he cannot argue that the Bill does not involve a changed role in the House. It is surely impossible to escape the conclusion that there are whole areas of legislation and administration which will be transferred as a result of this Bill and, surely all our experience, both as Members of this House and of another place, points to the fact that, when one starts to make changes, the changes that take place are very often quite different to the ones envisaged when the matter was first considered. Indeed, one can almost say that it is axiomatic that the changes which one does not foresee are the important ones.
Surely, with his long experience in these matters, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, must have faced up to the fact that, over the whole of the devolved areas, Members representing Scottish constituencies will be unable to vote on matters affecting Scotland but will be able to vote, as now, on things affecting England. That will apply to every Member. So we should have a situation in which honourable Members of another place representing English constituencies would not be able to vote on matters affecting Scotland but, as the Bill now stands, Scottish Members would be able to vote on those same issues so far as they affected England.
Surely that is a change of gigantic magnitude and, as I said earlier this afternoon, the day will come—and I shall take on the mantle of the prophet and say that it will most assuredly come—when English Members will wake up to the fact that British people have been affected against their wishes by the votes of Scottish Members without English Members having a similar right. This may or may not be right. These may be the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is enthusiastic about, but to suggest for a moment that this does not constitute change, and change of the first magnitude, seems to me to be stretching the imagination too far.
Lord SHEPHERD: I did not suggest that this Bill did not make changes: what I sought to say was that Parliament still remains sovereign. The Westminster Parliament is sovereign and my plea which was really made in response to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was that, if we were to have a change in representation, it should not be as a consequence of this Bill but should be the result of a different Bill brought forward for a different reason.
Lord WIGG: But what the noble Lord does not see is that Parliament is a corporate body whose sovereignty is equally spread, whereas we are going to limit the sovereignty of English Members while enhancing the sovereignty of Scottish Members. That must influence the whole and to say that Westminster will remain sovereign when you arc explicitly removing from its direct responsibility whole areas of both legislation and administration seems to me to be playing with words.
I tried to understand what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was saying, and I thought he was directing his remarks to the concept that he did not want the Bill altered in terms of numbers and that is why he was opposing the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and his friends. What I would say to him in return is that you cannot separate role from numbers; they are the heads and tails of the same penny. If you play around with the size of constituencies, you alter the number of constituencies, and inevitably this must have an effect upon the role. Conversely, if you alter the role, by removing whole areas from London to Edinburgh, you will ultimately have affected the constituencies. That seems to me quite inevitable.
Indeed I think Lord Shepherd's speech is to be welcomed. He is one of the godfathers—not one of the parents—of this measure. He has pointed out from his intimate knowledge an even greater weakness than we had suspected. In fact the interrelating of functions of role and constituency have not been thought out. This is what I have always suspected. This is a political measure to deal with a short-run emergency—in the nature of politics they are always short run—in the hope that Scottish Nationalism will go

499
away, will disappear. I do not believe it will disappear. I believe this Bill will intensify, it, and if this Bill is enacted I fear it is the death warrant of the unity of the British people.
5.3 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: Like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I am glad that my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls indicated that he is not going to seek a vote today. With due respect to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I do not believe the mathematics implied in the Amendment can be satisfactory in the large country areas of Scotland. I do not think they could be worked out in this way and they would not be acceptable. I really want to give some preliminary reflections on the Scottish representation in the Westminster Parliament raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and others. That Scotland is over-represented at Westminster is nothing new, and there has been no revolt about it. The 71 Members representing Scotland has been the price which the Westminster Parliament has felt it worth while to pay to enable Scotland to be a willing partner at Westminster in the United Kingdom. This has been accepted without protest.
The last point I want to make, which perhaps Lord Ellenborough would consider, is that, even if the number of representatives is reduced to 57, it will not remove the West Lothian problem. It will simply mean that 57 Members of the Assembly are voting on English matters instead of 71. So I come to the conclusion that this is a matter largely for another place, that another place will have to decide in the end how many Scottish Members they will swallow. I suspect they will swallow 70, although they would prefer 57. So I do not treat this matter as one of enormous importance, because I still think that on the whole the Westminster Parliament will decide, as it has done in the past, that whether it is 70 or whether it is 71 it is worth while in order to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on bringing forward this excellent principle, and I would very happily agree with all that he says the
500
Liberals have said about it. Of course, it is fair and just that there should be some adjustment to the number of Scottish representatives at Westminster. But I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this is the wrong Bill to which to move this Amendment. It is a matter for Westminster; it is a matter for the established machinery, and it is a matter that can be dealt with by Parliament here at Westminster. What I think is entirely wrong is that you should try to tie it to this Bill. The question of devolution for Scotland and the question of Scottish representation at Westminster are linked to a very large degree, but they are not linked in this Bill or in our present situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, talked about the size of Glasgow, the number of representatives there, as against Birmingham. One of the reasons for the rise of the feeling in Scotland that all is not well, that Scotland could be better governed, that perhaps we should make our own mistakes in domestic matters, is, of course, emigration—not immigration, which bothers some people, but emigration—from Scotland, which has enormously reduced the size of Glasgow, while Birmingham has been growing. So that you have the situation where, if Parliament put through a Scottish devolution Bill which works, then the people of Scotland, the Assembly and the Scottish electorate, will very happily accept what they would regard as a fair representation at Westminster.
If you look for anomalies you will find them all over the place. The only logical thing for the unity of the United Kingdom is to have a federal system, but the fact is that the people of England are not ready for it; they have not thought about it; they are frightened about the break-up of the United Kingdom. The optimistic Scots (I certainly am one, and noble Lords on all sides of the House share my opinion) take the view that devolution for Scotland—a Scottish Assembly that is effective and is seen to work well—will make the Scots very much less chippy, less crusty, more trusting, better partners, and will make the security of the United Kingdom, as a whole, very much greater. I am certain this is right.
The views expressed as to the numbers in Scottish constituencies are, of course,

501
correct. I hope that the English will continue not only to regard distance as a factor in the size of constituency but also to regard the kind of life that people live in these constituencies as very important. Obviously, if you represent a Highland constituency, as I did in Caithness and Sutherland, then the problems and the thinking of the people are different; they differ between Caithness and Sutherland and Argyll. It is not only numbers and it is not only geography. But, as I say, given that we produce from Westminster a workable Bill, I do not think the question of over-representation of Scotland will be any problem.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I rise because I have taken part in every Election in Glasgow from 1935 until 1959, and during that period Glasgow sent 15 Members to Parliament, not 13. I would not particularly defend that, but I would only say that it has been reduced by two. I think it could well be reduced by more. What I really feel very strongly about is this West Lothian question, as it has been called, which is at the root of the reason why I think this Bill will not work. I do not think it is right that Scotland should send Members of Parliament to vote solely on United Kingdom matters which may be, as has been pointed out, largely, or very often, quite personal to England or to Wales.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when he talks about"federalism ". That is entirely wrong. I do not agree with the people who say that a possible break-up of the United Kingdom does not worry them. It would be extremely serious. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that it is vital that the United Kingdom should remain united. In fact I think that an enormous majority in both Houses share that view and only a few Scottish Nationalists and a few Liberals are against it. It would be most unfortunate if we did not face up to this matter right away.
The Amendment under consideration and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is a very good one. I shall be quite happy if it is not thought necessary to have a Division now because this matter can be discussed further. However, I do not think that we can ignore it or say that it will come right if we
502
leave it as it is—it will not. I agree with the quotation which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, read from the Labour "Vote No"Campaign. I have a copy of that pamphlet here. I think that it is perfectly right. We must face up to this matter. We have an impossible position. I do not think that we can have 71 Scottish Members being able to take part in every single English or Welsh question and then do nothing about what happens in the Assembly.
As I think noble Lords know—I said this during Second Reading—I am not happy about the Assembly. However, if it goes through and we are faced with this situation, then the West Lothian question is one that must be tackled before anything else happens, otherwise we shall have great unfairness. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that we can just write it off as something that will not worry people very much. It will worry people a great deal and it may be quite disastrous not only to the Assembly, if it gets through—I would not mind that so much—but to the United Kingdom Parliament. I hope that we shall be firm about this matter and ask the Government to reconsider it, and if we do not take a vote tonight we can raise it again during the Report stage.
5.13 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: I should like to intervene. I have been trying to speak for some hours and on previous occasions. I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter. Naturally one always bows to the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and I am loath to disagree with him. I perfectly well accept, and I think that the Committee would, that the 71 is part of the sacrifice or arrangement whereby Scotland became part of the United Kingdom. It has always been slightly overrepresented ever since, and I accept that. However, we are taking or are in danger of taking action to devolve a whole range of responsibilities to Scotland, and that I think makes the injustice and the unfairness greater. That is why I think that we, as a constitutional Chamber, have an obligation to consider this matter most carefully.
I absolutely accept the argument that we have the constitutional duty to discuss

503
this matter, but I should hope that the House of Commons will feel the obligation not only to discuss it but perhaps to act on it when the next Boundary Commission takes place. However, I cannot quite accept that argument for I do not think that we can wait for the outcome of a Boundary Commission as the Amendment suggests, because they take a most unconscionable time. I vividly remember that the last one was set up in 1965. There were four Boundary Commissions—for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. They reported, I think, on the 19th June 1969. They took over four years before they reported. Even then we had a slight difference of opinion, because the Home Secretary of the day was very loath to lay the order.
Noble Lords will remember that we believed that one of the reasons for the delay was the fact that it would have given 11 or 12 extra Conservative seats if those boundaries had been honoured. There was very strong criticism in this House and eventually the Home Secretary of the day, Mr. Callaghan, made the order on 28th October 1969. By then nearly five years had passed since the Boundary Commission was set up. Incidentally, he then led his Party into the Opposition Lobby to vote against the order which he had laid and thus we lost some 12 seats at the 1970 Election. However, it did not matter very much because we won it anyway.
However, it still is a wrong principle, and I wonder whether we ought to accept without question the fact that there is a certain amount of gerrymandering built into this Bill. Not only is there the unfairness of the over-representation of Scottish MPs, which I believe is a matter ultimately for the House of Commons, but it is strange that there has been a complete change since the White Paper which I have here—Command 6348 of November 1975, called Our Changing Democracy—in which it is suggested that there should be three Assembly Members for Parliamentary constituencies with more than 125 per cent. of the quota and only one Member for those with less.
What has happened? The Scotland Bill proposes that there should be two Assembly Members for each Parliamentary constitu
504
ency plus an extra one for constituencies with more than 125 per cent. of the norm. It so happens, if we take 1977 figures, that the effect is that there are only five such constituencies, of which four are held by Labour and one by the SNP. Therefore, this change will help Labour representation.
To take the second point, the Bill has now dropped the idea that there should be only one Member for smaller constituencies. We wonder why, until we see that there are 13 such constituencies, eight of which are held by Labour, two by Conservatives, two by the SNP, and one by the Liberals. So here again there is an element of gerrymandering and there has been a change in Government thinking—perhaps they have been doing their arithmetic again. However, all of this is highly undesirable and, as a constitutional House, I think that we have a duty to draw attention to it.
I agree with those who have said that it is not right to vote on this matter. The movers and those who have put the Amendment down have done a great service to the Committee, and I am grateful to them. However, I hope that the other place will take action and we shall, in due course, have a Boundary Commission and an adjustment. I do not know that it should be down from 71 to 57, but I think that a Boundary Commission will, in due course, reveal what it ought to be.
Lord BROWN: I think that it is time someone from this side of the Committee said a word on this matter. If we try to make the Bill perfect we shall not succeed because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, the situation is full of anomalies. We cannot create a perfect Bill in these situations. However, let us suppose that we treat every clause of the Bill in the manner in which this clause is being treated, pointing out the obvious anomalies that arise from the whole process of devolution at this stage. It is possible that we shall end up without a Bill at all and we shall be repeating a historical mistake that this House made in the late 1890s when it turned down Gladstone's proposals for Ireland. We all know what we are suffering today from that failure to take a long-term view.

505
Therefore, I suggest that this sort of perfectionist attitude, when perfection is simply not possible, is the antithesis of what is required in the long run. We had better take a long-term view in this House, because if we do not and if this Bill is an offence to a lot of people in Scotland, or if it fails to work because we have amended it in certain ways, then we shall hand over a situation to the Scottish National Party and, with sufficient support, it would not be long in creating that separation about which we are all so anxious.
5.18 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I should like to say word or two about this Amendment. In the first place I would apologise to the House. I was invited to attend a meeting of the Procedure Committee and therefore I was unable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I heard only three-quarters of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which led me into a procedural error when another noble Lord was in the Chair. However, I think that this is a rather more difficult matter then we have realised. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was very wise to indicate that he, at any rate, hoped that there would not be a vote at this stage, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he comes to reply to the debate will take the same view.
There are, as I tried to point out on Second Reading, two related general difficulties about the Bill. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel was quite right in saying that this particular Amendment deals with only one of them. But in a way they are quite separate, and it is important to realise that they are separate. The first is the number of MPs representing Scottish constituencies who will be elected to Westminster after Assembly. It is only that to which this Amendment is relevant. The other question is the rights of individual Members of another place to vote in the Westminster Parliament after Assembly They are really two separate problems.
In fact, this Amendment does literally nothing to cure the second of the two defects. The first can be dealt with—and I shall return to it because this is essentially at the heart of the Amendment—by a reduction in the number of representatives of Scottish constituencies, but the second
506
cannot. The only logical way—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—in which that could be dealt with would be by a true example of federalism in which the frontiers were delimited between the rights of the Westminster Parliament and the rights of the Assembly. In other words, it would be a true federal solution. I cannot go into that on this Amendment. Nor do I propose to probe the question of whether England is "ready for it", as the phrase was. I merely point out that that is the only logical way of dealing with the second of the two difficulties.
The noble Lords who have put their names to the Amendment have, I think, drawn the attention of the Committee to a very real grievance. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd (and one is always glad to see and hear him in his new place below the gangway), I think that the Government and some Members of the Party opposite would be unwise if they did not realise the strength of feeling on this side of the Committee and in certain other parts of the Committee about the first anomaly which this Amendment is designed to cure. The point that is being made is very real.
For a long time it was thought by the Scots that the right to possess 71 MPs in the House of Commons was built into the Act of Union. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde has demolished that heresy—it is not so; it is simply wrong. But what is absolutely clear is that even as matters now stand the Scots are over-represented, and when they are given an additional right to have an Assembly of their own—that is, if it passes the referendum and all else—they really must consent to a substantial adjustment being made in their representation at Westminster for the very good reason that their representatives will have less to do and fewer subjects to represent. They must make that adjustment.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel that it is no good trying to put this matter into an exact mathematical bed of Procrustes. There are at least three separate factors to be considered in delimiting a Westminster constituency. One is population, another is geographical area and the other is the sense of community in which one tries to draw the boundaries so that local communities are

507
separately represented. These are difficult and delicate matters, and I think that the Government must understand that subject to the difficulty and delicacy of it, they really must move in this matter to satisfy some of us.
Then one conies to the Amendment itself. The feature of this Amendment is that it seeks to impose a sanction; that is to say, no election to the Assembly unless there is satisfaction on this point. I have the greatest possible sympathy with this frame of mind, but I have very considerable doubts as to whether it is a prudent course to take. I think that its effect would be to postpone the actual Assembly for a very long time, and the price one would have to pay in would probably be higher than the virtue of it would be worth. I also have a pedantic difficulty which I shall share with the Committee at the risk of being called an as "dry as dust"lawyer, which I confess to on every possible occasion. The lawyer's motto has to be:
"The spirit killeth, the letter giveth life."
All lawyers in all countries have to point out the importance of that principle. But the Long Title of the Bill is:
"to provide for changes in the government of Scotland and in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies".
We can alter the Long Title. I am not sure whether it is the intention of my noble friends to alter the Long Title—they can do so—so as to enlarge it, but I wonder whether, as it stands at the moment, the Long Title is adequate to support a provision in the Bill which says that nothing shall happen until the number of Scottish representatives at Westminster is reduced to a given figure. I think that it is something which we shall have to consider and I hope that with their customary skill the Clerks at the Table will, if we need it, give us advice on that.
However, I think that that second difficulty must be taken into account. I say to the Government that sooner or later we shall have to handle this problem. It may well be that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing is right in saying that the delay in the ordinary course of procedure would be unconscionably long. I hope that the Government, having taken the advice which is available to them and not to us, will consider the possibility of
508
ensuring that the delay is not unconscionable. As Mr. Gladstone said:
"The resources of civilisation are probably not yet exhausted. "
We may, indeed, at a later stage of the Bill or by independent legislation—I know not which—seek to press the Government into some form of intellectual activity on this point because the situation is intolerable. As I ventured to say earlier on in the afternoon in a totally different connection, a General Election is coming up, and I am sure that the last thing that this enlightened Government would want would be to have it thought that they were trying to get one or two extra seats by a trick.
Viscount THURSO: I should like to add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has said. I think that it is a dangerous precedent to link the grievance and the anomaly which the Amendment has uncovered to the passing or otherwise of this Bill. I am sure that if the Bill falls, the grievance and the anomaly will not—the unfairness of over-representation will not go away. Therefore, I beg the mover of this Amendment, and indeed others like myself who do not necessarily support the Amendment but who understand the grievance and the anomaly, not to link this grievance and anomaly with the Bill.
The other side of the coin is that if there is no Bill, then we must leave the Scottish representation at Westminster at its present high level. I think that that would be just as objectionable as to link the representation at Westminster to the giving of a Scottish Assembly. Therefore, although noting the grievance and the anomaly which this Amendment has raised, I think we should say firmly that it has nothing whatever to do with the Bill and must be dealt with by another Bill at another time.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There is a counter-argument to the argument which was produced by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and that concerns the passage of this Bill. The Government are very keen to get it passed, and they will have no motive to reduce the Scottish membership after this Bill has passed. If anything, they could have a motive for leaving it as it is, because I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could give us an undertaking that, when the Government considered

509
this Bill, there was no Party political consideration given to it. If these two factors were not linked together there would be no pressure, except popular discontent in England. I am sure that the popular discontent in England will be very strong indeed when the full implications are understood. For that reason I strongly believe that something should be done about it. I obviously have doubts as to whether this Amendment is right when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, says it is not quite right. One takes everything that he says on this issue very much to heart. However, something must be done about it, and in this Bill.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I suppose it is quite impossible, but I should like to ask whether it is possible to debar Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster, if and when we have an Assembly—it could not be done in this Bill —from voting on English domestic legislation?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: There is a later Amendment about that.
Earl FERRERS: May I make a few observations before the noble and learned Lord replies?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I just say that I should like to speak?
Earl FERRERS: There is nothing that I should hate to do more than debar my noble friend from speaking. If my noble friend wishes to speak, please do so.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I have found extremely interesting all the different Amendments that have been moved to this Bill, which apparently nobody seems to want at all. Certainly my Scottish friends tell me that if there were a referendum in Scotland they would not want this particular Bill. Certainly in the part of the world from which I come, which is the North-East of England, we do not want the Bill at all.
I rise to support Lord Monson's Amendment. I have listened to people pointing out the number of constituents
510
they represent in Parliament, and so far as I am concerned most of the figures have been entirely wrong. I wanted to put on the record that, when I represented Tynemouth, I represented over 80,000 constituents, which is a much greater figure than anybody seems to have raised today. Therefore, I think it important that Lord Monson's Amendment should be carried in due course.
There is something else I should like to say, which is a little difficult. I live in and represented two constituencies near to the Scottish Border. I had great sympathy over the years when I heard of the number of unemployed in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland. When I was first elected to my part of the world I was faced with 84 per cent. of the employable population being unemployed. Scotland has a great advantage over my part of the world. When a new shipbuilding order has been forecast and arranged, I often wondered why, generally speaking —not always, of course—it seems to have arrived on the Clyde.
I have had great sympathy for those who were unemployed on Clydeside in the same way as I have had great sympathy for the unemployed in any part of the country. But, you see, Scotland has had a Secretary of State for Scotland, and Edinburgh has had a great advantage in speaking its mind. It has been sometimes difficult from my part of the world—although we have had both Party Governments trying to help—to get up in Parliament and say,"Why is that order going to Scotland? "
On the whole—I say this with great regret—Scotland has often got more shipbuilding orders than we have been able to get in my part of the world. I think that that is because there have always been so many people in high positions to speak up for Scotland—and very well some of them have done it. I only wanted to make that reference because when this new Bill comes into operation we want it to be a fair Bill so far as all parts of the country are concerned.
Although I do not necessarily agree with all of Lord Monson's Amendment, I thought to myself,"Well, at any rate, here is a chance of seeing that there will be fewer representatives to speak up for Scotland, if they have got to place orders

511
and take into account the needs of my part of the world."Our Members of Parliament, whether they belonged to the Conservative or Labour Party—and, I think, one to the Liberal Party at some time—have always done their best for my part of the world, but Scotland has had an advantage.
I could not bear it, when Member after Member got up and said that most constituencies have 65,000 members, or a little fewer, when I realised that I had over 80,000. I was delighted to try to do what I could for them. It was not always successful, but when you are in politics you realise that sometimes you win battles and sometimes you lose them, and you get used to it. I want to support Lord Monson's Amendment because I want it to be certain that there is a fair representation of seats based on population both in Scotland and in England.
That is really all I have to say. I have enjoyed listening to all these Amendments. In fact, I think you are very lucky that you have not had a lot of speeches from me, because I am always regarded as being a speaker and I do my best. Anyhow I am delighted to have made this point. Please remember that when you have great power in an area through Secretaries of State and Ministers who can make representations at Cabinet level, you also have to be fair. I think that sometimes my part of the world, the North-East coast, has lost out because special advantages were given to Scotland.
I am not sorry that they did not get their orders, but at the same time I should like to think that sometimes there are some people who will speak up from Northumberland and Durham. I do not really represent, and never have, Durham, but we are a highly industrial area, and we have not got much country. Therefore, I would support Lord Monson's Amendment, hoping that it will at any rate produce fair representation in Scotland and fair representation in England.
Lord BURTON: While having the greatest sympathy with the Amendment, I do feel that it does not take into account the remoter areas. No English constituency has a mass of islands like the Western Isles or Orkney and Shetlands. Inverness has already the biggest land area
512
of any constituency in the United Kingdom. Some boroughs may be covered by a 10-minute bus ride. I do not see why they should not have rather more constituents than some of these enormous, remote areas. Therefore, I feel that the Amendment is not really very sound, as we cannot base the constituencies on population alone.
Viscount HANWORTH: I do not think I am alone in believing that in the fairly near future some changes—and possibly even fundamental changes—are required and will come about in our Constitution. To give one example, there are those who believe that when devolution occurs—if we get it—there should be a written Constitution. There is, of course, the matter of the future of this House. I believe that this issue could well be considered at the time when other major issues are considered and that it would be a pity, in a way, to regard it in isolation.
5.43 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: There is no doubt that the problems which have prompted this Amendment, and the one that follows, go to the heart of the Bill. I was glad when my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that in fact he did not intend to press this Amendment, and when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that that would be a good thing. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that in his view the right thing to do was to introduce a special Bill. That certainly requires consideration. However, even though this Amendment may not be pressed, I do not think that we should be under any misapprehension that the issue concerned is absolutely essential to the whole Bill.
We know that ever since the Act of Union, Scotland has been represented by 71 Members of Parliament—and more recently than that. It is a fact that Scotland has been represented by 71 Scottish Members of Parliament. The Scottish and English Members of Parliament, together with other Members of Parliament, have together acted in equality as Members of Parliament over all matters.
If we create an Assembly especially for Scotland and devolve to it all the domestic affairs from Westminster to Edinburgh, that inevitably calls two matters into

513
question. The first is this. Why should those Members of Parliament who are sent to Westminster from Scotland be allowed to continue to involve themselves in English domestic legislation, when the English Members of Parliament are denied the ability of involving themselves in similar affairs of a Scottish nature? We shall come to that question on a later Amendment. The second point is this. Now that the Scots will have an Assembly of their own, which will henceforth look after all Scottish domestic affairs, how do we justify the continuation of the same number of Members of Parliament being sent to Westminster when half the work which has been removed from them, and when those present, who will be left, will be required to do half the work they did before?
These problems, and how they are resolved, are essential to the future success of the workings of Parliament. They deeply affect the whole balance of interests within the United Kingdom. That is why—as has been said so often—this is not just a Scotland Bill; it is a United Kingdom Bill. However, as yet the Government have produced no satisfactory answer and have, if I may respectfully say so, constantly ducked the problem. This is the devastating weakness of the whole Bill. What will the 71 Scots Members of Parliament do when their responsibilities have been removed from them in this sphere? How do we justify, in terms of logic or common sense, continuing to send the same number of Scottish Members of Parliament to Westminster when half their work has been devolved to another Assembly and given to twice as many people to do elsewhere?
Of course, what they are left with is very important: the economy, defence, foreign affairs. These are matters of huge and fundamental importance to the whole of Scotland. The contrary argument is this: Is it right that Scottish representation on these basic and most important issues should be less than it is at present? If it were lessened, what a stick it would be to put in the hands of the Scottish National Party! It is not impossible to hear them say, "Now that Scotland, with the reduction in the number of Scottish MPs that has taken place, is to have even less influence in Westminster over the matters that are basic to Scotland, the sooner we have complete independence and control
514
all these affairs which affect us, the better."That is quite an understandable attitude for the Scottish Nationalists to take. This is the fundamental weakness, I suggest, of the whole Bill, because by devolving domestic affairs to the Assembly and reserving other affairs to Westminster, the Government are giving a federal system to Scotland. In another Bill they are giving a federal system to Wales. Yet they are retaining a unitary system for England. I should have thought that we could use either one system for the United Kingdom or the other, but we cannot have both if it is to work fairly or sensibly. Yet that is precisely what the Government are proposing in this Bill.
We may go from one place to another either by bicycle or by motor-car, but we cannot use both methods of transport at the same time without getting into a muddle. I venture to say that we are in precisely that muddle. Both the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the other Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Onslow later, are attempts to resolve this difficulty. Lord Monson's Amendment is an attempt at reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to Westminster by saying that the constituencies should be no smaller than English ones, which, as we know, would have the effect of reducing the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland. We understand the reasons for this, and particularly the telling argument that says it is not fair that Scotland should have special treatment twice over.
Part of the agreement that was reached —and indeed part of the practice which has occurred since the Union—has been that there should be 71 Members of Parliament from Scotland. It was known and appreciated at the time that this would result in a greater representation per head of the population by Scottish Members of Parliament than there would be by English Members of Parliament. One of the reasons was, of course, the size of the country in question. The Royal Commission stated that to base representation simply on the basis of counting heads was to ignore the important nationality factor. The nationality factor has been recognised by the over-representation of Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster.

515
However, the nationality factor has also again been recognised by the granting of an Assembly to Scotland. Is it right (one may ask) that Scotland should have special treatment twice over? The noble Lord, Lord Brown, said that we should take a long view of this matter and that an Amendment such as has been proposed was not necessary. But if I could address his mind, and the minds of your Lordships, to the Royal Commission again, I would say this. On the other hand, it is possible to argue for the removal of the overrepresentation of Scotland and Wales on the grounds that it would be both undemocratic and constitute a grave injustice to the people of England if this overrepresentation were to be retained when Parliamentary time had to be very largely devoted to debating and legislating for England on matters for which Scotland and Wales had their own legislative Assemblies.
Indeed, in those circumstances, there would be much to be said for reducing the representation of Scotland and Wales below the level based on population, as was done in the case of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, is at least not in agreement with the Royal Commission—or, to put the matter another way, the Royal Commission takes a view that is different from that of the noble Lord.
Lord BROWN: While the noble Earl is spending quite a lot of time putting forward arguments to the effect that the Scottish representation is too large, I doubt whether anybody in this Committee is in diagreement with him over that. The only question which arises is whether or not the matter should be dealt with in this Bill. As I say, I do not think any noble Lord thinks that the Scottish representation at Westminster should in future remain at its present figure. That is not the argument at all; the argument is whether the matter is dealt with in the Bill.
Earl FERRERS: That is not the impression I received from the argument that was adduced or from what the noble Lord said. From the point of view of the relationship between England and Scotland and for the future of the balance of interest within the United Kingdom, this is a very important matter indeed. The Amend
516
ment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggests that there should be this alteration and so far the Government have said that it should not take place, and I do not really blame them for being hesitant; there are not many votes to be obtained as a result of telling the electorate of Scotland that they are to have fewer MPs. This shows the mess we have got ourselves into, because to reduce the number of Scottish MPs sent to Westminster would be a fundamental alteration and an alteration which would be bigger than on the surface it appears; and of course it would be an unpopular move to make.
If we did it under this Amendment or any other we should delay the Bill. If we did it, we should strengthen the Scottish National Party and the prospect of separation. If we did not do it, it would permit the inequity of Scotland getting special treatment twice over. If we did not do it, it would permit an inflated number of Scottish MPs to interfere with English business and would, if nothing else were done about it, in turn generate English nationalism. The Government have, by this Bill, put the Constitution on Morton's fork; one cannot win. If we do anything about it there will be damage and if we do not do anything about it there will be damage. Every time the Government have been presented with this conundrum they have sidestepped it.
I should be happy to accept the view, which a number of people have expressed, that it would be quite wrong to make this Amendment to the Bill as drafted. However, it is not wrong that we should discuss the matter and ask the Government to accept the real problem which they have created, that they should recognise the problem and tell us how they intend to resolve it. After all, they have created it and it is a problem which must be resolved, whether or not in this Bill. I hope the Lord Chancellor will say precisely how the Government intend to resolve it, because the one thing they cannot do is leave it alone and do nothing.
Lord HYLTON: A brief question: Is there not a possible interim solution to the problems we have been discussing under this Amendment? I suggest the answer may be that a constitutional convention

517
should grow up whereby Scottish and perhaps Welsh Members in another place should always abstain from voting on matters which are purely of English concern.
5.54 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: When the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke he pointed out that the Amendment was in the name of three English and one Scottish Peer. I hope it will not be regarded as unhelpful for one who firmly believes in the United Kingdom's unity that a Welshman should now intervene.
We are discussing in effect both Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, and the effect of them, whatever their intention may be, will be, first, to delay for at the very least a very long time indeed election to a Scottish Assembly or a referendum. Try as one will to reduce the time taken by Boundary Commissions to evolve what is suggested—a reduction of the representation of the Scottish people from the present figure of 71 to 57—it would take many months, probably some years. It would be a task allocated to the independent Boundary Commission, who would no doubt move as fast as they could, but as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said, the last experience we had was that it took four years.
The other effect of the Amendments would be to indicate that your Lordships' House supports reducing Scottish representation from 71 to 57. What greater joy could either or both of those together give to the Nationalists? It would be regarded as betrayal and as an avoidance and would stir up, as one noble Lord said, far more than exists now, and I think the consequences would he very serious indeed.
On the question of the numbers of Scottish Members, as the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, there has been over-representation for a very long time. But, at any rate, Parliament has thought fit to determine the right number of constituencies, both in 1918, when representation was considered, and in 1944; it was not fewer than 71 and that was repeated and embodied in the Redistribution of Seats Act in 1949. A number of noble Lords have pointed to the special circumstances in Scotland which justify that figure of representation of
518
71 but, as has been said, whatever view may be formed on that question, this Bill is not the appropriate machinery for dealing with it.
I come straight to the proposition that the Government do not accept that our proposals for devolution carry with them inevitable consequences for changes in representation in Parliament. In regard to the position and role of Scottish Members at Westminster, I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and this is a matter which I think comes up more expressly for consideration in respect of Amendment No. 210, so 1 have no doubt that we shall return more than once to the Midlothian concept.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I think the noble and learned Lord meant to say West Lothian.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. West Lothian, of course; I trust that is a forgiveable error in the light of history. A great deal of concern has been expressed once again in this debate lest the Bill will have an adverse effect on the sovereignty of Parliament and the unity of the United Kingdom. In my view, that is a false analysis, a false prophecy, and I say that because we have sought throughout the work on the Bill to ensure that all the matters essential to the unity of the United Kingdom will remain the sole responsibility of Parliament. That responsibility will continue to be exercised after devolution here in Parliament.
It is in Parliament that the matters which are at the heart of our political system will remain to be considered. It is not right, if I may say so with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to say that all domestic affairs of Scotland will no longer be a matter for the Parliament at Westminster. So far as the major matters that he indeed accepted remained responsibility of the Westminster Parliament, he has referred to some of them. It is in Parliament that will be determined foreign policy, the conduct of international affairs including our developing partnership in the Community; it is in Parliament that policies relating to national security and defence will be determined, that matters relating to trade and industry will be resolved, employment and industrial relations, the management of the economy.

519
The devolution scheme contains no tax-raising powers to be given to Scotland. That will remain the responsibility of Parliament, and indeed the decision as to how much money is to be conferred on the Assembly will also be a matter for the Parliament at Westminster. The exercise of responsibility for these matters vitally concerns every single member of the United Kingdom. They are at the heart of Government whether he be an Englishman, Scotsman, Northern Irishman or Welshman. In my submission, in the consideration of those matters Scottish Members will have as important a role as they have now.
In my view there are no grounds for seeking a reduction in the representation of the essential interests of those who happen to live in Scotland and Wales if and when devolution comes to pass. What is more, the proposals in no way diminish the inherent sovereignty of Parliament to legislate on all matters including those to be devolved. The maintenance of that sovereignty of Parliament is, I submit, central to the concept of devolution. It is both essential to the concept and is inescapable from it. It cannot be viewed, save on the narrow and chauvinistic approach of the Scottish National Party, as any thing other than the sure foundation on which devolution is to he built and secured.
Parliament is being asked by Bills to legislate to provide for devolution to elected Assemblies in Scotland and in Wales. It will retain its power to modify and transform that devolution settlement itself—what Parliament has given Parliament will he able to take away—and the sovereignty of Parliament, in my submission, rests on full representation from all parts of the United Kingdom. Incidentally, Parliament will also maintain an effective oversight of the use of the reserve powers in the Bill. Parliament will be able to move the rejection of Assembly Bills where appropriate, as provided for in Clause 35, the provisions of which might affect a reserved matter and the enactment of which would not be in the public interest. Similarly, exercise by the Secretary of State of the powers to prevent or require executive action and to revoke subordinate Instruments will be subject to the approval of Parliament, save where international
520
obligations are concerned. All this maintenance of the sovereignty of Parliament remaining at the heart and the pinnacle indeed of our political system underlines, in my submission, the need to maintain the full right of representation from Scotland.
May I add a further and perhaps broader and more fundamental point. On being elected to the other place Members of Parliament become representatives of United Kingdom interests as a whole. I know of no Member—at least I do not recollect meeting any in another place during my 29 years there—who regarded the contribution the MP makes to debates as being narrowly confined to the interests of his constituency and its particular concern. Members of Parliament are not delegates mandated to the views of any particular interest, and if the House will bear with me perhaps it will do no harm if I read again the extract from the famous speech of Edmund Burke to the electors of Bristol, which improves even on the rhetoric of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, if he will permit me with no unkindness to say so. The final words you remember are that,
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain as an agent and advocate against other agents and advocates. Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation with one interest —that of the whole; where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole. "
You choose a Member indeed but when you have chosen him he is not a Member for Bristol; he is a Member of Parliament.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY LEBONE: Does not the noble and learned Lord realise that the logical implication of what he is now saying is that the Government would be perfectly well justified in giving representation solely to those constituencies likely to return Labour Members because then they would be just this congress of ambassadors of which he is speaking? Does he not realise that every word he said is engendering intense displeasure on this side of the House?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess I hate to feel that any of my observations cause displeasure, but it is not the first time in my political exchanges with the noble and learned Lord here or elsewhere

521
that this may have come to pass. He must bear the disappointment and distaste with forbearance. He will have to continue to suffer it. May I now continue my speech?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: If the noble and learned Lord provokes me he must remember that there is a Division Lobby.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: So be it, but we shall perhaps see.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There are—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, I must be permitted to continue my speech. I shall observe with interest whether the noble and learned Lord leads his Conservative colleagues into the Division Lobby to reduce Scottish representation by the course of this Bill from 71 to 57. We shall see. As I was saying, the function and role of the Scottish Member after devolution, if it comes to pass, in another place will be crucial because the crucial decisions affecting the United Kingdom will still be determined there, and the need therefore for representation on the scale which Scotland has enjoyed will at any rate remain in the foreseeable future.
The noble and learned Lord raised a legal matter as to whether the Long Title in any event precluded this proposal. He may not have noticed—and I say this in a wish for once not to anger him but to point it out—that the last Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, seeks to deal with this; whether it does it effectively or not we shall have to see. I admit that the anxieties that have arisen in the course of the debate about a matter which would certainly cause me grave concern—namely, that the unity of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of Parliament would be adversely affected—exist, but I believe that they are not well founded. I, as a Welshman who owes so much to belonging to this great comradeship and fraternity of the United Kingdom, would certainly not seek to be a party to breaking it up. I am, I hope, as good a Welshman as any, but I also feel an intense loyalty to the unity of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that what is proposed will damage that unity or the sovereingty of Parliament.
6.11 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Before the noble Lord replies on this matter, I should like to say that I originally suggested, for very good reasons that have since been expanded, that we ought not to vote on this point because the issues were such as ought to come afterwards. I doubt whether I would have said it with the same confidence and belief had the noble and learned Lord made his speech earlier. Having respected his sensitivity, and having sat with him in both Houses for a good number of years, I have never witnessed a more insensitive reply to a debate than that which we have just heard from the nobleand learned Lord. Quite objectively and quite apart from any Party or political considerations, the way in which, despite the evidence that has been produced, he completely wiped the whole matter off as though those points of view did not exist, or ought not to exist, has shown insensitivity, which is rather sad. Even at this late stage, I still believe that the technically correct thing to do is not to push this matter to a vote now
I had hoped that before the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment, we should at any rate have had an indication from the Government Front Bench, as we have had from the Opposition Front Bench, that, once this Bill was being dealt with, this important matter, which ran alongside it and which in essence was part of it, would be dealt with separately. The noble and learned Lord has given no such indication: indeed, he has given the opposite indication. We started in the debate with the point that the Royal Commission had said that there was some justice in what was behind our Amendment. The noble and learned Lord has completely demolished that. He has indicated, in very clear words, that he thinks there is no justice in it. The only point that has come out of the reply that he has given your Lordships is that he is terrified of the Scottish Nationalists. He said that we must not do this, for,"Look at the joy that it would bring to the Scottish Nationalists; if we do not take action, the Scottish Nationalists will! "
Is it the duty of a Parliamentarian to do things out of fear of an extremist section, or is it his duty to look at matters on merit, and to deal with a question objectively as

523
it exists? The noble and learned Lord may quote Burke, but I wish that he had acted in many instances today more like Burke did on many occasions. I do not think that there is any suggestion that even the Long Title would not cover this matter if we wanted to push it. With great deference to my noble and learned friend, there is nothing in the Long Title which prevents the Bill laying down a formula as to how the Members to the Assembly should be elected. That is all our Amendment does, and it cannot in any way be contrary to the Long Title. I had hoped that the expression that has come from the Cross-Benches, from the Government Benches, from the Liberals (through the voice of their Leader, which has been quoted) as well as from these Benches would have called for a more sympathetic reply than that given by the noble and learned Lord.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord will have realised that, following the expressions made from all quarters of the Committee, his reply will have given much disappointment, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said. From all parts, this concern was expressed not in a vindictive way, but simply on the basis that, if what is proposed in the Bill is done, it will in fact give Scotland special treatment twice over, and that doing that will be likely to create a problem in the future. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether, even having rejected those remarks as he did so swiftly, he will be good enough still to think about them again before the Report stage, because there is no doubt that there are many people who are as concerned as he is to see that the unity of the United Kingdom is maintained. Our real fear is that the Bill, as constructed, will damage that unity. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are both seeking a solution. The noble and learned Lord in his reply wiped away—or so it appeared—any inclination to find a solution. I hope that he will think again before the Report stage, because we shall try to think again.
I should like to ask him two questions arising from his reply. How does he counter the argument, which was put forward when the Royal Commission reported, that over-representation under
524
these circumstances would constitute a grave injustice to the people of England? How does he reply to that? Secondly, will he not accept that if they do nothing, the Government will be giving special treatment to Scotland twice over?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As I ventured to say, so far as the West Lothian question—to which that matter is directly related—is concerned, we shall be debating it shortly. My noble and learned friend and I will be dealing with it, and we shall come to it. The devolution Bill itself is an attempt to deal with a very serious problem; namely, the feeling, we think, of the Scottish people that political decisions upon matters of immediate concern to them are made remotely. That has engendered a position in Scotland which demands that action be taken with respect to it. The Bill has endeavoured, in considering all the factors which have been indicated today, to come to a solution. I was seeking to assure noble Lords that I believe the package that has emerged will be directed to ensure the two matters which have concerned the Committee most today; namely, the unity of the United Kingdom, and the sovereignty of Parliament. If in emphasising those matters, I have offended in any way, I am very sorry, but I should be very surprised if it were so. That is the position, and I adhere to the view which I have expressed as to the matters which arise on these Amendments.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I must say that the noble and learned Lord has wholly failed to understand both the case and the offence which he has given. What my noble friend said, and what I said, had nothing whatever to do with the so-called "West Lothian problem", which we expressly said had nothing to do with this Amendment. The question concerns the numbers of Scottish MPs who, after the institution of the Assembly, are to represent Scotland in Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and his noble friend sitting beside him, Viscount Thurso, said, in terms, that there was nobody in this Chamber who did not think that Scotland would be over-represented after the Bill was passed. The offence which the noble and learned Lord has given has directly

525
to do with that. The whole bent of his speech—every word of it, including the absurd repetition of Burke's letter or speech to his constituents—was directed to the proposition mat, after the Assembly, there was no reason whatever to alter the representation of Scotland. I find that profoundly unacceptable. If the noble and learned Lord finds that people vote against him in this Chamber it will only be because he has made such a provocative and insensitive speech. However, we have more sense than that, and, I hope, more sense than the noble and learned Lord has shown. I only hope that he will think again before he speaks again on this subject.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Since I have been quoted, perhaps I may say a few words on this subject. It appears to me that we are getting rather hot about a point which has been covered over and over again in debate. I said that our Party recognises quite simply and frankly that, with a good and working Assembly, the case for extra Members in Scotland would tend to fall. If the Lord Chancellor disagrees with this, then he is in line with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who thought it would not be altered.
But as we have had such an excellent Second Reading debate and as we have had such excellent debates in Committee, I hope we are not going to degenerate into waving the big numbers because we disagree. I agree that it is enough to make one want to force a Division if people keep quoting Burke at you, but perhaps it is not wholly in line with the traditions of your Lordships' House (which, as a new Member, I hesitate to point out to anybody) to use the vote, the big stick, instead of argument. I hope the Conservative Party will carry on in the way they started, and will use argument instead of waving the big stick, however badly the Government may put a good case.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But the real point is this. If the Government will not listen to argument, they must face voting. If they will listen to argument, then of course we can go on as we have been going on; but the trouble was that the noble and learned Lord read out his speech as if nothing had been said during the course of the debate. Even the noble Lord,
526
Lord Brown, behind him, said that there was no argument about the over-representation; and as I understand it nobody made a contrary proposition until the noble and learned Lord read out his speech, including the awful repetition of Burke.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am wondering, after that intervention, whether the noble and learned Lord was listening to my speech. It may well be that when he reads it in the morning, in the calm mood which so often characterises him in spite of these occasional outbursts, he will think that, for once, he has done an injustice to me. I have endeavoured to deal with the matters raised. It is true that 1 was referring to notes on part of the constitutional matter, which I think is not unimportant when someone in my office takes the liberty of expressing a view about it. I have certainly listened to what has been said, and I endeavoured to deal with it. Indeed, I called in aid some noble Lords who appeared, curiously enough, in spite of the indignation of the noble and learned Lord, to agree with what I was saying; and there it is.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There are just two questions I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, after his speech. Having argued that devolution means over-representation, that presumably means that the Government are now instantly going to introduce a Bill to increase the number of Irish seats; because his argument cuts that way, just as well as it does for Scotland—and in my humble opinion it is not a very good argument. The second thing is that in some of my remarks I asked the noble and learned Lord to give an undertaking that when this was discussed the question of Labour Party political advantage was not part of the Government's thinking.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: I do not know what will be the eventual number of Scots Members of Parliament at Westminster. I suspect the fair number is probably 57, and I think that if I had to bet now I would bet that that will be the eventual number. All I want to say is that I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is going to change his mind and press this issue to a Division, but, if he does, then, as one of my noble friends said earlier, I think he

527
must realise that the mathematical formula in this Amendment would simply be chaotic because of the chaotic conditions in the Highlands, and I should have to vote against it for that reason.
Lord MONSON: If I should decide to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this Amendment, it will certainly not be because I can possibly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, or the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that, to quote Lord Shepherd's words, any change ought not to come from this Bill. On the contrary, I think it is vital that a change be written into this Bill, if not today then at a later stage. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has put his finger on the reason why. If and when this Bill becomes law, there will be absolutely no incentive for the Government to take measures to reduce Scottish representation to fair proportions. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out that it was a simple matter of justice and fairness; while my noble friend Lord Ellenborough made the excellent point that it would be quite unwise for the Scottish electorate to face the referendum with a false prospectus being laid before them: they ought to be given the clear-cut choice of the present over-representation at Westminster and no Assembly, or an Assembly with reduced—but still fair—representation. Here, I am bound to say that I cannot possibly agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that any sensible and fair-minded Scotsman would consider fair representation, at English levels, to be a"betrayal ".
However, I am to some extent persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that there is perhaps a case for a very slight over-representation, taking into account the under-populated Highland areas. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, suggested 60 seats rather than the 57 which my Amendment, if passed, would produce; and I think there is something to be said for that. I think it would also meet some of the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
In passing, I may say that I started out by welcoming the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, which seemed at first
528
to support my case, but which turned out to be something of a double-edged claymore. I should also like to see if I can meet the constitutional objections raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, although I am bound to say that, after prolonged discussion, the Chairman of Committees in another place found there was nothing improper in debating, and possibly ultimately passing, similar Amendments.
It has been a most useful discussion. I am grateful to all those who have participated, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, for their support. I assure them that I intend to move a revised and possibly somewhat"softened Amendment at a later stage—unless, that is, Amendment No. 26, which is down in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is passed this evening, which may perhaps solve our problem. But so far as this Amendment goes, I feel I need a little more time to think, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert —
("(6) No referendum under section 80 of this Act shall be held before Parliament has determined how many parliamentary constituencies there shall be in Scotland after the enactment of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment in the Marshalled List which stands in my name and in that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I feel that in some way I am responsible for the tension we have just experienced because I noticed that, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came to reply, almost his opening words coupled my Amendment with the preceding Amendment. I took it (translating it into language which I understand, which is of course far less refined than that used by the Lord Chancellor) that he was inviting me, when I moved my Amendment, to "belt up"and to be as brief as possible. I intended to do that; but I must say that, as his speech progressed. that sort of jocular mood concerning myself, with which he started, vanished.

529
I have known the Lord Chancellor, in another place, for a very long time, and I thought that his language, or rather the whole tone of his speech, was not in keeping with the agility that he usually shows. For example, to say of another place in the context in which he was saying it that what Parliament gives Parliament can take away is all right for the nursery but surely not for an assembly of this kind, most of the Members of which have spent a lifetime in politics. It may well be that theoretically what Parliament gives another Parliament can take away, but even that is a bit doubtful and there are a few obstacles.
The idea with a Bill of this kind—a Bill that has been fought as it has for the length of time that it has been considered and debated and considering the emotion that it arouses in Scotland—that what one Parliament can do you can then turn round and go back on and do something quite different seems to be divorced from political reality. I put down this Amendment—and I did not canvass any support for it—trying to find a way round what I perceive as a great difficulty. I have done what I have done ever since took part in public life: I have done my homework. I studied with very great care what was said in another place. I noticed that the Conservative Party had put down an Amendment to refer the Bill to a Speaker's Conference.
If I had been there 1 would have spoken against it because I do not believe that a Speaker's Conference, dealing with boundaries, could reach a solution without, as it were, approaching the role. When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke and made the point that lie did not want this Bill to change anything, I got to my feet to point out that the role of the constituencies, their sizes and number are heads and tails of the same penny. You cannot split them. You can try, if you like, to do something in one Parliament and hope to reverse it in another.
The point that I want to make is that Parliament in this country—thank Heaven! —is not something suspended in the air supported neither from above or below. It has its roots in the hearts and lives and aspirations of the people who sent it there. This is what my Amendment is about. Nothing could be simpler or more plainly expressed.
530
I do not want the constituents, be they Scottish, Welsh or English, to buy a gold brick. They must know what they are buying. And they need to know it before the Elections; and it needs to be spelled out. The purpose of my Amendment is in realising from the debates in another place that a Speaker's Conference would not solve it. Speaker after speaker, so far as I can see, was saying that the problem is completely unsolvable. One is faced here with the problem of overrepresentation. Quite clearly, if overrepresentation gives one Party an advantage, then it must be at the expense of somebody else. I do not need to go back and read Burke to arrive at that conclusion. It is obvious and has been a real grievance for a long time.
If you start to change—then never mind what Lord Shepherd has said—you are going to change. That is why you do it. You may try to head off the Scottish Nationalists and hope at the same time to leave things as they are. That is what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is doing. He is a great lawyer, a very skilled advocate. What he was doing was engaging in verbal knitting. If 1 were a Scottish Nationalist, I would take his speech and turn it into a gramophone record and play it in every constituency. The result would be a great impetus for the Scottish Nationalists, because what he said, so far as Scotland is concerned, was the biggest gold brick ever; that nothing will change at all; that it is all going to be reserved for another place; that everything will remain the same. Of course, everything is not going to remain the same. It may be that the present Prime Minister when Home Secretary—and he started this off—and Mr. Wilson when Prime Minister thought that they would be able to get away with it and that everything would remain the same. But Jack is out of the box; and they cannot get him hack. This is what the Bill is about; they are trying to put Jack in the box again—in the same box but only one Jack. But there is more than one Jack!
I am going to give the Lord Chancellor some advice. The first requirement of a democrat is not mathematics. The noble Lord, Lord Home, is right. You cannot solve this problem through mathematical formulae. That cock will not fight. The first requirement individually and collectively of a democrat is the ability to make

531
up your mind on very limited evidence. The genius of the British people down the centuries has been, whenever they have been faced with the facts, that they have never refused to face them. That is why when the crunch came in the last war that once again our democracy showed its strength.
All that I plead on this issue —and I do not ask anyone to accept the sincerity of what I say: but I assert it—is that on this issue as on the Common Market issue and on conscrption, I stand where I stand and I say why. I am not against devolution per se. And I was not against the Common Market per se. I am in favour of conscription. What I want people with whom I have political contact to understand is why I say it. I say it because I believe it to he true. You must make your intentions plain to those you are seeking to guide. That is the second requirement of those who seek to lead in a democracy: get your facts right and stand by what you say and make every effort to get those facts across.
If the Government have any sense—and I say that as a lifelong member of the Labour Party—they will go to endless trouble to make sure that this is spelled out, so that those who take part in the referendum coining up to the General Election understand exactly where the Government stand. We do not want here to play around with the size of constituencies or hide behind a gloss because the facts are awkward. Therefore, I ask the Government to face up to the really fundamental issue, the all important objective: that the voters must know—not afterwards but before—what the sizes of the constituencies are going to be. The Boundary Commission must report some time after 1979 so that the size of those constituencies will inevitably affect the role. If the existing over-representation of 71 is to continue, that fact ought to be known. If, on the other hand, you are going to put it right, and it went the other way, it is likely that those who may be very keen on devolution, or on decentralisation or, (as my noble friend Lord Shinwell for the convenience of the moment described it) autonomy or whatever name you may care to put on the jampot, the name is known and the contents are known.
532
The Amendment that I have put on to the Marshalled List—supported on the other side of the Committee, for which I am grateful—I would ask the Committee to accept so that, as an absolute minimum, before the referendum is held the electorate should know, as a result of the deliberations of the Boundary Commission, what size the constituencies are going to be and the number of them, not for the convenience of any one political Party but for the convenience of democracy itself.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I put my name to this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, because I felt that perhaps there ought to be an alternative to the method suggested by the noble Lord. Lord Monson, for dealing with the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, in his speech on the last Amendment said that every Member of this House recognised that there was a problem. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor showed that he was in a minority of one. He sat down and refused to answer the question of whether it was done for Party political advantage or not or whether it had been raised.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Earl really think that is a question to put to me? This was a decision of the Government which was taken after examining the whole position on the basis of their view of the political and constitutional solution to the problems arising in Scotland. It was done on that basis, and I entirely repudiate any suggestion by the noble Lord that this has been motivated wholly by squalid Party political considerations.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Lord asks me whether I think it an appropriate question to ask. I would hesitate to say that I asked it because I thought it was an appropriate question to ask. The noble and learned Lord has said that I suggested that it was done for squalid political considerations only. He has denied that it was done for squalid political considerations only; he has not denied that there were not squalid political considerations involved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that we can raise the level of the debate above this, I must say.
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor refused to face facts. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, brought out this point with his usual skill. One of the other reasons why I put my name to Lord Wigg's Amendment was because it seemed to be a method of dealing with a problem which was felt widely in England, and that he represented one tradition of England. He sat with distinction and for a long time in another place for the Labour Party, representing a Midlands industrial constituency. I have sat in the House of Lords with considerably less distinction for a much shorter time; my interests are agriculture and I live in the South of England. So there is a contrast of background and history between the two noble Lords who have put down this Amendment. This underlines the widespread feeling that exists in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, also said that it was better to have a second-rate Bill than no Bill at all. I find that an infinitely depressing argument. Surely the House of Lords prides itself on being a collection of some of the most intelligent and experienced people in the Kingdom. If we are prepared to accept the second-rate, then we ought to go home, pack up and do nothing.
There is no doubt that the membership of the House of Commons, as a question of numbers, was dealt with by the Government of Ireland Act 1920; so it is perfectly legitimate, in my submission, for this situation to be dealt with in the Scottish Bill. The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and myself enables it to be dealt with slightly more quickly. We are not forcing the House of Commons to do it; we are suggesting that it should be done and that it should be discussed.
The following point has not been raised as an argument but it might be worth doing so now: people could say that it is not for a hereditary or appointed House to say how an elected House should elect itself. I do not think that that argument is tenable, especially as I suspect that there could one day be a"noble Lord, Lord Skinner of Bolsover ", who at present spends his whole time discussing and complaining about the membership of the House of Lords. The Amendment post
534
pones the referendum: we know a referendum is a fairly dubious and recent constitutional innovation, but it is there and I should have thought that Parliament itself could have discussed it.
Finally, why the Scottish Nationalists should be appeased by having 71 as opposed to 57 seats, I do not know. That is an argument of astronomical flimsiness —if that is not mixing metaphors. If we make sure that Parliament reinvestigates this question properly, this will make sure that the Scottish people as a whole will have to face facts. If they read the reports of today's debate, they will read that there was only one man who made a complacent speech and who regarded the present state of affairs as being idyllic.
6.44 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: Before we go any further, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, this question? When he speaks of the size of constituencies what does he mean? Is he referring to population or square miles? I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, in Scotland, square miles are a serious consideration.
Lord WIGG: I did not want to prolong my speech. I referred several times a week ago to the principle of one vote, one value. I should have mentioned this earlier because I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrets, when he referred to my speech later that night, spoke of"one man, one vote ". I believe it should be one vote, one value, in so far as it is practicable. At that time I quoted the source of my inspiration as Mr. Churchill. He produced the axiom of one vote, one value, which obviously means that there may be some constituencies, particularly in Scotland, which will be very large indeed. For that reason, the size obviously has to be limited.
I kept away from attempting to define the size of constituencies, either from a geographical or a numerical point of view. These are political decisions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, on this point. The political instrument for carrying out the survey is the Boundary Commission. If the Boundary Commission makes its report in the light of all the circumstances, then to some extent one is meeting the point—I will not say harbouring the suspicions—made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.

535
There are those who think that, over the years, the handling of the Scottish constituency question has been a piece of gerrymandering by the Labour Party. It is obvious to me that those days have gone. I do not believe that 71 seats can be justified. Therefore, it is a political decision as to what the number should be, and it should be treated politically. On the point that was mentioned, I personally would go as near as is possible to one vote, one value. The difficulties are certainly great in Scotland. There are also parts of England where there are difficulties.
6.48 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was quite right in saying that this Amendment goes along with the previous one. One upholds the other. This Amendment strengthens the last argument, and the last argument strengthens this one. This Amendment is quite clear: we are committed to a referendum under this Bill if it becomes an Act. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is quite right, before one asks the people of Scotland to give a decision in a referendum, they must know what it is that they are deciding upon. It may well be that there will be many citizens in Scotland who will say:"If the price I have to pay for the Assembly is giving up X number of seats in the Westminster Parliament, I will not do it ". Others may say:"That is a cheap price. I prefer the Assembly to the membership in Parliament ". But they ought to know.
I do not think there is any need to say in answering that that the time factor would defeat the Bill. In supporting this Amendment I would not ask that the Boundary Commission should be called into being and give a decision. I would be satisfied at this stage if we could get the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberals to give an undertaking that, following the passing of this Bill, if ever it is passed, they would reduce the Westminster membership for the reasons which have already been given down to a certain level. The figure I suggested was 60 as against 57.
If this Amendment had been put down from these Benches, I suppose that it could have been called a wrecking Amendment. But it has been put down from
536
the Government Benches by someone who is experienced in Government matters. I think—if I may lobby for the reply that I should like—that the response we should like is this:"This question will be looked at to see if words can be found which will identify what the membership of Westminster will be after the referendum, and an undertaking is given to adhere to whatever formula is recommended ". That may well do the trick. I believe that before one asks people to give a decision on a referendum, they should know both the headlines and the small words that go to make up the package. That, I gather, is what this Amendment asks for.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to reply he will give a more conciliatory reply than he gave last time—and when I say"conciliatory"I do not mean merely being nice, mellifluous or even unduly complimentary: I mean that he should deal with the substance of the case. It is his failure to do that which has caused the offence on this side. The noble and learned Lord chided my noble friend behind me for lowering the tone of the debate. Let me tell him why I think it is his fault that the debate has taken on this change in tone.
One of the fundamentals of democracy is that the different areas of a united country should be properly represented. I tried to help the noble and learned Lord in my original speech. Obviously this is not an altogether simple problem but one factor, and perhaps the predominant factor, which has been recognised in all countries is the number of votes in a constituency, whatever that may be. Obviously, sparseness of area counts for something. Nobody, for example. would expect the area that was formerly represented by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel to have the same number of votes available as a closely-packed urban constituency: there is too much geographical area to cover. Equally we have to recognise the third factor that I mentioned earlier: namely, that the boundaries of the local community have to be taken into account. That has also been universally recognised, but the predominant factor is that large numbers of people should not be gerrymandered into large constituencies and small numbers of people expanded into very small constituencies.

537
The noble and learned Lord, with all his knowledge of Burke, which most of us learned when we were still at school, failed to mention the most important part of the function of a modern House of Commons. It is to choose the political colour of a Government. That is its most important function of all. It decides whether there will be a coalition Government, a Labour Government, a Conservative Government or a Liberal Government: that is its function. If you cause great areas of a country to be overrepresented and other great areas to be under-represented, you are gerrymandering democracy itself; and I wish I could make the noble and learned Lord understand this very simple point. When my noble friend Lord Onslow attacked the noble Lord and asked him a rather plain and possibly uncomplimentary question, I must tell him this: we on this side remember what was done in 1948 about the boundaries of constituencies by a Labour Home Secretary. We remember what was done in 1967 when the present Prime Minister was the Labour Home Secretary; we remember what was done later, when the present Prime Minister was the Labour Home Secretary, about postponing local government elections.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot, with his great personal charm, prevent our entertaining those memories when we find him saying what he said from his brief in answer to the previous debate. His point was (I am only paraphrasing him because I was not able to take a verbatim note) that it did not matter that Scotland was being overrepresented; it did not matter that the Assembly would take over a great deal of the work from the hands of the present Members. It did not matter that Northern Ireland had a different basis of representation during the currency of Stormont. He regards that as unimportant. Well, we do not so regard it: we regard it as of the essence of the matter.
We recognise, of course, that Parliament is a congress of, as it were, representatives and not mandated delegates. We have known that ever since we were 12, but it does not have anything to do with the present situation and the present subject under debate. It has nothing to do with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which preceded it. We know
538
that Members of Parliament are supposed to represent the interests of their country as a whole; but we also know, having lived most of our lives in public life, that what they regard as the interests of the country as a whole is slightly influenced by their political affiliations. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not recognise these facts of life, he must not complain if my noble friend Lord Onslow finds him a little exasperating. And of course we know that Scotland did have over-representation, for perfectly identifiable reasons; but we think that this particular Bill alters the fundamental situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has a great deal to be said for his Amendment. 1 hope that at this stage we may he able to pass things over perhaps until Report, until we have had time to think about what has been said. But he says he agrees with us to this extent: that if the people of Scotland want their Assembly there are those among us, including myself—though not all my noble friends behind me—who say that if they want their Assembly they must have it after the referendum, but that they must also recognise in doing so that the people of England and of Wales, who will henceforth enter into a new type of partnership with their friends in Scotland, will have something to say about the extent of representation which the Scots shall have in the future in Westminster.
Knowing that, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has reason on his side. He says that when the referendum comes it may or may not be the case that his Amendment is the right way of dealing with the matter, but when the referendum comes the people of Scotland should be under no illusion as to what is to happen. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was right: they must know what they are buying. They must know whether they are buying over-representation plus an Assembly, or an Assembly without over-representation—because sooner or later the people of this country are not going to listen to the sort of nonsense to which the noble and learned Lord has treated this Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very sorry that the atmosphere of this debate has now moved in such an unpleasant direction—not, if I may say so, assisted by the extravagant words of the

539
noble and learned Lord. But I am accustomed to these occasional outbursts which are fortunately compensated for by a quick reaction of ordinary courtesies afterwards. The Amendment which my noble friend has moved certainly raised, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has said, some at any rate of the main issues which arose in his Amendment. I certainly meant no discourtesy to my noble friend by dealing with the two in my speech, or seeking to deal with them. I quite agree that when the referendum takes place what is being offered should be clearly stated; and, whether your Lordships like it or not, what the Government are stating is that the proposal is that there should be 71 Scottish Members of Parliament.
That figure was not arrived at by a gerrymandering Labour Government, but arrived at in 1944 under a provision of the 1944 House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act during the Government of a great leader of the country, Winston Churchill. It was not a Labour contrivance. It is true that there was a repetition of that figure in 1949, so that the parentage of the figure of 71 is an honourable one, and it will remain as the figure which will be presented to the Scottish people when the referendum comes.
As I think my noble friend already concedes, the effect of passing this Amendment would inevitably be a denial for a very long time to the Scottish people of an opportunity of deciding on the issue, because, as he has drafted it—I am not, of course, turning on a pure question of drafting—it says:
"No referendum … shall be held before Parliament has determined how many parliamentary constituencies there shall be in Scotland."
That, of course, means that there would have to be legislation in Parliament in a new Redistribution of Seats Act before a referendum could take place, and Parliament would normally operate in that field only after an examination of the matter by the Boundary Commission. So it would inevitably he a very long interval of time. I know that my noble friend is eager to get up, so I shall give way to him.
Lord WIGG: The point is that you can play this long or short, according to what you want. The wording is"Parliament
540
has determined"and I have left it like that. 1 freely concede that these are political questions. Obviously my views are not as informed as they ought to be, and are not as informed as the Government's would be. But if the Government accept the Amendment, there is nothing in the world that need delay the referendum by a day if they are so minded. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, there that could be a Speaker's Conference, in the sense of a meeting between the main political Parties and a decision could be reached as to how many seats there should be. The Boundary Commission are going to report. Personally, I should prefer to go to the Boundary Commission and ask them to get on with it. It could be done, if the Government wanted to do it. On the other hand, if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wants to make it respectable and use the argument of a long delay, it is up to him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have put the point that what is proposed would require prior determination by Parliament itself on this matter, with an Act of Parliament and an inevitable period of delay. We have covered this ground for a substantial period of time, and I have indicated to my noble friend that the stance of the Government in the presentation of the devolution Bill is that Scottish representation in Parliament should be 71 Members. I have endeavoured in my speech to indicate that, as the major problems of the governance of the United Kingdom will remain in Westminster, that does not seem to the Government to be an unreasonable suggestion and is, indeed, one that meets the needs of Scotland itself.
7.3 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, intends to do about his Amendment, but I hope that he will see fit not to press it this evening. There is a great deal to be said for it, and I think that he has a lot of sympathy among noble Lords for what he has put forward. It is infinitely more gentle than the last Amendment. But I accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says, in so far as if Parliament chooses the number of MPs who are to represent Scotland, it does not just pluck a figure out of the air. It is bound to

541
take advice, whether from the Boundary Commission, from a Speaker's Conference, from a Committee of Members of Parliament or whatever it is. It is bound to seek advice.
The mere fact of seeking advice will take some time. That would delay the referendum, under the noble Lord's Amendment, and that would be construed by some as wrecking the Bill. On the other hand, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is entirely right to say that if a referendum is to be held on this Bill the people of Scotland should know precisely what is involved, and should know, if there is a price to pay, what is the pice that they are being invited to pay. It may well be, as my noble friend Lord Home said, that if he had to make a guess, and if his guess was anything to go by, the figure of Scottish MPs would eventually come down to 57. There is a sound argument for saying that, if that is to be the case, it is much better for the people of Scotland to know that in advance of voting in a referendum on this Bill.
For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will not press this Amendment. But I hope, equally, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be kind enough to give this matter further consideration. He has said that it is the Government's stance that there should be 71 Scottish representatives. We understand that that is the Government's stance. On the other hand, I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord, with his ability, great as it is, to understand the other point of view, will accept that there has been a very great deal of concern expressed this evening not about denying Scotland the right of representation in Parliament, but simply about the fact that under the Bill as it is at the moment there could be special treatment twice over, and, in many people's view, the possibility of a lack of harmony and a diversity of interests as a result, which would affect the United Kingdom and its unity.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not totally shut his ear to these thoughts, which have been expressed with very great conviction this evening, because I am certain that somebody will return to this matter on Report stage, and it will be helpful if we can have some kind of concordat of agreement, as
542
opposed to the noble and learned Lord saying"This is the Government's view and we are not going to budge, whatever anybody else says."
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: I am attracted to the Amendment which has been moved, for two reasons. One is the certain democratic logic in the argument put forward, that a vote in any part of the United Kingdom should have more or less equal value. Secondly, the one argument that encouraged my sympathy was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, to the effect that,"We have to pass this Bill, or the Scot Nats will get you That has been the argument for the Bill right from the beginning. I spent a little time in the last week or two in Garscadden, where there is a by-election and, so far as I could assess the feeling, I found that the Assembly was not a very important issue. I am satisfied that the Labour Party will win the Garscadden by-election, not because they have the Assembly in their programme, but because they have at long last attacked the Scottish Nationalists and exposed them for the spurious Nationalists that they are. So I do not think that we should be unduly influenced by the argument that we must get this Bill through, even if it is a second-rate Bill, or the Nats will move towards a Northern Ireland situation.
At the same time, as 1 am attracted by the logic of the Amendment, I suggest that it be not pressed. If there was no provision for a referendum on this matter, which required 40 per cent. of the electorate to support the Bill, I should perhaps support the Amendment. But the weaknesses of this Bill, which have been exposed in the long debates this afternoon, are the kind of weaknesses which will be exposed and demonstrated to the people of Scotland during the debate on the referendum. The West Lothian question has been discussed here; the fact that my local Member of Parliament for West Renfrew-shire can debate and discuss education in the West Riding of Yorkshire, but cannot debate and discuss education in Scotland, although he is a Scottish MP.
There are anomalies of that kind, and there has been the warning of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that if the figure of 71 is maintained, then sooner or later the people of England will complain about over-representation in

543
Scotland, and that this will be a source of constant irritation which is not good for Parliament. I expect that in the debate on the referendum in Scotland these matters will be fully exposed, and I suspect that the Scottish people will see the weaknesses in the Bill. For that reason may I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that at this stage he should withdraw his Amendment and that we should proceed with the Bill. However, those of us who feel that the Assembly is not so important in the Scottish situation as others seem to feel will at least get the opportunity to debate that matter publicly when the referendum takes place.
Lord WIGG: I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this Amendment. I am going to accept the obvious feeling of the Committee and ask for leave to withdraw, but before I do so may I make this point. When the Government put this Bill on the stocks I believe that they ought to have taken into account the political realities of the situation. One can get away with the over-representation of Scotland and the political advantage that it gives to the Labour Party so long as "Pussy" does not wake up; but once one puts Pussy out in the garden a lot of people will take notice. So one cannot bring Pussy in again and imagine that notice has not been taken of it and that the problem will go away.
This seems to me to be the Government's great weakness. Whenever they are confronted with a problem, instead of grappling with it they invent some kind of formula for glancing it off, hoping that it will go away. But the one lesson which politics have taught me, whatever the subject, is that the reality of the situation lies in the background and that one must deal with it. Once the devolution Bill became a political reality, in the sense that public debate would take place, there was no longer any question of Scotland continuing permanently to be over-represented. Those are the political facts of the situation.
I ask leave, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment, although at the Report stage I shall again seek to put it down. In the meantime I hope to have access to somebody with greater experience and wisdom
544
than I possess to find out whether a formula can be found which will not delay the progress of the Bill. I do not want to do that. If it is the wish of the Scottish people to have an Assembly they should have it, provided that they realise that whatever one has in this life has to be paid for in hard coinage. If the Scottish people wish to have an Assembly they must know what they are buying. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) (APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS) (No. 2) ORDER 1978
7.13 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) (No. 2) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved. This draft order is specifically about machinery. It is to establish the arrangements that are necessary to settle matters if a dispute arises between two housing authorities over which of them should accept the responsibility for securing that accommodation is available for certain homeless people. When the Bill was being considered—both in your Lordships' House and in another place—considerable concern was expressed on behalf of authorities about the potential responsibility to secure accommodation for people who had no connection with their area. In response to this concern, what is now Section 5 was introduced into the Act.
The section provides that where:

(a) an authority are satisfied that a duty arises under the Act to secure that accommodation is available for a particular homeless household: but

(b) they are of the opinion that no member of the household has a local

545
connection with their area, that a member of the household has a local connection with another authority's area and that no member of the household runs the risk of violence in that other area;

they may notify the other authority and the duty to secure accommodation may then transfer to that other authority.
Under the Act, local authorities are to determine questions of responsibility by agreement. Failing that agreement, outstanding questions are to be determined by"appropriate arrangements"prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State. These arrangements are regarded as a useful fall-back by Parliament, but I would hope that their use would be the exception rather than the rule. Local authorities should strive to settle by agreement, whenever possible.
The Act came into force in Scotland on 1st April 1978 and this order establishes the arrangements for cases where both the authorities in dispute are Scottish and also for cross-Border cases—that is, cases in which one of the authorities is English or Welsh and the other is Scottish. The Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) Order which was made on 20th January 1978 and which is on similar lines to this order established the arrangements in respect of cases where both authorities were English or Welsh. The Act came into force South of the Border on 1st December 1977.
What the draft order does is to require the appointment of a "referee" to determine any issue under Section 5. It is open to the authorities to agree a suitable person but if they cannot they would report this to the chairman or president of the appropriate association. This means in effect that where one of the authorities in dispute is Scottish that authority would report the failure to agree a referee to the President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The President would then appoint a referee who would be drawn from a panel appointed by the associations.
Where the authorities are both members of the same association, as will be inevitable in all but cross-Border cases, then the President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will make the appointment. If, however, they are mem
546
bers of different associations, as will certainly happen in cross-Border cases, then it will be for the chairman of the appropriate English association and the President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to agree who should be the referee.
In the unlikely event that they cannot agree, each will nominate a candidate and the selection will be settled by lot. This is unusual, but I think it unlikely that the need to resort to lot will arise. I have no doubt that the associations' chairmen will be able to agree a referee, but it is necessary to make some provision to cover a possible disagreement of this kind. The referee's decision, whether he is appointed by the authorities, by agreement or by the chairmen, is to be binding on both authorities. The procedure has been kept flexible and the referee will himself determine how he is to proceed. The order, however, contains provision to enable the referee to receive representations from any person he thinks can help him and to require him to take account of the representations of the authorities concerned and invite the household concerned to submit information.
The draft therefore takes account of the concern expressed by local authorities and embodies arrangements which have been developed by the associations themselves and which envisage that disputes will be settled as quickly as possible and avoid protracted discussion. The Act provides that a homeless household are to he secured accommodation while the issues are being settled.
I hope that the machinery which the order contains will require to be used only rarely, but it is clearly necessary as a final resort for resolving disputes which could have further distressing effects for people who have suffered the personal disaster of becoming homeless. My Lords, I therefore commend the No. 2 Order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) (No. 2) Order 1978, laid before the House on 8th March, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for explaining this order in

547
considerable detail. It is a fact that this order arises from the Bill which, during its passage through your Lordships' House, underwent a particular Amendment. We are glad that the Government have implemented this machinery and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for explaining to your Lordships that the system of arbitration will be binding on both authorities; that is, the notifying and the notified authority. As the noble Lord so rightly said, in the vast majority of cases agreement should be reached on a situation where no arbitration may be necessary, but in rare exceptional cases this system appears to us on this side of the House to be a reasonable one. It very much hangs upon the successful appointment of the panel of persons who are to act as arbitrators. We can safely rely on the local authorities concerned to appoint suitable persons and we wish this method every success.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Sitting suspended from 7.22 p.m. until 8.15 p.m.]

SCOTLAND BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause I, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule I [Assembly constituencies]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 40, leave out lines 3 and 4.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 231, which appears with a star, but it was, of course, handed in some days ago. It is the result of the printing troubles which makes it look as if it has only recently appeared among the Amendments. The question raised here is the task to be carried out by the Scottish Boundary Commission in forming new
548
constituencies for the Assembly if and when it is established. This does not deal with the first election, but it comes up at this stage in the Bill because we are taking Schedule 1 in its natural place after Clause 1.
It is clear that this will he a considerable task for the Scottish Boundary Commission and it is bound to take them some time. They are due to divide up Scotland, as the Bill stands at present, into 150 completely new constituencies. They have criteria to observe which are contained in this part of the Schedule. Some of these are straightforward, and if I may refer to the one in paragraph 8, it says:
"Regard shall be had, so far as practicable, to the boundaries of local government areas."
That, I think, is word for word the criterion required of the Scottish Boundary Commission in their review of Parliamentary constituencies for Westminster. If it is not, it is something very similar; that is, they have to take into account the boundaries of local government areas, but they do not need to be bound by them; they are not obliged to have to follow boundaries of local government.
But in lines 3 and 4, which I am seeking to take out, it is laid down that
"Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one parliamentary constituency."
As I understand it, that means that the Boundary Commission are obliged to make sure that every one of these new constituencies fits completely inside a Westminster constituency as it now exists, or as it may exist in the future if there are changes. The general reviews which the Scottish Boundary Commission undertake at present of all contituencies take place every so often. As I recall it, the Commission cannot undertake a general review in less than 10 years since their last one. On the other hand, they have to carry it out within 15 years. In the interim, the Boundary Commission can examine particular areas in certain circumstances.
When the Boundary Commission have this initial task, and when they have made a report, it is expected that the Assembly constituencies will be set out in a supplementary report, if I read this Schedule correctly; so that the Scottish Boundary Commission will be carrying out a general review of the Parliamentary constituencies for Westminster, and at the same time

549
they will be carrying out the division of Scotland into 150 new constituencies and their recommendations on that will be in a supplementary report. I hope that the Government spokesman will correct me if I go wrong in interpreting the Schedule, but during subsequent general reviews it will produce a supplementary report making any recommendations that it wishes to put forward concerning the Scottish Assembly constituencies at the same time as it carries out the general review of the Westminster constituencies.
I am querying whether it is necessary to inhibit the Boundary Commission in such a way that it has to fit each of these new constituencies within one of the 71 Parliamentary constituencies. There are a number of important matters that it must bear in mind when it is considering what the constituencies should be, both for Westminster and for this new Assembly. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone summarised them in a previous debate. It has to take into account population and geography as well as the criteria of local government areas which I have mentioned.
It is still possible that the numbers of the Members of the Assembly will be reduced, because it is apparent from debates that have already taken place in your Lordships House that there are a number of Members who favour fewer than 150. The Royal Commission Report —the Kilbrandon Report—recommended that there should be 100 Members. It is clear from the debates which we have had in Committee on the method of electing Members that the question of the numbers has still been left open. From the point of view of the Bill being consistent at present, there are to be 100 or thereabouts elected Members and 50 added Members. However, it may well be decided at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill that 150 is too many and that the number should be reduced to something like 100. If that were to happen, it would be even more difficult for a Boundary Commission to try to fit 100 seats within 71 and make sure that there was no overlapping and that every one of the 100 new constituencies fitted within one of the 71 Parliamentary constituencies. That would make its task even more difficult and restrict its discretion.
550
Therefore, I ask the Government: is there any particular reason why they have, in this Bill, stipulated that each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised within a Parliamentary constituency? I do not at first sight see any reason why there should be that relationship. If it is thought desirable, then could not the wording be similar to paragraph 8 —that is, not obligatory but proposing that the Boundary Commission should have regard, so far as practicable, to the boundaries of the Westminster constituencies. That would certainly give it far more latitude than paragraph 6 lines 3 and 4 as they now stand.
Therefore, the two points that I should like the Government to answer arc first, what is the reason for trying to fit each of these constituencies within a single Parliamentary constituency at all; and secondly, if there is some desirability, and we are persuaded that there is a point in it, would it not be better to put it in the words that are used in relation to local government areas and make the Boundary Commission take that into account, but not restrict it in this way?
I should like to raise the question of timing because I think that this is the moment to raise that matter. It seems that the Boundary Commission is left to carry out this operation as part of its next general review. However, again if I have misread the Bill the Government will, I hope, inform me. The last report from the Scottish Boundary Commission was produced in about 1969. One of my noble friends, in fact, produced the date June 1969 earlier today in another debate and I have no reason to dissent from that. That was certainly about the time when the last general review was completed and a report submitted. I think that that means that the Scottish Boundary Commission is able, from a date 10 years after that—if it wishes—to start its next review.
It would mean that by about the middle of 1979 the Boundary Commission could start its review of Westminster constituencies. Moreover, as soon as this Bill has been passed, and if it were then accepted by a referendum and enacted, the Boundary Commission could go ahead with the job of dividing Scotland into these new Assembly constituencies. Again, if I have interpreted the Schedule

551
correctly, it would produce a supplementary report on that matter, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that is the position. There seems to be nothing in the Bill which indicates that there should be a special separate operation undertaken by the Scottish Boundary Commission starting immediately the Bill is enacted. I am therefore assuming that the Government are simply leaving it to be carried out at the same time as the general review which is due to start in 1979 or which can start then after the 10-year interval.
I hope that when replying to the Amendment and explaining why the Government have put lines 3 and 4 into the Bill, the Government will also either now or at a later opportunity when discussing this Schedule, inform us about the time of when they see the Scottish Boundary Commission carrying out this task which, as I have said, I quite understand may take some time—perhaps two or three years to complete.
8.28 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I have tabled the next Amendment, but perhaps I can speak to this Amendment which substantially covers the same point. We have had some discussion this evening on the subject of fair representation. It seems to me that Schedule I, Part II, is much too restricting. It is important to remember that this is the permanent system and not just the initial system which has to be hurried; this is the permanent system which will be in operation. As my noble friend has pointed out, it will operate only 10 to 15 years; that is to say, at fairly long intervals.
It is clear that it is anticipated that if the rules of Part II are observed it will he pretty rough justice, because it looks as though they are quite prepared for constituencies to he 125 per cent. above the average. At least at the beginning—not at the end of 10 years, because there may be movement of population of one kind or another—can we not start on an even basis? Should Schedule I not directly be guided towards a fair distribution at the beginning of the 10 years period?.
I think that it is worth recalling that the voting at the last Election in Scotland was extremely close. I think I am correct in
552
saying that there were only five Members out of 71 who were, in fact, elected by a majority of the voters. In other words, if I am correct in my mathematics, the remaining 66 had a majority of people voting against them rather than for them. That means that the voting is very close. Therefore, it surely becomes all the more important that at the beginning of this period the populations should fairly closely resemble each other in number.
Perhaps I may state the position. The matter of the 125 per cent. is rather odd. If we had proportional representation, I do not think that it will apply so much. Perhaps I may give some simple mathematics. If a constituency has more than 125 per cent. of the electoral quota, you divide that by three, which gives 41. On the other hand, if the figure is 120 per cent. instead of 125 per cent., you divide that by two, which gives 60 per cent. That means that there is a 50 per cent. difference between the lower and higher range.
I want to make the point that this is the beginning of the period and that during this 10 years there will he population movements both in an out. In other words, the disparity is likely to become greater. I should like to suggest that at the beginning of this period the division of numbers should be much closer than is anticipated by this Schedule. One of the quite clear reasons which causes the disparity is the tying of the Parliamentary constituencies to Scottish local constituencies. Is that necessary? I can understand that as it relates to local government because this is an administrative area and makes sense.
What is a Parliamentary constituency? It has only one point of union and that is the Member of Parliament; otherwise there is no union at all. There is no administration or association; there is nothing except the Member of Parliament. Therefore, is it necessary to include these first two lines which, according to later paragraphs of the Schedule, mean that they are totally inflexible and cannot be altered. That produces very sharp disparities which I think the Government recognise.
Perhaps I could give the facts. Taking the position of 125 per cent., we shall certainly have four constituencies—the noble Lord put it at five but it depends on the number taken—but if we drop to 120

553
per cent., we then have 10 constituencies. In other words, there are 10 constituencies which fall, by only 2,000 or 3,000 votes, below the 125 per cent. That is a disparity which, quite clearly, will reflect itself in a sharp difference in the number of representatives who will be returned. I suggest that certainly the first two lines should be omitted. Is it really asking too much that this Schedule should be written with the object of ensuring that the number of voters in each voting constituency should, as near as may be, be as even as possible? I hope that the Government will consider this matter closely because in a very closely contested constituency it shows a lack of intention to get the numbers fairly even.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The principle that the Government have followed in writing this Schedule in the terms in which it is written is that, for entirely practical reasons of administrative convenience, Parliamentary constituencies should form the basis for Assembly constituencies. I accept that this argument was accepted in a different context by the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Blake, when they spoke to the general Amendment on proportional representation which the Committee accepted last week. However, I accept that that relates to that particular context. That Amendment, accepted by this Committee, is founded on the principle of creating Assembly constituencies within the existing Parliamentary boundaries.
In my submission it is only practical to keep the two types of constituency boundary contiguous. In the Government's view, departure from this principle would have certain effects. First, it would tend to confuse the voters who are accustomed to Parliamentary constituencies, and, indeed, would tend to detract from the unity of a particular area as a Parliamentary constituency. It would also needlessly complicate such matters as the Party organisations. I want to stress that point because I think that the Committee would accept that the existence of Party organisations is extremely important for the healthy functioning of our democracy.
The Party organisations are built round the Parliamentary constituency in local areas and it would be a great pity if Party organisations—some of which are financially and otherwise stretched and
554
very thin on the ground—were required to regroup and form entirely different organisations for Assembly constituencies, particularly when one remembers that other elections have to be fought, whether regional or perhaps for the European Assembly. Therefore, I cannot overemphasise the importance of not making matters impossibly difficult for the Party organisations which serve democracy in this country.
Perhaps I could revert for a moment to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, last Tuesday. As I read the system—and I hope that I now understand it—which is described in that and subsequent Amendments, that does not diminish the role of Parties. Indeed, in a sense the role of Parties is perhaps even more important because of the approved Party list and matters of that kind. I think that I can derive some support—although I recognise the different context —for my view and submission in relation to the importance of Party organisations and not unduly complicating matters for them. Therefore, that is the answer. It is an entirely practical one.
I accept, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, that because one goes from a constituency with two Members to a constituency with three, at the border-line one will necessarily get some quite material difference between the number of electors required to elect one Member in each of these constituencies. But, of course, if one goes in what must be described as fairly crude steps from a two-Member constituency to a three-Member constituency, that is inevitable. I submit that that is the price that one has to pay in order to preserve the Party organisations and not to make life impossibly difficult for them in conducting that essential part of our democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that the numbers in the Assembly have been left open. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, made clear, and as I accepted, the Government's position is that we have not prejudiced ourselves over that; the matter is being looked at. It is only in that sense that the matter is left open. Of course, so far as the Bill is concerned, in effect the Amendments write in the Amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.

555
As to the matter of timing, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me a question. I think that he is right in his reading of it. I cannot be absolutely certain because unfortunately the 1949 Act, which 1 had this afternoon, has disappeared. I should like to consult it before I give him an answer. Therefore, I shall take advantage of his kind offer and return to the matter later and try to answer him. However, I urge the Committee to accept my proposition, that for practical reasons and accepting that the price must be paid, it is a price that is worth paying.
Viscount THURSO: We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for bringing this matter to our notice and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for the very clear way in which he has explained the Government's point of view and reasoning. I think that there is a slight problem here. I agree with the Government that as far as possible the object of the exercise should be to make any of these confusing constituencies as co-terminus as possible: the Parliamentary, the Assembly, the European and the local Government constituencies—as far as possible every possible constituency should retain various local identities.
I was very impressed with the noble and learned Lord's argument about the identity of Party because, after all, by our PR Amendment, which your Lordships' Committee has accepted, we are introducing the element of Party into the election area in a wider sense. We shall come to that in a later Amendment. Therefore, I am impressed by the Government's arguments on this. However, I take the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that there may be moments when Boundary Commissions are reporting and elections are taking place at different times, when it may be difficult to maintain boundaries exactly as laid down in the initial stages after the passing of the Bill, if it is passed. I am slightly inclined to believe that the phrase,"so far as practicable" would be good to include if the Government could find it acceptable, because there may be moments when it is not practicable. One does not want to make the law unduly difficult.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that any lawyer looking at the words "so far as practicable" would appreciate that what is practicable may not be reasonably practicable. Perhaps I should put it the other way round. It may be that it is perfectly practicable to divide Scotland into 100 different constituencies, but one would depart very much indeed from the existing boundaries of the 71 constituencies.
Viscount THURSO: I agree that we do not want to depart unreasonably from existing boundaries. I am only asking whether the noble and learned Lord will look at this problem and consider, between now and Report stage, whether there is indeed a problem that could be covered by a form of words.
May I refer to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. If we are to accept a percentage of a constituency vote, as indeed we have done already in various Amendments accepted by your Lordships' Committee, then obviously we have to work with like-shaped constituencies, otherwise the meaning of the Amendments we have already accepted is not clear. Therefore, from these Benches we support the Government in what they have said but we would ask them to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said to see what force there is in the arguments he has adduced.
8.42 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I make a point which the noble and learned Lord may be able to answer now, or perhaps on the next occasion. It seems quite remarkable that we have in quite a short period of time reached such an enormous spread in the size of constituencies as to have 21,000 in Glasgow Central and 97,000 in Midlothian. That is quite extraordinary. Is it contemplated that this will be put right by the next Boundary Commission? Obviously, it will get out of phase a bit in time, but one cannot help feeling that on the last occasion the Commission may have taken a rather limited view of what was practicable in order to get such an astonishing result as this. One of these constituencies is in the centre of a town, where one would have thought it could quite easily have been added to another constituency or divided between several. The other is

557
an amalgam of what one might call suburban areas. It is a quite extraordinary difference.
One can understand the smallness of some electorates such as Orkney and Shetland, with 28,000, and the Western Isles, with 23,000, but to have enormous constituencies such as I have mentioned side by side with these seems to be quite extraordinary. I hope that it will be possible to even them out. Even constituencies in the 70,000-bracket cannot easily he evened out by the method that is proposed in the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. This gives a 110 per cent. level of a constituency of average size, and two Members over and above 110 per cent; nor would it have been changed very much—certainly in many cases not for the better—by the original suggestion put down by the Government, which would, as I understand it, have given two Members for all the constituencies, including Glasgow Central, and three for the larger constituencies.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not think that I can answer for the Boundary Commission. I have a difficult enough task getting through from 3 o'clock to II answering for the Government. The noble Lord will appreciate that the ground rules for the operation of the Boundary Commission are laid down by the statute that I referred to. We must await their report. I share his surprise that one gets these disparities, but no doubt this kind of thing can happen over a period of time when one considers the different economic and other circumstances prevailing in areas such as these.
The Earl of PERTH: I am puzzled by the situation we have got to in Schedule 1, Part II. I well understand the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. However, it seems to me that either you remove paragraph 6 and let 7, 8 and 9 stand, or you leave in paragraph 6 and leave out 7 and 8, because it appears to me that there is a contradiction here. Quite simply, paragraph 6 says:
"Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one parliamentary constituency.".
Then that is qualified in some sort of form in 7 and 8 by using the words"so far as practicable ". Then we learn that that means nothing. It seems to me that the Government should consider
558
whether they want to leave in paragraph 6 and then go to paragraph 9, or whether they should take out 6, as has been suggested in the Amendment, and leave the rest. It seems to me, reading it at this moment, that the two things are contradictory, but maybe I am wrong.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the noble Earl is giving full weight to lines 6 and 7? They contain the words,
"comprised in the same parliamentary constituency.".
The Earl of PERTH: I think I am because you have laid down an absolute rule in 6 which states that:.
"Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one parliamentary constituency".
And that is that. If that is what you have laid down, then surely 7 and 8 are completely unnecessary, and you should go to No. 9.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As I was reading this—and I hope I shall be corrected at least from the Box if I am wrong—what is envisaged under paragraph 7 is that, if you have a three-Member constituency and there are 90,000 electors, then each Assembly constituency shall, so far as is practicable, have 30,000 electors. But that may be qualified because of paragraph 8, because you have regard, so far as practicable, to the boundaries of local government areas.
Viscount THURSO: Have we not agreed that there will not be three-Member constituencies? Have we not agreed in Amendments already passed that there are only to be two-Member constituencies?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes indeed: I was only using the example for the purposes of an arithmetical demonstration.
8.47 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to those who have taken part in this brief debate, and also to the Minister for his explanation, because otherwise there was no way in which we could tell why this was in the Bill. May I summarise. He has said that it is for administrative convenience, and also to make it as easy as possible for the electorate to understand the areas which are covered for Parliamentary elections,

559
for the Assembly elections, and also for local government elections. I certainly accept those as reasons which have some weight.
The noble and learned Lord was particularly frank in saying that the question of Party organisations was also very much in the Government's mind. Again, from the practical point of view, I accept that Party organisations are at present in Scotland on a constituency basis, and that, with voluntary organisations operating in this field, it is going to make life difficult if there are other constituencies which cut across the boundaries. But I am again glad that the noble and learned Lord told us that because otherwise we had no reason to understand why it was there.
I should like again to put this point to the noble and learned Lord: we are giving the Scottish Boundary Commission a difficult jigsaw puzzle to do, because, with all these restricting factors, it is going to be exceedingly hard for them to try to produce an answer. In the first place, they have the problem of trying to balance population with geography. That is to say, some constituencies cover enormous areas and do not have much in the way of population, while others have very densely populated areas. Then, we have the local government boundaries, to which I have referred.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that paragraph 8 says only,"Regard should be had so far as practicable", so it gives the Boundary Commission plenty of latitude. In paragraphs 10 and 11 even more latitude is given. It is spelled out that the Boundary Commission does not need to pay as much attention at it otherwise would, even to paragraph 8, in certain circumstances, in order to avoid excessive disparities. It is being given a certain amount of latitude on local government boundaries. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, paragraph 7 requires it, so far as possible, where a constituency is being divided into two, to cut it in half, so that the population is divided into two, still taking local government boundaries into consideration.
On top of that I would inform all those South of the Border who do not necessarily know this, that at present in Scotland
560
Parliamentary constituencies and local government boundaries do not coincide in large areas of Scotland. I have not done any research. I know, only from my own knowledge of various areas, that as a result of the reform of local government there are many cases in Scotland where the Parliamentary constituency boundaries now do not coincide with local government boundaries. They did not do so in the past before the reform of local government because the Boundary Commission had this discretion to take this into account, but it was not obliged to follow the local government boundary.
We are asking the Scottish Boundary Commission to do an almost impossible task if it is to try to meet all these requirements and is not given some more latitude, because on top of that it now has this completely new, not discretion but obligation, to place each of these new Assembly constituencies within one of the existing 1971 Parliamentary constituencies. I agree that it is possible—no doubt it has been gone into with the representative of the Scottish Boundary Commission—to fit 150 into 71, even with all these restrictions. However, if we were to move to 100 I think it would be virtually impossible to place that obligation upon it.
I hope very much that the Government at a later stage will agree to relax the wording of lines 3 and 4, paragraph 6, so that they follow the wording of paragraph 8, and that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, also suggested, they give the Boundary Commission discretion rather than place it under an obligation. I accept that the arguments he gave earlier do have some weight. I refer to his arguments about simplicity, so far as any of these things can be simple; secondly, administrative convenience; and thirdly, the Party organisations. I accept that there is weight in the reasons he gave. However, I think that it would be better to give the Scottish Boundary Commission discretion to have regard to this, so far as is reasonable and practicable, whichever wording is thought best, rather than place this upon it as an absolute obligation. Certainly, if the number of seats is reduced, this would have to be done, otherwise I can see the Scottish Boundary Commission coming to the Government's door and saying, "You are telling us to do something that is impossible."
Lord McCLUSKEY: Does the noble Lord not think that if we were to confer upon the Boundary Commission the kind of discretion that these words would confer upon it, we shall make its task much more difficult? At the moment it starts off with a map with 71 constituencies, and with 71 difficult tasks inside each constituency, so the difficulty arises 71 times, perhaps. But if the Boundary Commission is given a discretion to divide Scotland into 71 constituencies, or whatever the number may be, and can depart from the existing structure, does that not require it to redraw the whole map of Scotland for the purposes of Assembly constituencies, and does that not make its task much more difficult?.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO rose—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I shall give way later. It is rather difficult if one has two interventions. No; because I think that it would still be regarded by the Boundary Commission as its primary duty to try to fit these new constituencies inside the 71. As far as possible it would do so. But where it found that it could not do that without running counter to all the other criteria here, including trying to get the electorate fairly even, in those cases it should have some discretion.
For example, let us take the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. 1 cannot remember the exact figure, but the figure for Central Glasgow is about 20,000. It is very small. If that is not changed in the coming review the one thing that the Boundary Commission would be landed with is the fact that there is a very small constituency which would probably have to be one or two of the new Assembly constituencies, because there is very little it can do with that 20,000. It must either be one or two. That is paragraph 6. One hopes that in the next review the Boundary Commission will suggest radical changes of the kind that my noble friend said were necessary, so that we should not have constituencies as small as that. That is an example of restrictions. With such a small number of electors the Commission would be stuck with having to make exactly one or two.
However, I do agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is desirable for the reasons that he gave for the Commission to try as far as possible to fit
562
them within the 71. But I do not think that it would make it more difficult if this wording were relaxed, because it would not apply to all the constituencies. The Commission would not have to redraw the whole lot. It would redraw where it thought it was necessary for the 71, and then, as far as possible, it would try and fit the new Assembly constituencies within that. When the Commission found that it could not observe all the criteria, and it was going to produce a nonsense, it would have discretion not to have to follow this precisely.
That is what I suggest. I think that if the numbers were reduced from 150 it would have a problem.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN rose—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I was trying to be courteous in giving way to the noble Viscount first, because I said I would.
Viscount THURSO: While agreeing and being persuaded by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on his reasons for wanting to lay things down in this way, I ask him again to look at the wording of this, because my mind casts itself back to the discussion earlier this evening when we were talking about the possibility of 56 Members of Parliament for Westminster or 60 Members of Parliament for Westminster, and so forth. It may very well be that in the future a Boundary Commission may have to redraw constituencies from the 71 to some other figure. I do not choose any figure, but it would be some figure other than 71 or 72, or whatever it may be at the moment. If it had to do that, it might well do it in such a way that it coincided with an Election date for Members of Parliament to come to Westminster. It would then be necessary immediately to redraw the constituencies within the Assembly area, and this might be extremely difficult.
There should be an element of flexibility left so that the Boundary Commission is able to take this kind of problem into account if it should arise. It seems to me that with the present wording there is a lack of such flexibility. I accept the general arguments of the noble and learned Lord and of the Government, but

563
I ask them to look at the possibility of wording this particular part of the Schedule slightly more flexibly.
9 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I gave way to the noble Viscount because I understood he wished to raise a point on which I was touching at that moment. But he has brought in this additional matter, the fact that the figure of 71 is not sacrosanct, as we know from a previous debate, and it might change in the future. That is certainly another consideration which should be borne in mind, but I believe that trying to put, for example, 100 new Assembly constituencies, so that each of them fits exactly inside 71, would be a difficult operation to give the Boundary Commission; 150 will be easier, but it will still be difficult with all the other matters that they have to take into account.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether my noble friend perhaps feels that this might not be quite so difficult as it may appear at first sight. He will see from the opening provision of the Schedule that the Boundary Commission has to report"at the same time ". To my mind, that would inevitably mean that they would be looking at the two problems at the same time and together, and therefore it is a question of a double adjustment of the jigsaw, so to speak. I am not certain that I altogether agree with my noble friend that there should be latitude in going outside the single boundaries of the Parliamentary constituencies. I think it would be possible for them to adjust the Parliamentary constituencies with a view subsequently to dividing them as necessary —or sub-dividing them, if one prefers to put it that way—into the Assembly constitutencies. I should have thought it could all be taken as one operation.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I took that into account in my opening remarks, and when moving the Amendment I said that my interpretation of the Bill—the noble and learned Lord confirmed this—was that when the periodical reviews were carried out of the whole of Scotland by the Boundary Commission (in not fewer than every 10 years and not more than every 15) they would be providing a supplementary report which would cover the Assembly
564
constituencies, and therefore I understood that they would be doing both jobs at the same time.
The Scottish Boundary Commission are governed at present in making recommendations about the Westminster constituencies by certain criteria which are clearly laid down. They give them discretion where local government boundaries are concerned, but they must take many other things into account. But one of the things which they are not expected to take into account at present is these new constituency boundaries, so there is something of a problem. They would obviously use their good sense, but they are not required to take this into account. If they were, in their next review, to be making recommendations about changes in the 1971 Parliamentary constituencies, I very much hope there would be a recommendation to remove the anomaly of the 21,000, but if they were making recommendations which were influenced simply by the new Assembly constituencies, I feel they would be going outwith their terms of reference because that is not written into their remit.
However, it could be in the future and I agree with my noble friend that for obvious practical reasons one hopes that the Boundary Commission in doing this job will have both sets of constituencies in mind when they are recommending where a boundary should in future come. I would only say to Lord Drumalbyn that if he were a member of the Boundary Commission and the number of constituencies under the Bill was 100 instead of 150, he might find he had quite a problem trying to fit them into 71 in the way it would be necessary if this were obligatory.
I am glad we have aired this question. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving us a first indication, as he has in this debate, as to the reasons which have caused the Government to make this obligatory in the Bill. I cannot say I agree, but I recognise the reasons; I would give the Boundary Commission discretion so that in certain circumstances they did not have to follow the Parliamentary constituency boundary, and I hope the Government will look at that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I can now confirm that his understanding in the question the noble Lord asked me—the second point he raised—is correct.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for confirming that and for having obtained the necessary Statute, which apparently disappeared during the dinner adjournment. He confirms the timing; that is, that the Government are expecting, if the Bill is passed and is then endorsed by the referendum, the Scottish Boundary Commission to carry out this task as part of its normal periodical review, which they can start on in 1979.
Returning to the Amendment point about removing paragraph (6), my view is that it will make life unnecessarily difficult for the Scottish Boundary Commission with 150 members of the Assembly and that, if there were to be 100 Members of the Assembly, it would make life almost impossible for them. I hope the Government will take that into account and I reserve my position, perhaps to table an Amendment which would be in the terms of "having regard to" this desirability "so far as practicable" on the lines of paragraph (8). From the debate so far, that would be my preference, unless the Government can persuade me otherwise. In the meantime, I shall return with an Amendment on those lines on Report.
Lord BROWN: I do not want to prolong the argument or seek a reply to this suggestion, but I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that there is a time-honoured way to resolve disputes about whether or not to give discretion. The usual form which this takes, which must be familiar to all noble Lords, is to say, "You shall observe these rules, but you may obtain dispensation by seeking permission from a higher body", in this case Parliament. That would be one way out of it; the discretion is not given but there is a loophole for the seeking of permission to disregard the rule by taking the matter to Parliament, either to the Assembly or Westminster, I do not know which.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTES (Lord Alport): In calling Amendment No. 27, 1 have to advise your Lordships that if it is approved, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I do not propose to move Amendment No. 27.
9.8 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 28:.
Page 40, line 12, leave out ("125") and insert ("110").
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 are consequential upon Amendment No. 8 which we accepted last week. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I make one remark about this only because The Times newspaper misreported on the front page last Wednesday what happened in this House in relation to this matter. The Government position here is that these Amendments are accepted entirely without prejudice to the whole reconsideration of the proper numbers. That was made plain on the Parliamentary page of The Times, but on the front page it was wrong. For that reason only I emphasise the Government's position.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord is entirely justified in making that point clear. Of course it was made absolutely clear and at the time this was accepted subject to the Government's reconsideration of the whole problem.
on Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 40, line 12, leave out ("three ") and insert ("two ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 40, line 14, leave out ("two Assembly constituencies ") and insert ("one Assembly constituency ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I am advised that, instead of calling Amendment No. 33, I should now call Manuscript Amendment No. 294.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Manuscript Amendment No. 294:
Page 41, line 25, at end insert—
("PART V
ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
15.—(1) No person shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless his name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the ordinary election concerned.
(2) No party shall be an eligible party so as to be eligible for allocation of additional member seats to its adopted list candidates under this Schedule unless it secured 5 per cent. or more of the total of all party votes validly cast at the ordinary election concerned.
16. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:

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

(2) The constituencies at the first ordinary election shall be grouped into eight Electoral Regions in accordance with Part VI of this Schedule and the initial additional members prescribed by section 1(5) of this Act shall be allocated between the Electoral Regions as shown in Part VI of this Schedule.

(3) The number, group and allocation of additional members at ordinary elections other than at the first ordinary election shall be those prescribed by this Schedule subject to amendments under section 1(7) of this Act.

(4) In the event of any change in the number of constituencies after the first ordinary election the automatic increases or decreases in the number of additional members provided for by section 1(6) of this Act shall be allocated between the Electoral Regions so that as a result the aggregate of the additional members and the constituency members for each Electoral Region shall as between the Electoral Regions be proportional to the respective electorates of each Electoral Region at the ordinary election concerned.

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

(6) The valid party votes cast at the ordinary election concerned for each eligible party in each Electoral Region shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum (called the denominator sum) of the number of candidates of each eligible party returned as constituency members at that election for each Electoral Region plus one.

(7) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall
568
be compared and the first person to be elected an additional member in each Electoral Region shall be the first candidate on the relevant priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.

(8) The calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall be repeated after adding the additional member elected in each Electoral Region in accordance with sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph to the relevant denominator sum of the eligible party of which he was an adopted candidate.

(9) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (8) of this paragraph shall be compared and the next persons respectively to be elected additional members for each Electoral Region shall be the first candidates.

on the respective priority lists of the respective eligible parties obtaining the highest numbers respectively as a result of those calculations who are not already members.

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

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

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

PART VI
ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
17.—(1) The constituencies at the first ordinary elections shall be grouped into Electoral Regions as follows—
Central Scotland—Dunfermline, Fife Central; Fife East; Kirkaldy; Stirling; Falkirk and Grangemouth; Stirlingshire East and Clackmannan; West Lothian.
Clydeside North—Glasgow Central; Garscadden; Hillhead; Kelvingrove; Maryhill; Provan; Queens Park; Shettleston; Springburn; East Dumbartonshire.
Clydeside South—Glasgow Cathcart; Craigton; Govan; Pollock; Rutherglen; East Kilbride; Hamilton; Renfrewshire East; Renfrewshire West.
Highlands and Islands—Argyll; Banffshire; Caithness and Sutherland; Inverness; Kinross and West Perthshire; Moray and Nairn; Perth and East Perthshire; Orkney and Shetland; Ross and Cromarty; Western Isles.
North East Scotland—Aberdeen North; Aberdeen South; Aberdeenshire East; Aberdeenshire West; Dundee East; Dundee West; North Angus and Mearns; South Angus.
South East Scotland—Edinburgh Central; East, North, South, West; Leith; Midlothian; Pentlands; Berwick and East Lothian.
South West Scotland and Borders—Ayr; North Ayrshire and Bute; Central Ayrshire; South Ayrshire; Dumfries; Galloway; Kilmarnock; Lanark; Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles.
Clyde—Bothwell; Coatbridge and Airdrie; Dunbartonshire Central; Dunbartonshire West; Greenock and Port Glasgow; Motherwell; North Lanarkshire; Paisley.
(2) The additional members allocated to the respective Electoral Regions shall be as follows—

Electoral Region

Constituency Seats

Additional Seats

Total

Central Scotland

14

+

6

20

Clyde

12

+

6

18

Clydeside North

11

+

7

18

Clydeside South

13

+

7

20

Highlands and Islands

13

+

4

17

North East Scotland

12

+

6

18

South East Scotland

12

+

8

20

South West Scotland and Borders

13

+

6

19

100

50

150")

The noble Lord said: I should like to start with an apology that I was not able to get this Amendment down in time to appear in the Marshalled List. The main change as between what is called a Manuscript Amendment and the original text in the Marshalled List is the inclusion of paragraph 17(1) which shows the way in which the constituencies in the electoral region are grouped together. This was done in response to requests I have received, so I hope this meets the requirements of the House. There were one or two other minor changes and the opportunity was taken to make them, and I daresay that there may be some deficiency still. I really do know how to spell Kirkcaldy which does not appear correctly in the manuscript.
I hope your Lordships will permit me to spend a little time on this, as it is very difficult to compress an explanation as to how this system will work; if your Lordships are interested perhaps I may be allowed to go through it. The Amendment sets out the proposed arrangement for the election of the additional Member;
570
that is, the Party Member. Noble Lords will recall that initially there would be 50 additional Members—that is, half the number of constituency Members—and that in subsequent elections the number of additional Members would continue to be half the number of constituency Members, whatever that might be, rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Paragraph 16 deals with the election of Party candidates. Sub-paragraph (1) provides that to be eligible for election an additional Party candidate's name must appear on a Party list. Sub-paragraph (2) provides that no additional candidate is eligible unless the Party on whose list his name appears obtains 5 per cent. of the total of all valid votes cast for that Party. The first stage after the count is to determine the total number of Party votes in Scotland as a whole. The 5 per cent. is known as the threshold. It applies in West Germany and has had the effect of excluding the smaller Parties, for example, the neo-Nazi Party, which at one time in 1969 polled as many as 4·3 per cent.
Paragraph 16 deals with the allocation of Party seats as between eligible Party candidates. Party candidates are to he allocated on a regional basis, and it is proposed that there should be eight regions. The advantage of apportioning additional candidates on a regional basis, rather than on a national basis, as proposed in the Commons, is that those elected will have a regional base, with all that that implies in regard to representation of regional interests.
It may be thought that if there are to be regions for the purpose of Assembly elections, the existing local authority regions should be used, but the disadvantage of using the local authority regions lies in the vast disparity in the size of the regions, even apart from the island areas. The system of allocating seats for additional members would be the same if the allocation was done on the basis of local authority legions, but the outcome would be less equitable and less satisfactory for the purpose in hand; that is to say, to secure representation of Parties in the Assembly as nearly as possible in proportion to votes cast in the election.
The grouping has been done in such a way as to secure that the electorates in each of the regions is roughly equal. All except one would contain between

571
450,000 and 500,000 electors, the exception being of course the Highlands and Island region, which would have about 375,000 electors. The number of additional Members for each region is determined in such a way as to result in the combined total of constituency Members and Party Members in each region representing approximately 25,000 electors. It would be very close to that in all the regions, except again in the Highland region, where each elected Member and Party Member would represent 22,000.
These calculations of course take into account the Amendment just moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, giving two Members to constituencies with more than 110 per cent. of the norm. These figures show how very much closer we would come to achieving the ideal of one vote, one value—and here I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in his place—on the additional Member system; far closer than on the first-past-the-post system, where the size of the electorates varies, as I said earlier, from 21,000 in Glasgow Central, to over 97,000 in Midlothian. So the value of a vote in Glasgow Central is nearly five times greater, at the present time, than it is in Midlothian. Even under the Bill as introduced the value of a vote in Central Glasgow would be more than three times the value of a vote in Midlothian. Even if the Government insist on retaining the first-past-the-post system, they could surely devise a more equitable scheme than the one that is proposed in the original Bill.
Sub-paragraph (5) indicates the way in which Parties are to draw up the lists of candidates for each electoral region. Each list must not contain more names than there are seats to be filled in the region. In order to prevent the Party caucuses at national level from dictating the lists for each region, it is provided that the lists should be drawn up democratically. That implies some means of selection, or election by democractic processes. But it is not intended that there should be rules laid down prescribing a single process—although that is done in West Germany—any more than at the present time there are common rules for the election of officers and executives of trade unions. They simply have to comply with equitable principles. In this country that is a matter that is thought proper for the Parties themselves to settle, though no doubt an
572
opportunity should be given to all paid-up members of a Party to play some part in the selection.
Sub-paragraphs (6) to (10) provide for the allocation of additional Member seats between the candidates. This is nothing like as complicated as, for example, football pools. Very briefly, they provide that the number of Party votes for the region should be added up and divided by the number of constituency seats won by each Party in the region, plus one. The first seat then goes to the Party with the highest average votes per successful constituency candidate, plus one—the one being added of course to cover the case of a Party which has in fact won no seats in that region. But, of course, each qualifying Party is credited with an extra seat for the purposes of the calculations. The Party which wins the first seat then has that seat added to its number of constituency seats; and the process is repeated with all the additional seats until all the additional seats are allocated. It really is remarkably simple. The process favours the Party with the most votes, but only to a small extent. Broadly speaking, the outcome is that the numbers of seats, constituency and Party combined, are allocated in proportion to the votes cast, with this slight advantage to the Party which gets most votes.
Sub-paragraph (11) gives a very broad definition of a political Party, so that, as in France, any group can form itself into a Party for the purposes of an election. An example is what I think is called the Green Party—the environmentalists—in France. That is not to say that it will necessarily win any Party seats. Sub-paragraph (12) provides for Her Majesty in Council to make regulations for the drawing up of regional Party lists and for the form of the ballot paper, which, as I explained at Second Reading, would contain two parts on the same sheet of paper, one containing the names of the constituency candidates and the other the Parties and the Party candidates. Where there was only one constituency Member to be elected, the elector would put one cross against the name of the constituency candidate of his choice and one cross against the Party of his choice. Where there were two or more constituency candidates, he could of course put two or more crosses against the names of his two preferred candidates as well as against his preferred Party.

573
Turning to Part VI, that defines the composition of the electoral regions and sets out the number of additional seats to be allocated to each region. It does not much matter what the names of the electoral regions are: it is sufficient that they should make geographical sense, and I hope that they will not offend any susceptibilities. If they do, the names can readily he altered to meet the wishes of the Committee. It would be more difficult to change the composition of the electoral regions by transferring constituencies from one electoral region to another, for that would be likely to affect the numerical balance between the electoral regions and, in consequence, the fairness of the system. It would have been possible to leave the demarcation of electoral regions to the Boundary Commission, but I believe that would have required amendment of the Act of 1949.
I see no reason to provide at this stage for local inquiries into the grouping of constituencies into electoral regions, although, of course, any alteration of Parliamentary constituency boundaries after the first election might involve marginal adjustments in the composition of the electoral regions. In any case, it seemed reasonable to show your Lordships how the system would work out on the ground, so to speak; and, indeed, I have, as I have already said, been pressed to spell out the composition of the electoral regions. Hence this revised Amendment.
The Committee will observe that some of the names originally proposed for the electoral regions have been changed. Clearly, "Highlands" was an inadequate description of an electoral region including the Western Isles constituency and the Orkney and Shetland constituency. Similarly, one could hardly describe an electoral region as "Lothian" when it did not contain all the Lothians, but included Berwickshire. Then, "South West Scotland" did not quite meet the case of an electoral region which included Roxburgh, Peebles and Selkirk. That is why it is called "South West Scotland and Borders"; and if it is objected that Berwickshire is part of the Borders, then perhaps the best description of the South West Scotland and Borders electoral region would be "South Scotland".
Anomalies are hound to exist in any choice of name, but since it is not sensible
574
to base electoral regions on local authority regions there is a good deal to be said for giving the electoral regions distinctive names which are quite different from the local authority names, so that there will be no confusion between the two systems. The alternative would be to call them all electoral areas if that was thought proper and so distinguish them further. I am afraid that that is a lengthy explanation but I think it would have been a little difficult to have given a shorter one that would have meant very much to your Lordships. I only hope that what I have said meant something. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to indicate briefly the Government's attitude. First, the Amendment is regarded as consequential on the Amendment made following the voting last Tuesday. Secondly, we have looked carefully at the manuscript Amendment and we have one or two points of detail but I would not think it worth while taking up the time of the Committee to look at those points because I propose to write to Lord Drumalbyn suggesting to him that the way he has done it might possibly be improved. I say this with the greatest of respect. Otherwise, I have nothing to say. I hope that, if other noble Lords feel that they can follow that example, we can make progress with a lot of detail tonight, so that when we return afresh with a full Committee tomorrow we can launch on to more important matters, perhaps, than some of the detail we have to cover this evening.
9.26 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: Nobody could understand the problems of proportional representation better than my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I tried to follow him, but I got lost after a while with the problem. I was not one who supported PR and I was glad to have had the explanation, even if it was difficult to follow. Of course, it is mostly due to the mathematical niceties which, in a way, is the drawback of the system. I am slightly concerned because I moved some Amendments the other day the object of which was to reduce the size of the Assembly from 150 to 100. One had the acceptance and concurrence of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and many others to reduce the Assembly to this figure of 100. Now, to use Lord

575
Wigg's phrase, "Pussy's woken up" and the size of the Assembly has gone back from 100 to 150 if we take into account the additional Members which are going to be included.
I wonder whether my noble friend, on reflection, might consider reducing the size of the Assembly at Report stage to what we had originally intended which is that it should be 100. We find ourselves in the curious situation that, for better or worse, I had moved some Amendments which I thought suitable to bring down the size of the Assembly to 100 because it was too big. My noble friend supported it not, because he thought it was too big but because he wanted proportional representation. The Government supported it, not because they wanted it or wanted proportional representation but because of the axiomatic situation whereby your Lordships had decided to put PR into the Bill—which was something they did not want. The result is that the size of the Assembly has now jumped back to that which everyone agreed apparently it should not be.
The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. I accept the fact that he agreed to that Amendment subject to the Government's own reservations. One or two matters puzzle me slightly and perhaps my noble friend could explain them. I am sure he is clear about them, but I am not. If one is standing as a candidate for a seat in a marginal constituency, the chances are that one will not get elected.
Of course, if one stands on the Party list—and some people might describe that as being a Party hack—one would get elected. This seems to be a disadvantage of the system. If one is on the Party list one gets in, but if one stands as a representative of the people one might not get in. One wonders to whom these Party Members will be responsible. Do they have constituents or do they share them? Do they have any involvement with the electorate or not? If my noble friend will explain that, I would find it helpful. It seems to me that there are some people who could get into the Assembly simply by virtue of being on the Party list with no connection with the electorate at all.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I answer my noble friend's question without going
576
into the disappointment of his having had my support on an Amendment and finding that the result was not what he expected. As to the man who stands in a marginal constituency, Part IV of the Bill allows a person who contests the constituency also to appear on the Party list. There is little danger that there would be any confusion over this. The man who stood for a constituency might well do so in a case where he was very unlikely to win that constituency, and then, when the adjustment came back on the basis of the regional system, he would perhaps be top of the list for election under the regional priority.
This leads into the second point: whether or not there is any involvement with electors. One of the reasons why a person who was unlikely to get elected but nevertheless wanted to get in and asked his Party to put him high on the list, would be precisely in order to get the maximum involvement with the electors. But apart from that, one has to remember that in order to get on to the Party list he has to be well known to the electors in that region or get himself known. This is one of the advantages of the regional system over the national system. Then I have no doubt he would help candidates in the regional area and appear on a great many electoral platforms.
I do not think that there is danger that the Party candidates will not be know n to the regions that they represent. It is true that one argument in favour of having Party lists is that they might include people who would be unlikely on their own to get elected as constituency Members but might nevertheless make a very valuable contribution as Members of the Assembly. These arguments cut across each other to some extent. The fact remains that there are these possibilities open.
I hope that I have corrected my noble friend's idea that it is only Party hacks who will get elected on to the Party lists. I am quite certain that it will be very difficult to get on to those lists, and that the Parties themselves will make sure that the people who are put on those lists are thoroughly well known in the region, otherwise they will not get so many Party votes.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: May I ask my noble friend something about this? 1 am obviously more knowledgeable about

577
the Highlands region, and he probably realises that very often people who are put forward are not desperately attached to any particular Party. They happen to be very well known and probably very useful people. It would be a great pity, so far as we are concerned in the Highlands region, if those people had to be tied to one particular Party. I gather from what he says that that does not necessarily happen.
Lord DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord is asking whether they have to be tied to a Party, they must be tied to a Party in order to appear on the Party list. That means they have to assign themselves to a Party or form a Party. Any group of people could fight. Let us say there were six electoral Party seats in the electoral region: you could quite easily get six people together who were birds of a leather in some way or other and who were prepared to stand under some particular label. For the purposes of this scheme, that would come under the definition of "Party", as defined in the Amendment. But by and large, to be elected as an independent one would have to stand as an independent.
Lord BANKS: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave a very comprehensive answer to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but I should like to add just one further point because it seemed to me that the noble Earl was suggesting that if you stood in a marginal constituency that was very chancy and you might not get in; but if you got on the list you would get in. That does not follow at all, because it might well be that your own Party, in the other seats in your region, had got its proportionate number of seats and therefore you might not be elected at all although you were top of the list. So that is chancy as well, but the result is proportionate.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I wonder whether I might just go on from the point raised by my noble friend Lord Cromartie. I was going to put two points to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn which I think require clarification at this stage. First of all, there are two votes for each elector and there is an ordinary constituency election for 100 of the proposed Members. It is there, presumably, that an independent would have to stand. That is important, because there is this 5 per cent, threshold
578
It is not just a question of forming a Party, which could consist of only three or four people, for the purpose of the additional Member system list; but there is this 5 per cent. threshold which means that the Party which gets less than 5 per cent. of the whole vote is not going to get an additional Member—one of the 50—at all.
I just want to ask my noble friend to confirm that there is no difficulty about an independent, or somebody from a very small Party which could not possibly get 5 per cent. of the total vote, standing in the constituency election and being elected in his own name. But he would not have much chance, if he is a man on his own or in a very small Party, of getting anywhere among the "additional Member"50. So if I may take up the point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Cromartie, there is nothing to stop an independent from standing in the normal way for a straightforward election in one of the 100 constituencies but he has not really got much hope, on his own, of getting anywhere on the list of the 50. I am sure that my noble friend will tell me if I have got it wrong, but I do think that it is the threshold of 5 per cent. which is the important point here and the limiting one.
The other point I wanted to raise, arising from the debate we have just heard about the Scottish Boundary Commission and the application of Part II of the Schedule, is this. After the first election has taken place under this system there will be simply 100 constituencies where the elections take place. Therefore there will be the problem of having to fit 100 constituencies, under the system which the noble Lord has put forward, into exactly 71 Parliamentary constituencies. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has given it as his opinion that another place will probably reject this system anyway and send it back to us. But if they were not to do so, and if this system were to go into the Bill, I hope that my noble friend recognises that the Boundary Commission would then have the problem, under this Schedule, not of 150 constituencies but of 100 constituencies. If, as I am assuming, this Schedule is to apply in the case of this system, then after the first election the Scottish Boundary Commission will be expected to delineate 100 new constituencies for the Assembly, as opposed to 150.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to my noble friend. I am glad that he emphasised the business of the two votes, because although the explanation of the calculations is extremely complicated, the voting is extremely simple. You just have a list on the right-hand side of the paper and another list on the left-hand side, and in a one-seat constituency you cast one vote for the candidate on one side of the sheet, and one for the Party on the other side of the sheet, which includes the Party lists. Of course, the threshold applies to the votes for the Party candidates and not to the votes for the constituency candidates. Certainly, an independent can stand in a constituency election, and he may do better under this system than he has been doing in recent years under the present Parliamentary election system. It is a long time since we had an Independent Member. He generally has to call himself something and join a Party in order to get elected, even though he may be very independent after that.
The question of the 100 constituencies enables me to reply at the same time to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. My noble friend Lord Campbell will realise that, at the present time, the number of constituency candidates is 100 in the 71 constituencies, and the figure is brought up from 71 to 100 by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It happens to work out in that way. In other words, by putting the threshold at 110 you bring up the numbers. I think that this depends a little on whether or not you bring in the under-18s at the last electoral count. But this is a detail on which I hope to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because it is a subject which it is difficult for me to determine.
I do not see that there would be any difficulty about this. It would require a greater number of constituencies—say, 100—to appear in the groups of regional electorates. There would then be 100, instead of the present 71. But my noble friend will have seen against some of those constituencies in the lists the number 2, which means that at the present time they supply two candidates. It would not make any difference to the number of candidates. If your Lordships were to decide to reduce the number—perhaps to one Member—to be elected for each existing constituency, this would be something
580
which I should rather deplore, because of the enormous difference in the value of the vote. If we could reduce the difference between the 21,000-electors constituency and the 98,000-electors constituency, that would be a good thing. Therefore, if you were going to do that, you would need to have your 100 constituency base and not your 71 constituency base. But under Parts V, VI and VII of the Amendment you would have 36 additional members instead of 50—that is, those drawn from Party lists— because under the Amendment it will always be one half of the number of constituency Members. If, therefore, my noble friend were to make such a change, that would bring one back again to approximately 100, or a little more, instead of 150. In other words, instead of 100 plus 50, it would be 71 plus 36. Does that answer my noble friend's question?
Earl FERRERS: I think that it goes some way towards answering the question which I asked. My noble friend said that the number of seats went up to 100 because of my Amendment. This is perfectly true. However, the purpose of my original Amendment was to curtail the size of the Assembly. What I am not absolutely certain about is whether my noble friend's adherence to this system requires an Assembly of 150 Members, or whether he would be quite happy if the membership of the whole of the Assembly amounted to 100 and also whether an Amendment made at the Report stage to bring down the Assembly to 100 would meet with his approval, even if it did not meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Lord DRUMALBYN: As I have indicated, the great disadvantage of doing this would be that one would have not only some very large constituencies with only one Member but also some very small constituencies. Unless and until the Boundary Commission changes the constituency areas, I should find it difficult to agree that the numbers ought to be brought down to 71—at this first election, at any rate. It might be difficult to have a smaller number of Assembly Members after the second election than it would be after the first. I should find it difficult to support an Amendment moved by my noble friend to retain the present system of one Member per constituency so long

581
as the constituencies remain as they are at present.
Lord MONSON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, sits down, may 1 say to him that I do not believe he has yet answered one of the questions put to him earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; namely, what precisely will be the duties of the additional Members? Is there not a danger that the additional Member system will effectively, if unwittingly, lead to the formation of first and second class Assembly Members, the second-class ones being the ordinary constituency members who will have all of the normal constituency duties to shoulder—which are frequently burdensome and time consuming—the first-class Members being the additional Members who, while being paid exactly the same salaries as the constituency members, will have vastly more time on their hands in which to earn a profitable living—to write, to speak, to appear on radio, television and so on? Is not this system likely to lead to a great deal of tension within the Assembly and thereby hinder its effective working?
Lord BROWN: Could I comment on this matter? I have been listening to this view emerging gradually from one or two noble Lords who have spoken tonight. It seems to me that what is being overlooked is that the interests and activities of a constituency Member of Parliament, whether he be at Westminster or at the Assembly, are one thing while the activities of somebody who is looking after a whole region are quite another. Would it not be extremely advantageous for this country to have not only constituency MPs but regional MPs? They would introduce a wider view into Parliament or into the Assembly. I believe that they would have a pronounced effect, just as Members of Parliament in Germany have had an effect upon reducing the polarisation that exists between the political Parties, a factor which I deplore in this country.
Baroness SEEAR: May I remind your Lordships' Committee that a slightly modified version of this system, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said, has been operating for a long time in Germany and that Professor Ralf Dahrendorf, who was a Member of Parliament on a Party list, has assured me that he never felt that he was second class.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: May I thank my noble friend for replying to the points which I raised. Since this is the last debate that we shall have on this set of Amendments, because this is the last Amendment in which my noble friend has explained the system, for the others are simply consequential Amendments, I think we must establish that as we are leaving the Bill with this system written into it there will be 150 Members but only 100 constituencies. So that we are back to the 100 constituencies that I mentioned and therefore the problems for the Scottish Boundary Commission after the first election, and so on. But, as it has now been accepted, with the combination of these Amendments and the Government's acquiescence, we shall be continuing with this Bill with the concept of 159 Members but only 100 constituencies—
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think it would be a little more accurate to say that it would be only 100 constituency Members because there are still 71 constituencies, some of which will have two Members.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: After the next Election.
Lord DRUMALBYN: That is right, after the next Election. With regard to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it is very difficult to say, and I think here one can only rely on the experience of Germany where the two kinds of Members, the additional Members and the constituency Members, have worked very well together. It is particularly valuable there because they are all in Lands and I think the basis of the allocation is on the Lands system although for the purposes of numbers it is actually calculated on the whole country. An allocation is made between Lands and that is how the additional Members are allotted.
I agree very much that there is a real place for added Members of this kind. I do not know whether one would call thcmfirst class or second class. Traditionally in this country and speaking as a former Member of Parliament, the most valuable basis that you had was your constituency correspondence. I believe that in this country, at any rate for a long time to

583
come, the constituency Member will remain the first-class Member. Curiously enough, I have always heard the criticism made from the other side and I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Secar, automatically assumed that it would be the added Members who would be the second-class Members. I am quite certain that there will be no lack of work for either of them and I agree entirely that this will help to bring the whole Assembly together. If this Assembly is created, there is a real chance that it will be a far more intimate body and will work much more closely together than it is possible to do in an assembly of the size of our present House of Commons.
Lord TORPHICHEN: I think my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has been a little too quick in saying how carefully the Parties will select their candidates for the additional Members. I should like to remind him of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, and I intend absolutely no slur on him in referring to this. He lost his seat in 1964 and was rather foisted on the people of Leytonstone and they rejected him at a by-election specially prepared for him. That was an expensive mistake for a Government with a very small majority, and I think the disciplining of losing that seat would not have occurred under this system.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether my noble friend is not confusing the two kinds of Members. It would, of course, still be possible for somebody to lose a seat as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, did. I see no reason why that should be impossible, although I believe he was previously the sitting Member and he lost the seat. That would always be possible in any direct elections of any kind. If by any chance my noble friend is thinking in terms of a sitting constituency Member also being on the Party list, that is another question. That would be a matter for the Party to decide, and I am sure it would be very careful indeed in what order it made up the Party list for the purposes of the elections.
Lord TORPHICHEN: In fact, I was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, subsequently losing the by-election which was specially prepared for him.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Again, I really do not think one can make any comparisons of that sort. This could perfectly easily apply at a by-election at any time to a constituency seat. It could perfectly easily happen that a Member of the Executive lost his seat in an election his Party was nevertheless returned to power and he then stood at the next by-election and lost that. That could happen to any Member of Parliament at any time and to any Member of the Assembly.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: Arising out of that point, can the noble Lord explain to us what does happen with regard to by-elections, because, reading this pamphlet about the German system, I understand that they do not have by-elections. Whether it be a constituency member or a list member who dies or disappears for any reason, I believe his place is filled automatically from the list. Under the system proposed in this Amendment, would the noble Lord envisage by-elections or would he envisage the German system operating?
Lord DRUMALBYN: The intention is that the first person on the regional list who stood at the previous election but was not elected would be offered the place of someone who had been an additional Member in the course of the election, was elected and then subsequently retired, or died, or whatever. The man at the top of the list of those not elected would then be invited to take his place, and if he declined to do so the next man would be asked and so on. In most of the regions there should be quite a scope to refuse and to leave it for the next man on the list. Where there are very few added Members on a list, as for example on the Highlands and Islands list, it might be difficult, and we may have to consider an Amendment to enable this to be done.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Is this not covered by Amendment No. 64 to Clause 5, so that, if we want to discuss that, we may do so when we reach that Amendment?
Lord DRUMALBYN: In that case, I have explained it now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Time of election and term of office of members of Assembly]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.].
10.2 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("fourth") and insert ("fifth").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend suggested that I might move this Amendment on his behalf. This is a point which crops up in a number of guises in the next few Amendments and it concerns the relationship between the electoral terms of the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament and, indeed, the term of office of the Assembly itself. My noble friend's Amendment is really simply an excuse to ask the Government why it was that they chose a four-year fixed election as the norm.
I do not think there is any need at this juncture for us to raise the question of the right of dissolution, which will crop up in a few minutes under subsequent Amendments. The worry being suggested here is the matter of getting out of phase with Westminster. For example, if one had a Conservative Westminster Government—which some of us hope will happen before too long—which was devoted to the cause of cutting back public expenditure, and a Labour-dominated Assembly, one would clearly be producing a formula for disagreement and strife. The question therefore arises whether it is the wish to keep the two Assemblies in phase. If it is, clearly, neither of these Amendments is right. However, we should like to know what was the Government's motivation in choosing a four-year fixed term and whether they still think, on reflection, that that is the right thing for the Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who has moved the Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and to explain that the Government consider that a fixed term is entirely appropriate for a subordinate Assembly with delimited and defined, although important, responsibilities.
586
I agree that the actual length of the fixed term is a matter of judgment—it can be no more than that. When the Bill was discussed in the other place, both three years and five years were mentioned. However, in the Government's view, three years could be too short a term in which to develop adequately particular policies on which an Administration was elected, and five years could be too long an interval before the Scottish electorate was given a fresh opportunity to make its judgment upon the Assembly Members.
As the noble Lord said himself, it is true that the Bill provides for premature dissolution of the Assembly. We shall perhaps talk about that later. However, this clause is designed to meet a crisis of the kind in which the First Secretary's Administration is unable to continue and no alternative Administration can be found within the existing Assembly. Of course, in those circumstances, the new Administration would have a life for only the remainder of the fixed term. That breaks the absolute inflexibility of the fixed term to meet difficult circumstances, and I quite agree with that.
However, the Government are firmly of the view that, for normal circumstances, a fixed term of four years seems to be appropriate and is, perhaps, least open to the kind of objections that I touched upon just now. Those are the reasons behind the Government's view.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that brief explanation. As I have said, there are a number of other issues which can easily be involved, but I suggest that we leave them until we have discussed them under the various other Amendments which are coming up. I am grateful to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 38 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Would it be convenient to my noble friend Lord Gray if we discuss Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 together with his Amendment?
Lord GRAY: I am happy to fall in with whatever may be the wishes of the Committee, and I am certainly quite ready to agree to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: There have been many references in our debates to provisions in the Bill that may lead to discord between Westminster and Edinburgh. I believe that Clause 2(2), to which my Amendment is directed, is just such a provision. Clause 2 fixes the normal life of an Assembly, as we have just heard, at four years with termly elections on the third Thursday in March every fifth year. Those elections are to be called by the Secretary of State for Scotland who is required, in calling them, to lay a draft order for approval before both Houses of Parliament. The clause is not concerned with premature dissolution—that is dealt with in Clause 3. So far so good.
However, Clause 2(2), which is the subsection that my Amendment touches, gives the Secretary of State power to advance or postpone an ordinary Assembly election by two months. However, it does not require him to obtain Parliamentary approval for doing so. Thus a Secretary of State could avoid carrying out a duty which is specifically laid on him by this clause, or he could overrule a decision of Parliament. Amendment No. 44, standing in the name of my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, if accepted, will make the implementation of the power in subsection (2), about which I am talking, subject to Parliamentary approval. I think that that would be a minimum condition for the survival of the subsection, but that is not the only point that I wish to make.
I hope that the Government, through the Minister who will reply, will tell the Committee about the thinking—and we have heard about the careful thinking behind every provision in the Bill—behind subsection (2), and when and why they envisage that it will be used or needed. I shall not jump to any nasty conclusions, and there is perhaps little reason to be concerned that political use would be
588
made of the powers, although we must of course never forget that future Governments are not bound by the opinions of this Committee or the intentions of the present Government.
Superficially, there may not appear to be much political mileage in the subsection (2) power, but later on I want to focus attention on the exact nature and extent of that power. I believe that we may reasonably suppose that subsection (2) is in the clause in order to cater for emergency situations or administrative considerations. Be that so, perhaps we should consider whether, provided that the power is made subject to Parliamentary approval, the provisions are appropriate or even adequate. I take note of the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn just now and I do not wish to anticipate what my noble friend may say. But I can perhaps see a case for the proposal in one of his Amendments to extend the power to postpone an ordinary election of the Assembly by another month, although I cannot see why any case could be made for bringing forward an election by three months.
Having referred to emergency situations, I would ask the Committee to look at them with me. I assume that in the event of a United Kingdom or Great Britain emergency, existing emergency powers legislation would provide the means of catering for a necessary postponement of an Assembly election. But would that be so in the case of a purely Scottish emergency? I wonder whether the Minister who will reply can tell me about this. Would it be dealt with under this provision or, if not, under the existing emergency powers legislation?.
I want also to look at what I referred to as administrative considerations that could perhaps call in aid the power in subsection (2). Obviously these could vary from anything such as extreme weather conditions to probably the trickiest situation of all, a possible clash between a Parliamentary election and an Assembly election. It would obviously be highly undesirable to have not just a direct clash but even a near miss. I do not have to speculate about what Parliament considers as the proper course in such an instance, whether it arose through Prime Ministerial choice or the fall of a Government.

589
I look upon the prospect that in the event of a clash subsection (2) would be used to shorten the life of an Assembly not just as undesirable but as slightly ridiculous, but it could be done since there is nothing that I can see in the Bill which says what time has to elapse between the order made by the Secretary of State advancing the election and the date on which that election should take place. There would not merely be no time for a campaign by Assembly candidates but what there was of such a campaign could be used—quite inappropriately—as a dummy run for a General Election. In the event of an electoral clash, I can envisage the Assembly election being postponed, but I wonder whether a two-month postponement would be enough. In some circumstances I think it would not. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply for the Government can tell us what the Government thinking is on this.
I have said that I can see a case for a power for postponement subject to the reservations I have mentioned, but I have not been able to find in my thinking about the subsection any case for having a power to advance the date of the election, since the emergency situation of an Assembly dissolving itself prematurely is already dealt with in the Bill in Clauses 2 and 3.
Finally, I wish to return to a question which I mentioned earlier. What is the exact extent and nature of the power in subsection (2)? I do not think it is what it appears to be. If noble Lords will look at subsection (2), they will see at line 21 that it says:.
"The Secretary of State may … appoint as a day for the holding of the election a day not more than two months earlier nor more than two months later than the day on which the election would he held apart from the order.".
Superficially, that looks like a power limited to two months either way; but is it? I am very unsure on this.
The words at the end of line 23 and the beginning of line 24 are as follows:
"… the day on which the election would be held apart from the order."
It is not "the day on which the election would normally have been held". Is it the Government's intention that there should be a power to postpone an election,
590
and postpone it again, and postpone it again? I think that that is in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will either deny this, so that we may agree to put it right, or perhaps explain to me why I am wrong. I beg to move.
10.16 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I agree with my noble friend that one must have some kind of provision to give elasticity here. One can never foretell what is going to happen. To that extent I am sure we require something in the Bill to deal with that matter. So far as I can see, the only reason for holding an election earlier than the due date would be that the Executive no longer had the support of the Assembly. If so, the sooner it was held the better. It certainly could not have anything to do with the holding of a Parliamentary General Election because it would hardly be possible for the Secretary of State to say in December, "I am expecting a Parliamentary Election in March or April so we had better have the ordinary election a couple of months earlier". This would, so to speak, be "blowing the gaff" in a big way. If there is the power to hold the election earlier, I am not certain what the procedure is. Is my noble friend right in saying that an order cannot even be opposed by Negative Resolution under the Bill?.
I see the difficulties, because a Negative Resolution would have to be opposed within 28 days, and by that time the election would probably be over. I do not know what the Government have in mind here. I quite appreciate that in an emergency we might want to have it two months earlier, and it could be carried through Parliament in one day with the greatest of ease. But I find it difficult to see why we should want to have it two months earlier in any circumstances. Perhaps my noble friend can make that clear. The only circumstance I can see is a breakdown in the running of the Assembly.
As to the question of holding the election later, I think that there is more to be said for a rather longer time, for these reasons. If an ordinary election was due in mid-March and needed to be postponed—because, for example, the General Election was to be called in February or because of national mourning, a national

591
emergency, or a breakdown in law and order—it would surely be desirable to postpone it for more than two months until after the local elections in May. It would then be difficult to hold it. That is perhaps the limiting case, or the extreme case, but we must consider the extreme case. It would be difficult to hold it in April, and it would be difficult to postpone it for only one month.
I see more reason, therefore, for a postponement of up to three months than I do for bringing in an election earlier, and making provision for an earlier election. Two months might suffice for an earlier election. However, on the other hand, if we made the period three months, we should be making it a little easier to deal with the case where a dissolution was pending. We would know the time of the dissolution, and then we could bring forward the election two weeks, two months, three months, even four months, in order to fill the gap between the time when the breakdown in the Assembly took place—or if the Government resigned, or whatever it was, if there was a dissolution—and the normal date in March.
For my part I should be quite willing to give a little more elasticity there, although I fully realise the difficulty in that the Government would be accused of manipulation if they did it too obviously. However, as I say, if there had already been a Resolution for a dissolution it might well be that there would be some justification for holding the election more than two months before the due date.
Lord KIRKHILL: I listened with considerable interest to the very pertinent points put by both noble Lords. From past experience I deem it prudent to consider in some detail the points that they have made. Indeed, I am willing to give consideration to the very effective points just made. However, I enter a caveat. At this stage the Government do not accept that there is more than one option under Clause 2(2). We are prepared to look at this matter further.
10.20 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: When they are giving consideration to this matter, will the Government bear in mind the fact that
592
the third Thursday in March is very close to the arrival of Summer Time and that Summer Time in Scotland is almost invariably associated with snow storms? Furthermore, if the Government agree to postponement, will they please make that postponement such that it cannot be as far as the time when the General Assembly will be sitting?
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord to answer the question about the order? Is it or is it not subject to the Negative Resolution procedure?
Lord KIRKHILL: I apologise for not replying to that question; it is not subject to Negative Resolution. I forbore to answer in detail—although I could because I have a note before me—the points which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, made because I said that we would be having a look at them.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will be looking at them, but may I ask him to take us a little into his confidence and say what are the sort of emergencies which would induce the Government to alter the date forward or backwards?—because this question was asked and it interests me to see what the Government are really thinking on this issue.
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, I can certainly do that if the Committee would like me to expand somewhat on this. The Government believe it is sensible initially to provide some elbow room. It seems prudent, the Assembly being a new body, not to rule out almost anything at all in advance. The Government's position is that they have sought to achieve some flexibility by the power in subsection (2). It will enable the Secretary of State to deal with certain circumstances as and when they arise. However, the power to vary should, in the view of the Government, be strictly limited and should be fairly short, otherwise the Secretary of State might be put in a position where his motives for delaying or bringing forward an Assembly election might be questioned. The reason why the Secretary of State might act might be, for example, the question of a European election, the possibility of a General

593
Election, and so on. These are the possible difficulties which may perhaps face a Secretary of State.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, but I should have thought, at least so far as a General Election was concerned, that the Prime Minister of the day decided that, except on the very rare occasions when the Government are defeated and must go to the country. I should have thought that it would be up to the Prime Minister to decide that it was not suitable to have a General Election at the same time. If a General Election takes place because the Government are defeated, I find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland will know about that in sufficient time to take the appropriate action, and therefore I do not see that this is a sensible operation. My view and I make it clear that it is my personal view—is that, if one is to have a four-year period, one will do better to accept that it is a four-year period and not let anybody change it for his or for anybody else's convenience.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord's brief must have been prepared before it was announced that the European elections would be in June because they are also for a fixed term and presumably they will go on being in June, so it is hardly likely to affect fixed-term elections for the Assembly in March.
I was going to suggest that, in considering this matter, if I am right about the absence of need for advancing the elections—and it is difficult to see one except in the case of dissolution—the best course would perhaps be to amend the dissolution clause to provide that, if there is less than a certain amount of time between the ending of the two months within which the Minister must make an order and the regular time for an ordinary election, he can extend the time. If no other reason can be foreseen, perhaps he could consider the acceptance unnecessary to give power to advance the election.
The Duke of ATHOLL: Can the Minister say whether it is two lunar months or two calendar months? If it is calendar months he might find the elections not taking place on a Thursday.
594
This would not worry me personally, but I know the Minister is aware that elections in Scotland, except for General Elections and Parliamentary by-elections, have traditionally always taken place on a Tuesday. It seems to me that if we think a Thursday is the right day for elections we ought to put in 56 days rather than two months.
Lord KIRKHILL: I must confess that I have never addressed my mind to that point, but I shall do so and let the noble Duke know.
Lord GRAY: My thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and to all those who have spoken, but I am a little disappointed. I cannot hear tonight about my final point as to whether the power in the Bill is what it appears to be or whether it is not.
Lord KIRKHILL: It was merely that I took account of the fact that it was after 10 o'clock and I thought that some of your Lordships might want to talk about one or two Amendments which are still before us. Because I had said that we are going to give some consideration to the point raised I thought I might shorten the debate at this point. In thinking that I miscalculated the mood of the Committee. I shall tell the noble Lord that an order under Clause 2(2) relates specifically to ordinary elections which are called regularly on a four-year cycle. The Members of the Assembly will know the date of the next election. It is unlikely that they will wish to have a dissolution and election in the run-up to an ordinary election. The Assembly election after a dissolution serves only for the remainder of the period of the Assembly which they replace. If the Assembly resolved to dissolve, for example, three months before an ordinary election it would be open to the Secretary of State to use an order under Clause 2(2) to bring forward the next ordinary election so that it becomes in effect the post-dissolution election. It is really at that point that we on this side of the Committee are in some initial disagreement with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. But we agree that perhaps the point he had made is worth looking at afresh. No doubt the Secretary of

595
State would consult the Scottish administration about a use of an order in this way and only provide it if it is acceptable to them.
Lord GRAY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having given me the extra answer and I am reluctant to detain the Committee any further. Therefore I accept his offer to look at it again and shall expect perhaps to hear from him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 not moved.]
10.29 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert —.
("(4) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof shall have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: We are really back on the same subject that we have just left at the last Amendment, because as we have seen the Secretary of State can alter by two months the date of an election, and all he has to do is to make an order to that effect. Of course, it does not have to have any Parliamentary approval. My concern is that I am sure all Secretaries of State have been people of unparalleled integrity, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, did admit that if you gave too much of a gap people could question the reason why, if the length of dissolution was too long.
I was not at all clear on what the conditions would have to be before the Secretary of State were to change the date by two months. Indeed—and I say this with the greatest respect—I do not think that we are that much wiser after the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has tried to explain it to us. Could there be some reasons other than those which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, suggested? There could indeed he a political advantage in calling an election at another time. The Bill gives the Secretary of State four months leeway, and the choice is his—and his alone—to decide when
596
to call for the election of the Assembly. The point of the Amendment is to ensure perfect rectitude, that the Secretary of State should retain this right, but that it should he subject to Parliamentary approval. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
10.31 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has quite properly drawn the attention of your Lordships to the different treatment in Clause 2 of the once-and-for-all order to be made under subsection (1) there, which is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, and any orders which will be made under subsection (2), which require no Parliamentary involvement—a point about which he complains.
There is a very practical reason for the Affirmative Resolution procedure for the subsection (1) order. It was pointed out in discussion on the Scotland and Wales Bill, which provided only Negative Resolution procedure for the order fixing the first election, that if that procedure were used, the Instrument, after it had been made and laid, would be at risk of being annulled for the next 40 Sitting days. So unless a gap of 40 Sitting days, which in practice can span three calendar months—I notice here the reference to calendar months; this brings my thoughts back to a previous Amendment—is allowed between the laying date and the date fixed for the election, in theory the order could be annulled after the election, with, presumably, incalculable results. The Government, therefore, decided that the Affirmative Resolution was desirable, bearing in mind that it would be used once only, and that Parliament could fairly claim an interest in the date of such a special election.
Quite different considerations apply to orders under Clause 2(2). This provision gives the Secretary of State a very limited discretion to move the date for a particular election, and in the Government's view raises no issue of principle in relation to subsequent election dates sufficient to justify any degree of Parliamentary involvement. The ministerial power confirmed by subsection (2) is a simple executive power, and despite the importance of the subject matter, it does not seem to justify, in

597
the Government's view, any Parliamentary procedure. The need for an Affirmative Resolution procedure would seem, therefore, to be unnecessary, and perhaps an unreasonable use of Parliamentary time. The arguments against Negative Resolution are those which have been referred to in relation to the order under subsection (1). I think that that is as fair an explanation of the Government's position at this time as I can give to the Committee.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I think that what be is saying is that if it is subject to a Negative Resolution it will take 40 days, and therefore the election might have taken place. I do not think that that applies if it is subject to an Affirmative Resolution. I think the noble Lord really said that this is merely an executive matter and it should not need Parliamentary approval. My only point is that I should have thought there could be circumstances—I am not saying that there would be—where the leeway of four months (and this is a four months' discretion which the Secretary of State has) could he used for political purposes. It is unlikely that it would be used, but it could be used, and I should have thought that in order to have avoided that it may have been worth while making the matter subject to Parliamentary approval. If the noble Lord is to look at the question raised by my noble friend Lord Gray, then he might as well cast his mind over this problem too. I will not trouble the Committee any further at the moment,and I beg leave to—
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, I should like to make the point that, so far as the postponement of the order is concerned, I do not think that the consideration which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, mentioned would necessarily apply. Quite clearly, the postponement would have to be made before the election campaign was due to start, so there ought to be plenty of time for the debating of an order for postponement. I would think that this is necessary for many reasons. For example, there is always this problem of business falling, of Bills being lost, at the end of a period of Parliament, and this is a serious matter. If you then proceed to postpone in order
598
to get Bills—and this is an Executive act—it really ought to be subject to Parliamentary approval. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: When the noble Lord is considering this, I wonder whether he would not also consider, perhaps, that what we seem to be doing today is making a whole lot of arrangements for unforeseen and rather unexplained purposes. I feel very strongly myself at this stage, having listened to what has been said, that the real answer is to have a fixed date, and I cannot myself see any reasonable excuse for changing it. Obviously, the death of a Monarch, or something of that kind, might have an effect; but whether I was Secretary of State or an ordinary man in the street, I would much rather know that the election came at a certain time, and that was that. I think this would really save a great deal of trouble and worry, and I would strongly recommend the Government to look at it before the next stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: I would not in any sense wish to leave a wrong impression in your Lordships' Committee. I have agreed specifically to give further consideration to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. Of course, I am sensitive to points which are raised in debate, but I am not able at this stage to say that I am going to consider each and every further point which has been made to me. I would say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas—and it is such a magnificent valley—that, of course, the political constraints upon the Secretary of State in this situation will be enormous, and I think without doubt this must surely be a constraining factor. I merely put that point to him for his own consideration.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: If I may say this to the noble Lord, the obvious comparison is the American Presidential elections. They are fixed every four years, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Earl FERRERS: In the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I think he inferred that he would not be looking at this again. I think that is a pity, because we were getting along famously. He was going to look again at the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Gray, and I thought

599
he might look at this at the same time. I hope that, even if he does not give a commitment to do so, he will nevertheless consider it, because I think there is quite a lot in it, and particularly in what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of SELKIRK: Perhaps I might draw attention to one point, to which I will not expect an answer now. Clause 2(3) says that a Member of the Assembly will cease to be a Member on dissolution. If he ceases to be a Member, then under Clause 20(8) he also ceases to be a Secretary. It is true that under Clause 3(2) the dissolution takes place the day before the election, but it might well happen that there was difficulty in forming another Government. I understand that the practice in this country normally is that you hold office until your successor is appointed. I just wondered whether there might not be a situation in which there would be no officers at all in the Scottish Executive.
Lord McCLUSKEY: In relation to that, may I say that I think this point arises under an Amendment we are coming to fairly shortly—at least, I hope we are coming to it fairly shortly.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord another question on Clause 2(3). There has been, it seemed to me—and this was a purely personal view—a considerable injustice done to the honourable Member for Argyll, because it so happened that, owing to the time it took to get the boxes from Tiree to Dunoon to be counted, lie was not deemed by the Fees Office to be elected until the Saturday. Therefore, after each election he lost two days' pay. I think this is unfair, because you are obviously elected the day the people put their votes in the box; but this was not the view of the Fees Office. I think that this subsection should read:.
"The term of office of any member of the Assembly, whether elected at an ordinary election or otherwise, shall begin on the day of the election".
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Dissolution of Assembly]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.].
10.40 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("on the eve of") and insert ("fourteen days before").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is put down in order to gain some information from the Government. The Assembly, as written in the Bill, stands dissolved "on the eve of any ordinary election". I have suggested in the Amendment that it should stand dissolved 14 days before the election. To "stand dissolved on the eve of any ordinary election" seems a curious Parliamentary expression. I want to know what it means. It seems to have more of a religious, Biblical connotation than a Parliamentary one. I am asking these two questions. First, if the noble and learned Lord is to reply, I should be grateful if he will give a definition of "eve". By that, I hasten to say that I do not mean the opposite of "Adam". Is it the night before or the day before or 24 hours before the election?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I can answer that at once. It is midnight.
Earl FERRERS: That is a very telling point. I was coming to that. If the noble and learned Lord says that it is midnight, then, if the election is to be on a Thursday, in order for the Assembly to "stand dissolved" on the Wednesday, it cannot be dissolved on the Wednesday. It must, therefore, be dissolved at midnight between the Tuesday and the Wednesday in order that it should "stand dissolved" on the Wednesday. If I am right, that means the Assembly has to be dissolved on the Tuesday. If it has to be dissolved on the Tuesday, why does not the Bill say so?—instead of using this curious Biblical expression, "eve", which, I think, is somewhat misleading.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am afraid that I am not a theologian.
Earl FERRERS: By the time I get to the end of my speech, if the noble and learned Lord will permit, he will be so.

601
The second question which I pose by this Amendment is this. Is it not undesirable to have the Assembly sitting in power, in Session, right up to the day of the election? In Westminster—and one wonders why the Westminster style has not been used—Parliament stands dissolved before the election, but Ministers hold their offices until the election, until the replacement. I wonder whether this would not be a better system to use in the Assembly, whereby the Assembly would stand dissolved 14 days before; but those who hold office would hold office, as under the Westminster system, until the election has taken place and they are either renewed or replaced in office. beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I support this Amendment? I have taken part in a great many General Elections. I cannot imagine how Parliament can go on until the eve of the election when candidates have been out (or should have been out) electioneering in whatever area they are representing. In the regions, one would have to travel a great distance to different places. If in town, it is more confined. In any case, I think it is a great mistake not to follow the long-established custom of the United Kingdom Parliament and let Parliament come to an end and have then at least a fortnight—and I believe it is nearly three weeks—before actually going to the polls and electing another Parliament.
10.45 p.m.
Lord GRAY: Arising out of one of the last remarks that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made about the continuance in office of Members of the Executive, and the point which was made slightly earlier by my noble friend the Lord Selkirk, I think that I have discovered the answer for myself. I wonder whether the Government will tell me if I am right. Because the Bill requires a Member of the Executive to be a Member of the Assembly, and they do not want to have to reappoint Members of the Executive following an election, with a break of only 24, 36 or 72 hours, depending on what view we are taking this evening, the strange provision in Clause 20(8), to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred, is there. The only trouble we have had in understanding it
602
is that perhaps it is wrongly worded. It says at the moment:
"…a member of the Assembly shall not be treated as ceasing to be such a member …"
Surely it should say: "… shall be treated as not having ceased to be such a member …"?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think the substantial point here is that a choice has to be made between having an interregnum between dissolution and the election on the one hand, and ensuring continuity between the incoming and outgoing Assemblies on the other hand. At Westminster, as has been said, there is an interregnum but Ministers retain their seals of office and their capacity to act so far as they can act without resort specifically to Parliament. In local government there is continuity. The Government prefer continuity, as the Bill provides, for both the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. We have not yet examined the Wales Bill; but it will be appreciated that, because the Assembly is the Executive, continuity is essential. It would be slightly bizarre if we had a Welsh Assembly that stood dissolved on the eve of the election and a Scottish Assembly which was dissolved 14 days beforehand. That is one reason.
I do not know whether the noble Earl took account of Clause 20(8) when he made his remarks. Clause 20(8) makes provision for the continuation in office of the Scottish Secretary. I wonder whether he thinks that Clause 20(8) would stand along with the Amendment which he proposes. I think that there might be difficulties. It would be unfortunate if there was some gap between the dissolution of one Assembly and the election of the next, because one can envisage that there might be emergency situations. The standing orders of the Assembly, for example, might provide that a certain power may be exercised only if there is approval of the Assembly to the exercise of the power or the making of an order, whatever it may be.
If the Assembly was dissolved at a particular time and there was no Assembly elected to take its place, then one might find that in an emergency Ministers could not act, so one wants to have the Assembly there.

603
I am not sure whether the noble Earl had in mind any point about the payment of Members of the Assembly during this 14-day period. He did not make that point in opening on this Amendment and I do not want to reply if it is not a point that is in his mind. But I would suggest that, because of the analogy with the Welsh Assembly, because of the need to have a provision that is consistent with Clause 20(8), and because of the need to have an Assembly there to deal with emergencies, continuity is desirable. For these reasons, I would defend the provision as it stands.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble and learned Lord has not answered the point I made; he has not attempted to answer it. This sentence ends:
"…if he is again elected at the election following the dissolution."
But supposing he is not elected? That means that there is no officer to perform the duties. If the noble and learned Lord takes out the last words and simply says:
"… but for this purpose a member of the Assembly shall not be treated as ceasing to be such a member on the dissolution of the Assembly if he is again elected",
that does not really meet the question of the Secretary. I do not have pay in mind, but that someone has to be there to take decisions until the new Administration is appointed. It may well be, as has happened in some countries, that it is found difficult to find a First Secretary. It may be found difficult to set up a new Government. In those circumstances, the interregnum will go on for some time, and I think it would be a great pity.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I was not dealing with that point at this time, as I hope the noble Earl will recognise. As I understand it, the period of time I was supposed to be talking about in relation to this Amendment was the period of time before the election. The difficulty in the noble Earl's mind is one which he envisages as arising after the election. No doubt that is a point, and it is one I shall be happy to consider when we reach Clause 20(8); but it does not arise directly out of this Amendment.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: How does the noble and learned Lord
604
think that anybody can conduct an election—it may be for the first time or it may be just continuing—if he has no time to take part in a contested election? Will he have to go to the Assembly every day when it is sitting, when he is supposed to be out in his constituency trying to get himself elected? This is not a dictatorship; people who stand for this Assembly will have to fight for their seats, just as in any other election, whether it is local government or anything else. If they do not allow time off for that, I cannot think how anybody could conduct it, and I do not think you would get a democratic Assembly. I think this is a great mistake.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I might reply to the noble Baroness on that point, I am quite certain that the Assembly would not normally sit in the immediate run-up to the election; but if some emergency situation required the Assembly to sit, surely the Members would come back from fighting the campaign and participate in the necessary work of the Assembly. After all, this is not a matter which we have to determine in the course of this Bill. We merely give the Assembly this kind of option, and if the situation requires it they will deal with it in that way.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: I should be much more worried on this point. If you had a system of this kind, in which the Assembly would meet if there was some problem, it would entirely consist of a few people with, perhaps, seats in Glasgow and Edinburgh, while the people with seats in the Borders and the North and so on would in no way be able to be there. I honestly cannot believe that something which Parliament has managed for several hundred years, without having Parliament sitting until the eve of the election, cannot be done quite simply by the Assembly.
10.57 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I think we seem to be in a bit of a fix, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said it would be a trifle bizarre if Wales had continuity in their Assembly and Scotland did not have continuity in theirs. But we have not yet had the Wales Bill, and there is no reason why Wales should have continuity if the Scots do not. I think that in some respects it would be slightly bizarre to have a system whereby Westminster dissolved itself some weeks before

605
an election and the Assembly did not. I see no reason why the Assembly should
not dissolve itself and the Executive continue to hold their seals of office.
The noble and learned Lord said that the Assembly might have standing orders which would make it difficult for them to operate if there was a dissolution; but of course the Assembly makes its own standing orders under the provisions later in the Bill; and the standing orders they would make would presumably take account of the fact that there would be a dissolution some 14 days before, if that was written into the Bill. So, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think that argument is very convincing.
May I add two points: first, I think it is desirable to have a break before the election. Secondly, I think there ought to be some procedure for dissolution. I cannot see that under the Bill there is any procedure, but I have no doubt that in due course the noble and learned Lord will he able to tell us what the procedure is. Is it a fact—he did not answer the point I raised—that the Assembly automatically comes to an end at midnight of the Tuesday/Wednesday? What happens if it is in the full flow of business? Does the business suddenly stop, and is there to be no dissolution procedure and no formal movement of a Motion? Otherwise, it gives us the impression that it will be like Cinderella and suddenly, when the bell rings, it turns into a pumpkin and is no longer there. And who would decide the timing of the dissolution of the Assembly? Would it be Big Ben? It is a funny state of affairs when, in order to dissolve the Assembly, they have to take the time from Westminster. I think that the noble and learned Lord's answer was not wholly convincing. I wonder, therefore, if he would be kind enough to consider whether there should be some more detailed provision as to how the Assembly is to be dissolved.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall not give undertakings to consider matters. But, of course, I shall have to reply on clause stand part, and perhaps I could then, in the light of another day, seek to convince the noble Earl more fully than I have succeeded in doing tonight.
Earl FERRERS: That is all very fine, but I should have liked a little more
606
convincing now. I ask this very genuine question. Am I right in believing that, whatever business is going on in the Assembly up till 12 o'clock when the gong goes or the bell strikes, suddenly everything will come to an end and there is to be no procedure for bringing it to an end? Is that correct?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Earl is not looking at tins realistically, if I may respectfully say so. If he looks at Clause 3, he will see that we are talking about dissolution on the eve of an ordinary election. They will have known for months or years when the ordinary election is to take place, and, if the Assembly is so conducting its business that all its coaches turn into pumpkins at midnight, I shall be very surprised. Surely, they will make provision for the fact that the third Thursday in March is creeping on inexorably, and they will have known about it for a long time. So that the scenario—to use the common word—which the noble Earl has in mind is not one that makes any sense to ine.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Has not the noble and learned Lord forgotten that, a few moments ago, we decided that the Secretary of State may, on a whim, change the date of the election? Therefore, how will they know whether he is advancing the date by two months, when they will turn into a pumpkin as the magic 12 o'clock arrives?
Lord DRUMALBYN: Is it customary for the House of Commons to go on in being, right up to the eve of the election? What is the exact position? Your Lordships' House continues regardless, of course, but the Parliament is brought to an end, and yet it must vest somewhere or another. Can the noble and learned Lord consider where the Assembly vests during the intervening period, however short that may be? If I am right in thinking that it vests somewhere, what is the need for continuity? Why not dissolve like any other assembly, at the time you have the election, and not on the eve of the election?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord talks about any other assembly. But I mentioned that local authorities go on. There is continuity there. That is on one side of the coin; and on the other side

607
you have the Westminster Parliament which stands dissolved, but Ministers remain in office, the prerogative may be exercised and other powers may be exercised. I have also mentioned the Welsh Assembly. It is merely a question of judgment, in the light of various precedents.
The Earl of PERTH: I have listened to this debate with the greatest interest, and I am very puzzled by the Government's position. It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has a very good point, and I do not see why the Government should not accept that the Assembly is dissolved a fortnight before; but—and we inevitably get a "but"—the Ministers continue to operate until the new Assembly is chosen, and new Ministers are appointed. That is broadly what happens in Westminster, and I do not see any reason why there is not a very good point here.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has been kind enough to say that he will answer this point when clause stand part comes. I do not know how he knew that there would be a debate on clause stand part. But, anyhow, we are assured that there will be such a debate. If the noble and learned Lord cares to return to the point again in order to explain it in more detail, I shall be grateful, although I know that he does not like being asked to think again on these matters and that he would not do so if he had to make a commitment. However, it seems to me that there is a small point here, although I quite agree that it is not an overwhelming one. If the Assembly has to die at some juncture, it is nicer for it not just to slide into death but for it to know when its death is to take place. If the noble and learned Lord would be kind enough to think about it, I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.1 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("after a motion of no confidence in the Scottish Executive has been passed").
The noble Earl said: The Assembly can dissolve itself if two-thirds of the members decide that they wish so to do. The Amendment which I move seeks to reduce the possibility of the Assembly dissolving itself either to challenge Westminster or to advantage one Party or to disadvantage another.
One of the drawbacks of this Bill is that as time goes on there will, certainly in my estimation and in the estimation of a number of people, be the possibility of a reduction of harmony and an increase of friction between the Assembly and Westminster. We all know that that is not intended. We all know that that is not wanted. Some of us believe, however, that, whether or not it is intended, that is likely to be the outcome. This must be curtailed, if it is at all possible for us to do so.
It is perfectly possible to envisage considerable hostility in the Assembly—for instance, at the inadequate provision of funds by Whitehall. There is to be negotiation about the block grant, but in the end it is Westminster which determines exactly how much money Scotland gets. Scotland may well think that this amount is inadequate. All Parties in the Assembly may be united at the meanness and parsimony, as they see it, of Whitehall. They might consider that the United Kingdom Parliament is making gross underprovision for Scotland. Indeed, they almost certainly will think that. In that case, it would be perfectly possible for the Assembly to dissolve itself and call an election to show Westminster how united Scotland is against Westminster.
One of the arguments for proportional representation was that if you did not get it the Scottish Nationalists could, on a minority vote, have a governing role in the Assembly. And that would be a Party dedicated to the destruction of the United Kingdom. Although I did not vote for proportional representation, I found that to be a devastating argument.
Let us suppose that another place does not accept our Amendment and that the first-past-the-post system is put back into the Bill, and let us further suppose that the Scottish Nationalists thereby form a Government and that they are dissatisfied with the amount of money which Westminster provides—and they will be dissatisfied with the amount of money that

609
Westminster provides. Can your Lordships not see the temptation for them to have a two-thirds majority for the dissolution of the Assembly and then to dissolve the Assembly and go to the hustings to campaign for more support for their Party to work for independence because, as they would say, Whitehall is preventing Scotland from doing what Scotland wants to do? "Give us a big majority", they will say, "and we will show Westminster exactly what the people of Scotland really feel". I believe that this could he disastrous.
All that this Amendment does is to ensure that before the Secretary of State lays an order dissolving the Assembly, the Assembly must first pass a vote of no confidence in the Executive. If that is done, this then relates any dissolution of the Assembly to the internal affairs of the Assembly and at least lessens a little the possibility of a dissolution whereby the Assembly will be pitted against Westminster and the votes of the people of Scotland will be used to substantiate that rift. It would also prevent the opportunity of the governing Party seeking a dissolution for its own electoral benefit. Governments at Westminster choose the date of the election. That privilege is specifically denied in this Bill, other than with the agreement of two-thirds of the Assembly. I believe that it would lessen the temptation of the Party in power to seek electoral advantage by dissolution if they first had to have a vote of no confidence passed upon them. That is the object of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The Government believe that it is right that the Assembly should serve a fixed four-year term, and I do not believe that the noble Earl is disputing that. But the Government acknowledge that circumstances may arise in which by-elections or political realignments might prevent the Scottish Executive from continuing to command a sufficient measure of support in the Assembly to ensure the continuance of essential business. It might not prove possible for an alternative Executive to fare any better, and accordingly there has to he provision for premature dissolution.
The Government see premature dissolution as a crisis provision. They do not think it would be in the interests of
610
good government if it were to become the norm rather than very much the exception; accordingly, two limitations have been written into Clause 3 to ensure that it is used as a crisis provision only. The first is the limitation that Members representing two-thirds of all Assembly seats—not just those Members present but two-thirds of all the Assembly seats—should vote in favour of the dissolution; secondly, and equally important, is that the new Assembly will only serve out the remainder of the then current four-year term. So they cannot dissolve the Assembly and then get another four years. If there is only a year to run, they just get that year.
To take the point of political advantage, it has been argued by the noble Earl that the Bill allows the administration to gain advantage by securing a dissolution in this way. But why on earth should a First Secretary who can command a majority of two-thirds in the Assembly seek to dissolve the Assembly, and run the risk of an election, when all he can do is to come back for the remainder of the four-year term? With respect, that seems to be a slightly unreal possibility. Even if he seemed to be enjoying enormous political popularity in Scotland, he would be taking a substantial political risk by having another election campaign with little to gain except the possibility of winning a few more seats, when he already commands apparently a two-thirds majority. One would have thought that there would be a serious political constraint upon him from adopting such a course, and one would have thought that it would be politically unwise to do any such thing.
The other point which I had not expected from the noble Earl, but I am obliged to him for making it clear, was the point that if there has to be a Motion of no confidence that would somehow relate to the internal affairs of the Assembly. But if the noble Earl thinks that through, he will appreciate that, if the situation were as he described, the First Secretary, and the Administration who could command the two-thirds majority, would have no difficulty at all in moving a vote of no confidence in themselves, and saying loudly and clearly to the electorate, "We are having to do this because of this silly provision in the Bill, but you will understand very clearly that we are dissolving the Assembly"—

611
for the reasons given by the noble Earl. In other words, they could get across to the electorate that this was a technicality which they had to go through and they would avoid all the problems by the First Secretary moving the vote of no confidence in his own Executive, supported by the other Members of it. ft would be seen as a political device and it would save votes. It would not create any great difficulty if there was a determination to dissolve the Assembly as a kind of demonstration against Westminster. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the safeguards built into the clause are quite sufficient, and it is unnecessary and not helpful to have this Amendment written into the Bill.
11.10 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: It is understood that we shall certainly have three Parties and there may be four—the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the Scottish National Party and the Conservatives. Suppose there is a switch round. The Lib-Lab pact that we hear so much about today might operate there, and there might be a Liberal-Nationlist pact which would then vote against the Assembly as it was elected, and the First Secretary would then find himself in a minority. Is he then going to carry on despite the fact that he has been voted out? I understood this was going to be a democratic Assembly, and under the system of proportional representation a fair number of people would be elected. Under proportional representation, there is nothing to say they are all going to stay in the same Lobby; they may want to change.
If there is no opportunity for change, are you going to have a minority continuing for four years in order to complete the period of four years which is in the Bill? From what the noble Lord says, it seems to me you are running the risk of having a minority Government and people not being able to change the Assembly. Surely, you must allow for the fact that the Assembly may want to change itself. You may have a change in Edinburgh which is not the same in the United Kingdom Parliament, and you have the possibility of a Party being in power in one part of the United Kingdom although not in power in Westminster. I
612
find it very difficult to understand what the noble and learned Lord has just said. It seems to me most undemocratic.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think there are two points; there is one to which the Amendment relates, which is the question of dissolving the Assembly. The other one, which the noble Baroness has in mind, is the question of whether within the context of a continuing Assembly the Members may change the Administration. That point is covered by Clause 20(6) which reads:.
"A Scottish Secretary shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure"
Subsection (5) envisages that:
"If the Assembly has nominated one of its members for appointment as First Secretary that member shall be so appointed.".
So it is within the context of Clause 20 that one deals with the question the noble Baroness is speaking about; and that is slightly different from the point which is raised by the noble Earl.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: We always cast the Scottish Nationalists as the villains of the piece; everyone envisages disaster if they get a large majority. I would say from these Benches that we would envisage just as great a disaster if the Conservative Party or even the Labour Party got a large majority, as they have now, with a minority of the votes. The whole reason for PR is to prevent any Party from wreaking havoc with the democratic wishes of the electorate because of the bad method of election. I can see quite clearly that the Labour Party might well want to precipitate an election against the Conservative Party in Great Britain as a whole and would wish to dissolve the Assembly in Scotland in order to demonstrate how greedy the Conservative Government is being. I think the whole of the arguments reinforce the need for PR. I cannot see that two-thirds of the Assembly agreeing is sufficient to safeguard against most of the dangers pointed out.
Earl FERRERS: Trust the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, to cast a whole bucket of muddy water over the problem. I thought at least half the point of PR was to ensure that the Liberal Party got at least some votes, even if they would not have the slightest possibility of being as disastrous as either the Conservatives or

613
the Scottish Nationalists because they would not get into that position if it were not for PR; and even with PR they are not likely to get into that position because they will not get enough people to vote for them.
However, apart from that, it was really a complete red herring to the subject under discussion which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was trying to help me about. Quite understandably, he said that this is a crisis provision and I accept that entirely. However, he did say that the point which I was worried about—the Assembly and Westminster finding themselves on a head-on collision course—would not really come about because, if there was that likelihood, and even if my Amendment were passed, the Assembly would first of all pass a vote of no confidence in the Government or in the Executive, and the Executive would be party to it. That is rather like an animal eating itself.
I cannot see—and perhaps the noble Lord would address his simile to Westminster—how any Government would ever be prepared to dissolve themselves on, first of all, having a Motion of no confidence passed in themselves to which they were a party. It is very unlikely to happen in Westminster and very unlikely to happen in Scotland. My main reason for tabling this Amendment was to try to avoid the possibility, which I can see is a real possibility, of the Assembly becoming so worked up about what it might consider to be the meanness of the Westminster provision or some other such case, and saying, "Right, we shall now dissolve ourselves and go to the country in Scotland and show Westminster how the Scottish people feel". If it goes to the country on a subject like lack of funds, that is a wonderful cause to go on, and it would be a wonderful cause for the public to support. The public will say, "Of course we shall support these people; they want more money from Westminster".
So we gradually get the Assembly pitted against Westminster, and that would be a great shame. However, if the noble and learned Lord thinks that this Amendment is unsuitable to include in the Bill, I should not wish to press it at this stage. But it is worth consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed

COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.
KENDAL MARKET BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  ANIMAL EXPORT INQUIRY: MEMBERSHIP.
  ANIMAL EXPORT INQUIRY: MEMBERSHIP.
  SUN ALLIANCE PAY SETTLEMENT.
  SUN ALLIANCE PAY SETTLEMENT.