Sitting of 24 April 1978

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

    Merchant Ships (Fines on Seafarers)
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the ancient practice of masters of merchant ships imposing fines on seafarers will be terminated.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): This practice will end when the new disciplinary arrangements recommended in 1975 by the Working Group on Discipline in the Merchant Navy are introduced. Provision for this is made in a Merchant Shipping Bill which is ready for introduction as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
    Mr. Johnson: In the sad event of the Bill not getting on to the statute book due to lack of parliamentary time, would the Minister object if an industrial agreement were reached between the owners and the unions? I am sure that my hon. Friend must be aware of the mischief that has occurred in the fishing industry over the years, with liquor being taken on board, for example.
    Mr. Davis: If an agreement could be reached in the industry, I should give it favourable consideration. But that would be a second best solution. Any non-statutory scheme would be bound to have weaknesses. For example, a disciplinary committee or code of conduct would not have statutory backing, and that could lead to problems.
    Mr. David Hunt: Is the Minister aware of the considerable anxiety in the shipping industry about the non-appearance
    974
    of the Merchant Shipping Bill? I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be prepared to deal with such a Bill in a speedy and constructive manner. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore use his best endeavours with the Leader of the House to bring about the appearance of the Bill as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Davis: The difficulty is that the Bill is a miscellaneous provisions Bill of considerable length. I cannot see that it would be possible for the Bill not to take up considerable time in Committee. That is the problem. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and I are firmly committed to the principles which we wish to see enunciated in the Bill and which are accepted by the industry.

    Companies Bill
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received to date about the delay in introducing a Companies Bill.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Three bodies have written expressing concern about the delay.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Minister accept the distinction between those areas of company regulation with which the City regards itself as being competent to deal and those areas, such as insider dealing, with which the City does not consider itself competent to deal? Does he accept that this further delay can be attributed only to the Government and that if there are any further cases the Government and not the City will be to blame?
    Mr. Davis: It is not profitable to follow that tack. The hon. Member knows that there has been a heavy volume of legislation on the Floor of the House this Session. He is trying to make a debating point out of a serious matter.
    Mr. Rooker: When my hon. Friend introduces the Bill, will he ensure that it contains provisions to ensure that companies disclose imports of manufactured goods and highlights the incidence of low pay as well as high pay?
    Mr. Davis: The question of what is to appear in statements issued by companies has been set out in a document which I hope that my hon. Friend has read. That is a matter upon which we

    975
    have had a large number of representations which are now being considered carefully.
    Mr. Higgins: Is it not wrong for the Government to mention a Companies Bill in the Queen's Speech and guillotine all major legislation that is likely to delay it and still fail to produce a Bill which undoubtedly would have all-party support? Even at this late stage, will the Minister introduce a Bill and see what progress can be made?
    Mr. Davis: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member makes the assumption, without having seen the Bill, that it will command all-party support. That remains to be seen. My right hon. Friend and I would have wished a Companies Bill to be introduced, but it has not proved possible thus far. We hope to introduce such a Bill at the earliest legislative opportunity.

    New Zealand
    Sir Bernard Braineasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the current state of trade between the United Kingdom and New Zealand, as regards agricultural and industrial products, respectively; and what estimate he has of future growth of the New Zealand market for British manufactured goods.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): In the year ending December 1977 total United Kingdom exports to New Zealand amounted to £287 million fob, of which 97 per cent. were industrial products. United Kingdom imports from New Zealand were £383 million cif, of which 96 per cent. were agricultural products, including wool. It is not possible to make a precise estimate of the future growth of the New Zealand market for manufactures.
    Sir B. Braine: Will the Minister confirm, however, that if one includes invisibles, the New Zealand trade is of very great importance to the British economy and that any attempt to diminish New Zealand's exports of lamb to this country would not only be bad for consumers here but would limit New Zealand's capacity to go on importing British goods? [Interruption.]
    Therefore, will the Minister give an assurance that in the current negotiations
    976
    with the EEC about New Zealand's lamb exports—
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be heard.
    Sir B. Braine: One reason why I have taken a little longer is the continued interruptions from Labour Members who have not the slightest interest in this very important subject.
    Will the Minister therefore give the House an assurance that, in the current negotiations with the EEC about New Zealand's lamb exports and access for dairy products after 1980, we shall not tolerate any diminution of New Zealand's traditional trade with this country?
    Mr. Meacher: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we regard trade with New Zealand—even without invisibles—as extremely important. I can give him the specific assurance that he seeks, because the Government have recently assured the New Zealand Government that we are determined to ensure that any EEC measures on sheepmeat should continue to provide satisfactory access for New Zealand's exports of frozen lamb to this country. Last year those exports were at 213,000 tonnes, and we intend to keep them at about that level.
    Mr. Spearing: Since, however, no cheese has come from New Zealand this year, since butter exports may be finished after 1980, and since those imports of mutton and lamb that we get are charged 20 per cent. tax on their value, and even they are threatened by the sheepmeat regime, are not any doubts about the future of trade the responsibility of hon. Members—wherever they may be in the House—who voted for our entry to the Common Market?
    Mr. Meacher: With regard to exports of lamb, New Zealand has the security of a 20 per cent. tariff, which is binding under GATT. Therefore, there cannot be any renegotiation of that without compensation.
    With regard to butter supplies, the Council of Ministers recently confirmed that Protocol 18 remains the basis for continued imports of New Zealand butter after 1980.

    977
    Imports of cheese under Protocol 18 ceased, as my hon. Friend said, last year, but the New Zealand Government have pressed the Commission to produce a proposal for the access of at least 15,000 tonnes per year, which was the level of exports last year.
    Mr. Powell: Can the Minister make any comparison between the terms of trade of the United Kingdom with New Zealand and the terms of trade of the United Kingdom with the rest of the Common Market?
    Mr. Meacher: I shall be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman those precise details by letter.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is quite conceivable that the trade between New Zealand and this country would be even greater had we not gone into the Common Market? Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that I cannot help but intervene when hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who introduced this Question, complain about the lack of trade? It was people such as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and the majority of the Tory Party who sold this country down the river when they voted to go into the Common Market and thereby hampered trade between New Zealand and Great Britain.
    Mr. Meacher: I think that the consequences of those earlier votes are entirely understood. All that we can do now is to preserve whatever access is possible by pressing the Commission to widen or, at least, to maintain access for New Zealand foodstuffs of those kinds which can certainly be produced more cheaply than any others in the world.

    British Airways (Aircraft Replacement)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Trade when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Airways.
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what talks he has had with British Airways about the replacement of its existing fleet.
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to
    978
    approve the proposed aircraft ordering programme of British Airways.
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions he has had with British Airways concerning the replacement of the present Trident fleet with aircraft of British manufacture.
    The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I shall be meeting the chairman shortly. At our last meeting earlier this month, the chairman put forward a proposal for the airline to acquire 19 Boeing 737 aircraft to replace its older Tridents. This proposal is now under consideration by the Government.
    Mr. Neubert: When does the Secretary of State expect to respond to that request by British Airways to buy Boeing? In reaching his conclusion, will he take into account the fact that this is a question not just of the immediate £100 million order but of a total fleet strategy at a replacement cost of £2 billion, and that given American ascendancy in the aviation market a transatlantic partnership rather than cross-Channel collaboration might offer the better prospect for Britain? Above all, his decision should be based on the long-term national interest and not on short-term political pressures.
    Mr. Dell: I cannot at this moment tell the hon. Gentleman when a decision on this matter will be made. As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, he has stated many of the considerations that will obviously have to be borne in mind in formulating a decision on this question.
    Mr. Walker: Will my right hon. Friend, in the meantime, have talks with the Secretary of State for Industry to make sure that British Aerospace produces the kind of aircraft that British Airways will need in the future, because the jobs of many people in British Aerospace depend on this being so?
    Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will realise that, in formulating a strategy for the future of British aviation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is necessarily closely involved.
    Mr. Rost: Is not the dilemma of the lack of business and orders for the British airframe industry directly related to the

    979
    previous Labour Government's folly in pulling out of the European Airbus project at the initial stages, when Rolls-Royce was offered participation in the engine and the airframe industry could have had a major stake in it?
    Mr. Dell: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman into discussing the history of the British aerospace industry, but in the course of my visits overseas I have frequently been accompanied by representatives of that industry who are busily trying to sell overseas.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since a good deal is said about the quietness of the Boeing 737, is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who travel to the House every week by Trident and have from time to time to go to Brussels by Sabena 737 much prefer the Trident? Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the question of the likely costs of spare parts? What are the facts of the operating costs? Is it not true that, whereas on the assumption of full load operating costs the 737 may seem to have an advantage, in fact, given a 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. full complement, the Trident has something of an advantage?
    Mr. Dell: I am sure that the manufacturers of the Trident will be delighted to hear my hon. Friend's comments. But there are certain problems with the Trident at present, and a particular problem that will be coming up in the next few years is the noise made by the Trident and the necessity to move towards quieter aircraft.
    The detailed questions that my hon. Friend asks about the likely cost of spare parts and the operating costs are all matters that British Airways has taken into consideration. On the basis of the information that British Airways has provided, the Government are considering this matter.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does the Secretary of State agree that the board of British Airways is statutorily bound by the legislation by which it was set up to consider the best interests of the corporation, as it sees them, and that it has done and should continue to do until it receives a directive otherwise? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the board's expressed preference for the Boeing 737 implies no criticism of the BAC111, of which it has
    980
    a large fleet, but rather a preference for an aircraft that is larger than the BAC111 which is available at present?
    Mr. Dell: I think that the hon. Gentleman has accurately stated the position of British Airways.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is very important that the right decision should be taken? In those circumstances, will he consider covening a conference of British Airways, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce so that the right decision may be made?
    Mr. Dell: It is certainly of very great importance that the right decision should be made. I assure my hon. Friend that all of the three corporations that he has mentioned will be involved and consulted in the process of decision making. I trust that we shall be able to satisfy each of those bodies. But, of course, my hon. Friend will realise that the interests of those bodies do not always coincide.
    Mr. David Price: If British Airways does not buy British aircraft or aircraft containing a substantial British content, who else in the world is expected to buy British aircraft?
    Mr. Dell: As I said earlier, many people throughout the world are prepared to buy British aircraft. I suppose the same question could be asked about an American purchase of foreign aircraft. We have all welcomed the fact that recently United States Airlines has been prepared to purchase European aircraft. Will any company buy an American aircraft again? The answer is that, of course, they will.

    British Airports and British Tourist Authorities
    Mr. MacFarquharasked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he takes to ensure collaboration between the British Airports Authority and the British Tourist Authority.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: The White Paper on airports policy emphasised the relationship between tourism and the demand for air transport and the British Airports Authority and the British Tourist Authority already recognise the need for collaboration. The form this takes is a matter for the two authorities.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Is the Minister aware that when two or more jumbo jets arrive at Heathrow from New York at weekends, the large number of American tourists which they disgorge queue endlessly because there is only a skeleton immigration staff? To avoid giving a bad impression to valued dollar-spending tourists, will my hon. Friend suggest to the bodies mentioned in the Question that they should get together to ensure that the immigration staff is up to full quota; or, better still, could an immigration official journey on the plane and process the tourists in flight?
    Mr. Davis: That is an interesting proposition. The chairman of the British Airports Authority and I propose to meet the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss problems affecting immigration staff and the adequacy or inadequacy of such staff at Heathrow.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is not the greatest contribution that could be made by the British Airports Authority to the comfort and convenience of tourists the earliest possible restoration of civilised conditions at Terminals 1, 2 and 3 at Heathrow?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman, who takes a keen interest in these matters, is aware of the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the refurbishing that is taking place at Heathrow. The more quickly that this can be accomplished, the better and the more advanced will be the opportunity for, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, civilised treatment of users of Heathrow. Despite the problems that have arisen, I should not have thought that they had been treated in an uncivilised way.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is the Minister aware that, although we in East Anglia are always delighted to have more tourists, we do not wish them to come in through an expanded Stansted Airport?
    Mr. Davis: We have had a number of interesting reflections about Stansted in this House from time to time, and the hon. Gentleman has just asserted his rather negative approach. We have put forward a very modest proposal for the expansion of Stansted up to 1990 which, I think, commands a great deal of support.

    Motor Vehicles
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the import and export figures for motor vehicles to date for 1978.
    Mr. Meacher: In the period January to March 1978 155,000 motor vehicles valued at £367 million fob were exported, and 218,000 valued at £491 million cif were imported.
    Mr. Rooker: Since the Ford Motor Company is the largest importer of motor cars into this country, why is the Department of Trade not giving the same attention to that company as it is to Japanese companies?
    Mr. Meacher: Altogether 70 per cent. of our car imports come from the EEC. A large proportion of these is accounted for by tied imports by the multinationals, of which Ford is the most important. Tied imports last year rose from 7 per cent. to 12 per cent. of our total market. At the same time, it is easier for United States multinationals in Britain to switch from Continental sourcing to United Kingdom production as United Kingdom production increases if they, rather than foreign companies, are doing the importing into Britain.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Minister agree that, whereas Ford was the largest importer recently, it has also been the largest exporter? Is it therefore no coincidence that it is also the most successful company? Is that not what trade is all about?
    Mr. Meacher: Certainly, but I do not think that one can make a straight comparison between imports and exports. We expect a multinational that establishes plant in Britain not to have substantial imports, but certainly we welcome growing exports.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands more British cars could be sold in Europe if those cars were available? Is he further aware that customers there, as in Britain, are not prepared to wait three to six months to obtain delivery?
    Mr. Meacher: There is a problem about United Kingdom supply, particularly as regards last year. Partly as a

    983
    result of industrial disputes and partly as a result of the marking down of production targets by management, we did not produce enough cars that people wanted to buy in this country. I am glad to say, however, that, particularly as a result of changes at British Leyland, this situation looks set to change.
    Mr. Nott: What does the Minister mean when he says that he does not expect a company that manufactures here to import? Surely if we want multinational investment in this country at all we must accept that this is the basis on which companies undertake their operations throughout the world. Is it not the fact that Ford's agricultural equipment, which is a massive business for this country, is manufactured in three European countries but that this is greatly to the benefit of this country?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman should be a little more concerned about United Kingdom national interests and less about the interest of foreign multinationals.

    Gold Bullion (Imports)
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Trade why it is no longer the practice to provide in the trade statistics the origin and destination of imports of gold bullion.
    Mr. Meacher: Gold bullion shipments are not included in the trade statistics. I understand that publication of the country analysis of gold bullion shipments, available from Customs records, ceased during 1977 to safeguard supplies to the London market.
    Mr. Gould: Is it not possible to imagine circumstances in which the sale of gold bullion and the question of who is to sell it would be of great significance—a significance going well beyond the bullion market? Should not this information be publicly available rather than be suppressed, as is now happening?
    Mr. Meacher: It may indeed be of wider interest, but the origin and destination of gold bullion imports have been excluded from the trade statistics because that could reveal selling activities which some countries might regard as commercially confidential and they would be able to switch their supplies to other markets,
    984
    which would not be in our long-term interests. That is why they have been excluded from the statistics.

    Japan
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek a meeting with the Japanese Minister for Trade.
    Mr. Michael Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the progress of the negotiations between the EEC and Japan.
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the current trading arrangements between the United Kingdom and Japan.
    Mr. Dell: I am not satisfied with the current level of our trade with Japan. Our views are well known to the Japanese and I have no immediate plans to seek a meeting with Japanese Ministers. The EEC Commission expressed our views to the Japanese Government last month and received a number of forecasts from the Japanese. There will be other meetings later to see whether these forecasts have been fulfilled.
    Mr. Spicer: Do the Government have any plans to introduce measures specifically designed to discriminate against imports from Japan?
    Mr. Dell: There are certain arrangements with Japanese exporters which limit certain types of Japanese exports to this country. We are now watching the development of that relationship in the light of the assurances given by the Japanese authorities. I have no further plans to announce.
    Mr. Stewart: How effective does my right hon. Friend think the bargaining strength of the Community has been in making the Japanese aware of the need for more direct measures to increase their imports?
    Mr. Dell: I think that the bargaining strength of the Community is valuable to us in all these trading relationships, notably in our relationship with Japan. The visit of the Commission to Japan recently has had an influence, and, together with the United States, I hope that we shall be able to persuade the

    985
    Japanese that trade is not simply a matter of exporting.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that as a trading nation it is unthinkable for us to contemplate protectionism, except on a specifically short-term basis? Does he also agree that, if our products are not competitive with those of Japan, regrettably the fault must lie here rather than in Japan?
    Mr. Dell: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to contemplate protectionism provided that it is only on a short-term basis. I have noticed from time to time that short-term protectionism turns into long-term protectionism. As for the subject of competitiveness, I agree that if we are not competitive we cannot expect to trade successfully. The complaint about Japan is that in respect of imports—not just in respect of this country but other supplying countries—Japan seems to reject imports even if they are competitive.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: When my right hon. Friend next meets his Japanese counterpart, will he ask him why it is possible, apparently with merely a nod and a wink from the French Government, for the Japanese to limit their car exports to France to less than 3 per cent., whereas it takes many meetings by him to try to secure any restraint from Japanese exporters to this country?
    Mr. Heffer: The French use their muscle.
    Mr. Dell: The answer is quite simple. It was only when the imports of Japanese cars had risen to the sorts of levels my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has mentioned that we took action on the matter. If we had taken action before, we might have got a lower level of restraint.
    Mr. Shersby: What support has the right hon. Gentleman been giving to the British motor component industry to get more British components into Japanese motor cars? Has he discussed this matter with Japanese Ministers in recent months?
    Mr. Dell: There has been a considerable selling drive in that respect, and a mission from Japan has been visiting this country to investigate the possibilities.
    986
    I hope that these sales increase, but unfortunately at present they are still at a very low level.
    Mr. Litterick: Will my right hon. Friend take note that Mitsubishi car exports to Britain and Western Europe are Mitsubishi-Chrysler car exports, because those two conglomerates are combined? Will he also recognise that as Chrysler is subsidised by the British taxpayer the fact of this taking place is an insult to the British taxpayer and deserves the immediate attention of his Department?
    Mr. Dell: I do not know that it was any part of the agreement made with Chrysler that Chrysler internationally should stop its activities in international trade.
    Mr. Parkinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that last year the Germans exported 22,000 cars to Japan and the British motor industry managed fewer than 1,400? Will he turn his attention to finding ways of helping British companies to export to Japan, as other countries seem to be able to do, and not just inhibit the exports of efficient countries to this country?
    Mr. Dell: We have done a great deal to encourage British companies to export to Japan. Indeed, in recent years British companies have made considerable efforts to export to Japan. I do not accept that the principal criticism in this matter now lies with British companies.
    The Germans have certainly been a great deal more successful than we have in exporting motor cars to Japan, but if the hon. Gentleman compares German exports of motor cars to Japan with German exports of motor cars to motor car producing countries elsewhere in the world he will see that German exports to Japan are trivial.

    Company Insolvencies
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many company insolvencies there have been since February 1974 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: There were 20,159 in England and Wales between 1st April 1974 and the end of 1977.
    Mr. Silvester: Now that the Government have been forced to make some

    987
    amends to small companies for the damage they did earlier in their period of office, would it not be a good idea if the Minister consulted his right hon. Friends to see whether the same principle could be aplied to a wider range of business enterprises to remove some of the difficulties standing in their way?
    Mr. Davis: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman follows proceedings in this place at all. He seems to have an invincible ignorance about economic matters.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that there were 11 bankruptcies during this period occasioned by the fact that the Tories voted against the Bill to relieve bankruptcy for the Clay Cross councillors, thereby adding to the total, and that the Tories were aided and abetted by a couple of dozen Members on the Labour Benches?
    Mr. Davis: The Question deals with company insolvencies.
    Mr. Parkinson: Is the Minister aware that during the period not only were there record bankruptcies but there was a substantial fall-off in the formation of new companies? Is he aware that exactly the same thing happened during the period of the last Labour Government, from 1964 to 1970? Does he now agree that bankruptcies and the inhibition of the creation of new companies are the inevitable consequences of a Labour Government?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman seems to be imprisoned by his own ridiculous slogans. Even though the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed it, the fact is that the whole of the Western world has been going through an unprecedented industrial recession—unprecedented at least since the 1930s. This inevitably leads to a position in which insolvencies grow. The hon. Gentleman simply will not look these facts in the face. The reality is that there are signs now, which no doubt Conservative Members will not recognise, that the level of insolvencies is past its peak. Do they welcome that?

    Balance of Trade Figures
    Mr. Radiceasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the latest balance of trade figures.
    Mr. Meacher: No, Sir. I am not.
    Mr. Radice: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the first quarter of this year there was a visible trade deficit of £518 million, with an alarming increase in imports? Does he think that the trend will be better in the next quarter?
    Mr. Meacher: The latest Treasury forecast, as I am sure my hon. Friend will know, was of a current account surplus for 1978 of about £750 million. But it is still our expectation that the rise in exports this year, at about 3½ per cent., will be substantially less than the rise in imports of 7½ per cent.
    Mr. Tim Renton: Why is the latest Treasury forecast of the current account surplus about half the forecast of the current account surplus that the Treasury made three months ago?
    Mr. Meacher: It is because of the changes in the international climate and the marking down in the level of growth in world trade.
    Mr. Noble: Is it not a fact that since the early 1950s or mid-1950s every time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has re-flated the economy the balance of trade has got worse than in the preceding cycle? Is not the lesson of that that if we are to protect British jobs and British industry, and not export unemployment, the Government must take steps to protect us against low-cost imports?
    Mr. Meacher: As my hon. Friend knows as well as any hon. Member, the Government have taken considerable measures to protect jobs and business against low-cost imports, above all in textiles, where, in effect, free trade is at an end and where the level of potential access to the United Kingdom and EEC markets is now under very precise regulation, but also in sectors such as steel footwear, and consumer electronics.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister consider that the forecast of surplus that he has just announced as the latest Treasury forecast is likely to be maintained with the exchange rate at about its present level?
    Mr. Meacher: It is true that last year the pound lost most of the price-competitivenes that we gained as a result of the changes in 1976. But we still have a

    989
    position over cost, particularly labour costs, which is better than it was two years ago. Whilst it is true—and this needs to be remembered—that the pound has certainly appreciated against the dollar, it has not appreciated against the mark or the yen, and it is now back to the point, roughly, where it was before uncapping.

    Crude Oil
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the total tonnage and value of imported crude oil into the United Kingdom during each of the past four years; and if he will also give the corresponding figures of exported crude oil in 1976 and 1977.
    Mr. Meacher: With permission, I will circulate this information in the Official Report.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend agree that the exporting of oil is rather easy and therefore has increased because our supplies have been there? Because it is easy to export oil, does that mean that our exporters are not interested in the other forms of energy, such as coal? Why do we not put some pressure on our EEC friends to purchase coal from this country, and therefore give some help to miners' morale?
    Mr. Meacher: North Sea oil is a premium crude with a very low sulphur content. While there is demand in the United Kingdom for this product to a degree, it certainly cannot be fully absorbed in the United Kingdom, and a certain amount is bound to be exported. I do not think that this in any way discriminates against attempts to maximise the export of coal. Although this is primarily a matter for the Department of Energy, I understand that we do all we can to promote exports of coal to the EEC and elsewhere.
    Following is the information:
    The quantity of crude oil imported in the years 1974 to 1977 in thousands of tons was 111,454; 87,117 87,219; and 69,133 respectively. The value of these imports cif in millions of pounds was 3,856; 3,461; 4,582 and 4,094 respectively. Exports in 1976 were 3,344 thousand tons valued at £182 million fob, increasing in 1977 to 15,046 thousand tons valued at £916 million fob.

    Manufactured Goods (Exports)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the development in United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to the rest of the EEC to date in the current year.
    Mr. Meacher: No, Sir. I am not.
    Mr. Dykes: In that context, does the Minister agree that once again we have a worrying trade deficit with most areas of the world excluding the underdeveloped countries and the oil producers? May I ask him to resist the temptation to single out the EEC for particular attention on this score? Is he aware that United Kingdom manufactured exports to other EEC countries have done especially well in the past six months? What other measures than the right rate for the currency does he plan to introduce to encourage United Kingdom exports to other EEC countries?
    Mr. Meacher: There is a special problem over the export of manufactures to the EEC. Certainly our deficit in that respect grew last year compared with the year before. In the first quarter of this year it has grown markedly again. The crude trade deficit in manufactures in respect of our trade with the EEC went up in the first quarter of this year to £401 million compared with £168 million a year ago. There is a problem here. Our concern to assist the export of manufactures is shown by our introduction of the market entry guarantee scheme for small exporters and the joint and several liability scheme for the jumbo contract exporters.
    Mr. Jay: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if oil and food are excluded, our deficit with the EEC Six last year rose further, to about £1,400 million, which is three or four limes our deficit with Japan?
    Mr. Meacher: I cannot give my right hon. Friend the precise figures. Certainly what he has said sounds about right. The visible trade deficit with the EEC last year was just under £1,700 million compared with a visible surplus with the rest of the world of £66 million.
    Mr. Marten: Does the Minister agree that the trade deficit, on an overseas trade

    991
    statistics basis, in the first quarter of this year is running at an annual rate of about £2,500 million deficit?
    Mr. Meacher: That is about right, although of course in terms of inflation the value in real terms is not as great because it has stayed at about that figure for some years and to that extent the export-import ratio has improved to a level today of about 86 per cent. That is slightly better than our export-import ratio, it is fair to say, as compared with North America and Japan, although not as good as with Western Europe.
    Mr. John Ellis: Can my hon. Friend tell us what happened to all those people who said that the creation of an enlarged market would be a great thing for this country? Will he arrange for such people to be shot forthwith?
    Mr. Meacher: Such people fail to say that we also became a more exposed market ourselves.
    Mr. Nott: Which of two things is more important to the Minister now that we are in the Community? Does he enthusiastically welcome the fact that we have an open trading system in the Community and want to help our country improve its exports, or is he really more interested in proving to the House that he was right to vote against our entry to the Community?
    Mr. Meacher: I am concerned—sometimes I wonder about the hon. Gentleman—with what is in our national interest. If the open market trading system is in the interests of Britain I support it. If it no longer is in our interests we shall have to consider alternatives.

    South Africa
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now discontinue Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for trade with South Africa.
    Mr. Dell: No, Sir. Export Credits Guarantee Department cover is available for civil exports to South Africa in accordance with the Department's normal underwriting criteria.
    Mr. Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the recent statement by the Foreign Secretary discouraging private business from having too heavy an in-
    992
    volvement in the economy of South Africa? Is it not slightly bizarre that the Foreign Office should be discouraging trade with South Africa while the Department of Trade is promoting it?
    Mr. Dell: I have certainly noticed my right hon. Friend's remarks. There is no doubt that the dependence of this country on raw materials from Southern Africa is a form of exposure which I would willingly see reduced. On the other hand, I do not see that it harms this country, particularly at a time of high unemployment, if we maintain credit terms for South Africa in line with those of our major competitors.
    Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage an increasingly political role for ECGD? Will he comment on the reports that the recent ECGD backing for the Pan Am-Rolls-Royce deal involves accepting the total commitment to the liability of any future default by Pan American on terms which American air engine manufacturers would not accept?
    Mr. Dell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the success of that deal and, having done so, will no doubt devote his attention to the relationship between his supplementary question and the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not time that my right hon. Friend had a meeting with the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, both of whom have said that our membership of the EEC implies a common foreign policy? Is it not strange that we will soon be the only country left in the EEC which continues to give export credit guarantees to South Africa since the Germans and the Dutch already have such a ban?
    Mr. Dell: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is misinformed as to the position of the Netherlands and Germany.
    Mr. McCrindle: Why do the Secretary of State and the Government take different views about extending ECGD facilities to South Africa and to Chile, the regimes of both of which, as I understand it, the Government oppose? Could it have anything to do with the fact that such action against South Africa would affect the standard of living of the British people whereas such action against Chile would not?
    Mr. Dell: We have made our position on human rights in both countries perfectly clear.

    Confectionery and Biscuits (Exports to Japan)
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he is making to the Japanese Government about the level of import duties on United Kingdom confectionery and biscuits.
    Mr. Meacher: We and the EEC will continue to take every opportunity to impress on the Japanese Government the importance of reducing these high tariffs as quickly as possible.
    I understand that the Japanese Government propose to extend their present MTN offer to include biscuits and chocolate, but not as yet confectionery.
    Mr. Arnold: Will the Minister reconfirm that the present rates of duty are now a significant barrier to trade? Will he give the House an assurance that he will do everything he can to impose a quite different point of view upon the Japanese?
    Mr. Meacher: Certainly. The level of the Japanese tariff on confectionery, chocolate and biscuits is about 35 per cent. Our aim is to get a reduction of this by about 50 per cent.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just another example of many showing that the Japanese Government are interested in free trade only when it suits Japanese manufacturers and are not concerned with the trade of other people?
    Mr. Meacher: It is certainly our intention, in the multilateral trade negotiations, to ensure that we secure a fair deal from the Japanese. Certainly in this sector we have not yet secured that. We intend to press the point hard.
    Mr. Gow: Since the Minister is critical of the Japanese and their rates of import duties against our exports, may I ask him to take on board the fact that it would be counter-productive to impose any quota or barrier against trade with Japan and all other countries which wish to export to us?
    Mr. Meacher: There is a great deal of difference between access to the United
    994
    Kingdom market for Japanese goods and access to the Japanese market for our goods. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why the export-import ratio of cars, for example, to the EEC is 1:4 and in the case of Japan 1:28.

    British Franchise Association
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek a meeting with the British Franchise Association.
    Mr. Meacher: I have no plans for such a meeting.
    Mr. Adley: Will the Minister accept that responsible franchising can provide opportunities for expansion for small businesses? If he does not accept that, may I ask him to agree to meet the association to exchange views with it?
    Mr. Meacher: I certainly support the newly-formed British Franchise Association—it was formed only a few months ago—in so far as it performs a useful service. If the association approaches us and would like to have a meeting, we would certainly be glad to discuss matters with it.

    Republic of Ireland (Vehicle Assembly)
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many road vehicles assembled in Ireland from Japanese components are being imported into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Meacher: The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimated that about 60 of these vehicles were registered last year—all in Northern Ireland—and about 30 in the first three months of 1978.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Japanese are building up capacity and a sales organisation in Ireland so as to rush into this country large numbers of these vehicles by the back door, using methods which would not be allowed in Japan? What action does he intend to take to safeguard us from this eventuality?
    Mr. Meacher: We would certainly regard trans-shipment via Southern Ireland as a direct export and therefore coming within the assurances which the Japanese have given us concerning heavy commercial vehicles—that is, vehicles over 3½ tons. It is, however, true that

    995
    goods assembled in the Irish Republic which have paid the common external tariff can have free circulation in the EEC, whether they circulate as parts or made-up vehicles. Nevertheless, I believe that the Japanese accept that this is a sensitive sector and would not encourage the particular manufacturer, J. Harris, to engage in this activity. There are many rumours about an invasion of the British market, but the figures show that this has not materialised.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Can the Minister confirm that this subject was included in a recent discussion in Tokyo between the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Japanese associations, to the satisfaction of both sides?
    Mr. Meacher: What the letter from MITI said was that there would be no direct exports to the United Kingdom market of heavy commercial vehicles. We have no reason to doubt that that will not be adhered to. The problem relates to the rather different situation of an assembler in Southern Ireland.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions he has had to date on the Interim Action Committee on the Film Industry.
    Mr. Meacher: My advisory body, the Cinematograph Films Council, is considering the report. I have also received a number of written and oral representations, and my Department is discussing the report with other interested Government Departments.
    Mr. Durant: I declare an interest in this matter. Do the Government intend to introduce legislation in this Parliament to establish a films authority? Is the Minister aware that successful films such as "Star Wars" and the Bond films were made in this country but with American money? Will the hon. Gentleman persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the matter and take some positive steps to help this industry, which is a dollar earner?
    Mr. Meacher: There is not parliamentary time, even if we were ready at this precise moment—which we are not—to introduce a Bill to establish a British films authority. This matter certainly
    996
    requires consultation, and it requires quite a lot of detailed study to clothe the broad blueprint, which is all that the Interim Action Committee provided in its report. As I say, there is also the problem of the parliamentary timetable. However, this is a matter on which we are making as much progress as we can. I shall draw the financial issue raised by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Shersby: Is the Minister aware that British film exports used to make a substantial contribution to our export earnings but that this has steadily diminished in recent years due to the disadvantageous position in which the British film industry finds itself as a result of discrimination on tax grounds? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore treat with the greatest possible urgency the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and impress upon the Chancellor the need for speedy action if we are to keep together the residue of skilled technology which remains in this country on which our film industry depends for its future success?
    Mr. Meacher: I have already given an assurance about that. There are also many co-production agreements which, I believe, affect the issue here. The Interim Action Committee is looking, in particular, at five other subjects, apart from the establishment of a British films authority, one of which is the promotion of overseas sales of British films. I look forward to an early report on that score, too.

    Worker Participation
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has for legislating on worker participation.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is still engaged in consultations about employee participation.
    Mr. Dell: The Government's consultations on this subject are continuing, and our proposals for legislation will be published shortly.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the Secretary of State at least confirm that Bullock is dead, and will he therefore allow me to stand him a glass of Wincarnis in the Tea Room

    997
    to celebrate that event? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he has at least learned the message that worker participation should be based on election by the work force rather than on nomination by the trade unions?
    Mr. Dell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to see our proposals. I do not believe that he will have to wait very long, but will he please wait that small amount of time?
    Mr. Knox: Will the Secretary of State accept that the diversity of British industry means that a simple universally applied scheme is unlikely to be very effective in promoting employee participation, and will he approach this matter in a more flexible manner than that adopted by Bullock?
    Mr. Dell: It has always been our view that any arrangements for this purpose should be flexible. The question has always been to define what sort of statutory fall-back, if any, there should be if voluntary arrangements cannot be negotiated.
    Mr. Clemitson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is one area where half a loaf can be worse than no bread and that, while it is essential to press ahead with legislation as quickly as possible, it is vital that we do not compromise on certain matters, such as equality of representation on boards?
    Mr. Dell: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that half a loaf in this case is necessarily worse than no bread. If he examines the situation in many other countries, he will find that their systems have evolved, and evolution is sometimes a sensible approach to problems of this kind.
    Mr. Nott: Would it not be to the advantage of both the country and the House if we could have agreed legislation, or agreed proposals on this subject since there can be nothing to be gained from its going back and forth with changes of Government? Does the Secretary of State recall that a scheme on profit sharing which, as a Treasury Minister, I took through the House was subsequently repealed by his Government when they came to office but they are now proposing to bring it back in again because it is the scheme proposed by the
    998
    Liberal Party? On worker participation, would it not be possible to have a scheme which was uncontroversial and which took us forward by evolutionary steps, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests?
    Mr. Dell: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that on both sides of the House there has been too much legislative yo-yo over the years, I agree. On this specific matter, as he should know, when the consultations on the Bullock Report began, I emphasised, in particular, the need for agreement, if it were possible, and the need for legislation which would have a wide degree of acceptance. I cannot say that the endeavours to achieve that position have resulted in any success, and what the Government are now facing is the need to publish their own proposals and attempt to win support for them.

  CLERGY (STIPENDS)
  Mr. Nelsonasked the hon. Member for Kingswood, as representing the Church Commissioners, what progress has been made in the past 12 months to finance improvements in the level of stipends for the clergy by increasing the dividend income of the Church Commissioners from their Stock Exchange investments; and whether he is satisfied with the current investment policy.
  Mr. Terry Walker (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The dividend income from the Commissioners' Stock Exchange portfolio rose over the past year by some 12½ per cent., despite dividend restraint, and has thus significantly exceeded the rise in the cost of living. In the last two years, the Government's incomes policy has been the major constraint in improving the level of stipends. I am entirely satisfied with the Commissioners' current investment policy.
  Mr. Nelson: I welcome that reply Will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to the social as well as religious work of our 10,000 clergymen in parishes throughout the country? Is it not a fact that their work is still inadequately rewarded and that in dioceses such as my own at Chichester the average stipend is only £61 a week? Despite the changes which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, is it not the case

  999
  that, if the Church Commissioners had invested more of their funds in fixed-interest stock as opposed to equities over the past year, they would have had more income to deal with the real and pressing plight of many clergymen and their families?
  Mr. Walker: It is true that over a specified period in that case it would have out-performed the Commissioners' present portfolio, but it is true also that it could have under-performed in some cases, and the present portfolio of the Church Commissioners is certainly above average. As regards what the hon. Gentleman said about stipends, everything is being done that could be done, and the major restraint upon us is that we have not been able to do all that we wanted to do over the past few years.
  Mr. Biffen: What advice has the hon. Gentleman received from the Church Commissioners on the desirability or otherwise of perpetuating statutory dividend control after the current legislation lapses?
  Mr. Walker: There has been no consultation on that matter so far.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Will my hon. Friend look at some of the Church Commissioners' property investments in London, since some of the increases in rents which have been imposed upon many Londoners over the past year seem to have little in common with the principles for which the Church Commissioners allegedly stand?
  Mr. Walker: I think that in the great majority of cases rents are independently fixed by the rent officer. The Commissioners are careful to make arrangements to consider specific individual cases of genuine hardship.
  Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the time is approaching when, as happens in many other countries, the State should perhaps step in to augment stipends?
  Mr. Walker: At the moment the responsibility for stipends is that of the Church Commissioners, with some augmentation from the laity, and that is certainly the way that we would want to go forward.
  Mr. Dykes: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that enough publicity is given by the Commissioners on the totality of their financial transactions, and in particular on the property side?
  Mr. Walker: All these matters are contained in the annual report, which is available to everyone. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know more about this and cares to communicate with me, I shall be pleased to let him have any information he wants.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during May. The monthly written forecast was deposited on Thursday 20th April.
At present, six meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for May. Foreign Ministers will meet on 2nd May, Finance Ministers on 22nd May, Agriculture Ministers on 22nd and 23rd May, Research Ministers on 29th May, Environment Ministers on 30th May, and Energy Ministers also on 30th May.
Foreign Ministers are expected to discuss the Commission's general survey of the implications of enlargement, regional policy, problems in the steel sector, footwear imports, GATT multilateral trade negotiations, relations with Australia and the form of company accounts.
Finance Ministers are expected to resume their discussion on the economic situation and to discuss the co-ordination of national economic policies, Community lending facilities, the life insurance directive and the sixth directive on value added tax.
Agriculture Ministers are expected to discuss support for Mediterranean agriculture, rules governing producer groups and the market organisation for mutton and lamb. In addition, it may be necessary to continue discussion of the future of the Milk Marketing Boards, and also CAP prices and other related issues, to the extent that these are not resolved in the Council this week. An additional

1001
Council meeting may be arranged in early May for this purpose.
Research Ministers are expected to review the guidelines for Community research and development projects and to discuss the establishment of the Joint European Torus project.
Environment Ministers are expected to discuss the measures against sea pollution following the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster, disposal of waste at sea, lead content of petrol, atmospheric polution by sulphur compounds and chlorofluoro-carbons—which are, of course, gases commonly used in aerosol sprays—the implications for the Community of the United States Toxic Substances Act, water quality for freshwater fish, and bird conservation.
Energy Ministers are expected to resume their discussion of energy policy objectives for 1985, oil refining problems, assistance to the coal industry, and projects demonstrating energy saving. They are also expected to discuss joint hydrocarbon exploration projects, demonstration projects of alternative energy sources, policy for fast breeder reactors, and the reprocessing and the disposal of radioactive wastes.
Mr. Blaker: May I put three questions to the Minister of State, arising out of the statement? The first relates to enlargement. We recognise the many difficulties referred to in the Commission's survey, not least the problem of Mediterranean agriculture. But will the Minister of State give an assurance that the Government will make every effort to ensure that momentum on the subject of enlargement is maintained?
Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary be reporting to his colleagues on progress in relation to the internal settlement in Rhodesia? Will the Minister of State give an assurance that the Foreign Secretary will not prejudice his colleagues against the internal settlement, as appears to have happened in Copenhagen?
Thirdly, will the Minister of State confirm that there is a clear understanding on the part of our fellow members of the Community of the value of the milk Marketing Boards, and that, far from wishing to abolish them, they may now wish to take them as an example?
Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his three questions. Con-
1002
cerning enlargement, I can assure him that the Government are deeply committed to maintaining momentum and, indeed, are rather anxious that, for example, the Commission's opinion on Spanish accession should come forward as soon as possible. We are rather concerned that it is taking so long to prepare it.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has been at pains, ever since taking office, to keep his Community colleagues, in the context of the Nine, fully apprised of developments in Rhodesia. There are some very useful discussions, exchanges of opinion and analyses taking place in that context.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Community is in no doubt about the importance which we attach to the Milk Marketing Boards. We certainly hope that their significance will be understood and underwritten in the context of the discussions taking place this week.
Mr. Spearing: When the Finance Ministers discuss the co-ordination of national economic policies on 22nd May, is it possible that they will also discuss the proposal for a new EEC reserve currency? In any case, will my hon. Friend assure the House that, if such a proposal is put forward, this House will have the opportunity to debate it before it is finally approved?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend tell the House when the Government told both the country and the dairy farmers that the present Milk Marketing Boards would be illegal under EEC rules?
Mr. Judd: I can inform my hon. Friend that the attention of the Finance Ministers will be concentrated on preparing the ground for the next European Council, which in its turn will have discussions in preparation for the economic summit, and that its attentions will primarily focus on the need to generate growth and to tackle the agonising problems of unemployment, which concern us all deeply in this House.
It is not, in our view, the case that Milk Marketing Boards are illegal. As we understand the position, the Commission supports the importance that we attach to them. We wish to see them continuing to play their role in Britain.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: In the context of the enlargement of the Community, will

1003
British Ministers draw to the attention of Spanish Ministers and others concerned that Article 48 of the treaty prescribes the free movement of workers for member States and that Gibraltar is entitled, as a dependency of the United Kingdom, to free movement vis-à-vis other member States, and that it follows, therefore, that a condition of Spanish entry is freedom of movement between Spain and Gibraltar?
Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear that this is not the time at which to start talking about the conditions of entry. We are in favour of Spanish entry to the Community, but we are absolutely convinced that, as the right hon, and learned Gentleman has pointed out, it would be quite unthinkable, in the context of Spanish membership of the Community, for the present situation to continue.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: When does the Minister expect the discussion on the farm price review to be concluded? Do the British Government support the majority view of the European Parliament that there should be no price increase for those products in structural surplus?
Mr. Judd: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the answer is, as soon as possible, but only on the basis of getting the right answer. We understand the strength of feeling in the European Assembly—and, indeed, in this House—about the amount of funds within the Community which, in our view, is being wrongly diverted to producing still further surpluses. We can certainly appreciate the strength of the argument that there should be nil increases in prices for those agricultural products already in surplus.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of our very special relationship with Australia, will the Foreign Secretary, at the meeting of Foreign Ministers, press that there should be direct negotiations between Australia and the Common Market, rather than that the matter should be shuffled off into a GATT negotiation?
Mr. Judd: We take very seriously our own relationship with Australia, and also our relationships in the context of our membership of the Community, and there-
1004
fore the relationships with Australia of the Community as a whole.
We are glad that Mr. Garland, the Australian Minister with special responsibilities for relations with the Community, will soon be coming to Europe for discussions. We are determined that we should clear the lines in Council discussions in advance so that we can have the best possible relationship with Australia.
Mr. James Johnson: On the common fisheries policy, may we assume that the Government are either so optimistic that they believe that today's talks are the beginning of the end of this matter or so pessimistic that they think that the Minister of Agriculture will keep on stone-walling until the end of this year?
Mr. Judd: The Government are deeply conscious of the need for an effective common fisheries policy. This is important, if for no other reason than that without such a policy there is a real danger that fish stocks could be damaged irreparably. We may find ourselves in a position where instead of discussing how to manage fish stocks we shall be discussing the fact that there are precious few fish stocks to manage. However, we are also conscious that it would be quite wrong to ignore the special need of the British fishing industry and the special contribution that we are making to the common fish stocks of the Community. We want to make progress on the CFP and we shall do everything we can to get progress, but we are not willing to throw away fundamental British interests.
Mr. Jim Spicer: When the Environment Ministers discuss the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster, will they put forward firm proposals from the Government to tighten up Community control, particularly of super tankers? Will they put forward ideas for a Community information and control centre which can move into action when such disasters take place in the future?
Mr. Judd: We can see certain value in the suggestion that the hon. Member has made for a Community information and control centre, but we have two other priorities. These are the effective enforcement of international agreements that exist already—because there is an altogether effective enforcement—and the

1005
recognition that whatever part the Community can play is obviously a matter of wider significance than to the EEC alone. We must be prepared, therefore, to follow through effective measures in wider circles than the Community alone.
Mr. Hooley: When the Foreign Ministers meet will they discuss the Middle East? If so, will they press for a total and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Southern Lebanon?
Mr. Judd: Naturally, in discussions on political co-operation Ministers constantly monitor the situation in the Middle East. The concern of the EEC was well expressed by the presidency after the last European Council, and we have made clear our opinion that it would be most helpful if Israel would withdraw from occupied territory in the Southern Lebanon as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister aware that many farmers believe that the Milk Marketing Boards are the agencies whereby imports of liquid milk from Continental countries and Southern Ireland have been excluded? Is that the Government's view, and are they hoping to secure the status of the boards in that respect?
Mr. Judd: I am well aware of the hon. Member's concern on this matter. As far as we are concerned, the primary significance of the Milk Marketing Boards is in support of the British dairy industry, and that is the role that we hope to see them continue to fulfil.
Mr. Marten: May we have a firm assurance from the Government that they will resist the proposal for a Community sheepmeat regime, which would gravely affect New Zealand exports to this country and would put up the price of lamb to the housewife? As only 1·3 per cent. of sheep in this country are exported, we have no need for a sheepmeat regime.
Mr. Judd: I must gently take the hon. Member to task. I am trying to dispense with language such as "sheepmeat regime" and substitute instead "lamb and mutton marketing arrangements". This sort of language is much more easily comprehensible to the British people. Under the Treaty of Rome and the CAP there must be some system, but we are
1006
determined that whatever system is agreed it will take account of the points that the hon. Member has made.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing since the beginning of the questions.
Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Minister tell us the latest position on an autonomous regime in the economic relationships between the EEC and Cyprus, particularly on potatoes?
Mr. Judd: I am glad to tell the House that, after far too long, at the last meeting of the Council we actually reached agreement on this matter. It is not all that we and the Cypriots would have wished but it is a significant advance on what was originally proposed last autumn. The hon. Member and others deserve a certain amount of congratulation for the pressure which they have brought to bear.
Mr. Costain: The Minister's support for the Milk Marketing Boards is appreciated. Is he aware that milk was delivered to the doorsteps of British homes before the boards were formed and that if they were discontinued it would not automatically mean that milk would stop being delivered to the housewife?
Mr. Judd: I note this and will convey it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We believe that the Milk Marketing Boards have had a good and effective role to play in Britain and we do not want to see them put to one side.
Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister aware that the massive surpluses being created have been condemned by Members of the European Parliament and all constituent parliaments of the EEC but that this has had little effect on the Commissioners? Will he draw to the attention of Ministers this aspect of relationships with the EEC, because many of us believe that the views of the European Parliament and constituent Parliaments count for nothing with the Commissioners. They should be told to mend their ways rapidly.
Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically depressed about events. He is usually more optimistic.

1007
The arguments that we have deployed have had some effect. Increasingly the Community recognises that the interests of consumers must be taken more fully into account as well as those of producers. However, we must do something to stop the madness whereby the resources of the Community are used to encourage wasteful surpluses. We believe that it is important to encourage a policy of permitting reasonable access for third-country produce where this has a role to play. We have pressed these views and increasingly the Community is beginning to understand their significance.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that all these meetings are producing little for this country apart from a lot of Continental waffle? Is he aware that since the referendum we have been selling less coal to the Common Market than we were at the time of that referendum, despite all that Joe Gormley and Derek Ezra may say? Will he agree that when miners are urged to produce more coal, the EEC should be buying some of it, as we have to buy a lot of their trash?
Mr. Judd: I believe that the Community will be judged in history not by abstract statistics but on the contribution it makes to the quality of life of people living in the member countries. From this standpoint, the interests of workers in the coal industry are important. Energy Ministers, when they meet next month, will be discussing measures to encourage inter-Community trade in steam coal and also to encourage the construction of coal-burning power stations, which obviously will have significance for our coal industry.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (PRESS COMMUNICATION)
Mr. Speaker: Before calling the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) to make an application under Standing Order No. 9, which he has informed me concerns the action and advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the reporting of the proceedings of the House, I have a brief statement to make.
On Thursday last when I did not intervene following questions naming the officer described as Colonel "B", the reason
1008
was that both my advisers and I were unaware that the matter was sub judice. I can only presume that my ignorance must have been shared by the rest of the House since our practice allows any hon. Member to draw the attention of the Speaker to any alleged breach of our rules, and no Member rose on a point of order.
Since then I have had inquiries made and it is quite clear to me that the identity of this officer forms an integral part of criminal proceedings and therefore clearly comes within the sub judice rule under which—and I quote from the Resolution of the House on 23rd July 1963—
"Matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction … should not be referred to … in any motion, … debate, or … question … including a supplementary question."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1963; Vol. 681, c. 1417.]
This resolution is expressed to have effect as regards criminal cases from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made and ceases to have effect only when the case is concluded. This is a rule of the House. All hon. Members are bound by it even if they do not like it and, as Speaker, I am bound to ensure that it is observed. The proper course for hon. Members who disapprove of the rule is for them to attempt to get it altered but not to flout or even to bend it.
Therefore, I must advise the House that I will not permit any further indentification of the officer nor any reference to the criminal cases in which he is involved.
Having put the House on notice in this matter, I must emphasise that I intend to enforce the rule and will continue to do so until the case is no longer sub judice.
I understand that a motion has been tabled this day that the communication from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Press concerning the publication of words used in this House should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Although my ruling about giving precedence over the Orders of the Day must, of course, stand, if the House eventually decides that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges, I shall be content.
Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few months ago, on my application, you were kind enough to rule that Questions might be put down on a matter relating to civil liberties concerning a case that was, at that time, before the courts. I was very grateful for that ruling because I hold the view that the supremacy of Parliament is far more important that the authority of the courts, but I should like your ruling now whether the ruling you gave at that time, which I fully accepted and greatly welcomed, does not constitute a precedent which overrides the 1963 convention you have just quoted.
Mr. Speaker: I think not. I advise the hon. Member to study the words that I have used. Like him, I want to uphold parliamentary freedom of speech and also the rule of law.
Mr. Madden: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker for calling me. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action and advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the reporting of the proceedings of the House of Commons."
In calling for such a debate, which would help to clarify several matters that are now most uncertain, I ought to declare my interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists. In my view, a debate would offer the Attorney-General an opportunity to explain the reasons why he instructed the Director of Public Prosecutions to advise the media that it was not accepted that, despite the naming of the colonel on the Floor of the House, the publication of his name would not be a contempt of court.
The assurances given later by the Attorney-General that he was not contemplating any action against the newspapers or the broadcasting authorities have done little to remove the concern or anxiety of the media about the extent of their protection in reporting the proceedings of Parliament. For many years, it has been accepted generally that hon. Members enjoy absolute privilege and that those who report our proceedings enjoy qualified privilege in so far as those reports are full, fair and without malice.
1010
Sir Barnett Cocks, a former Clerk of the House and editor of "Erskine May", told The Guardian on Friday that proceedings of Parliament were protected. He said:
"If you report without prejudice a fair and factual account of what was said in the House of Commons, who is the DPP to tell you that it is wrong? You are reporting the High Court of Parliament."
Our understanding of qualified privilege flows from the case of Wason v. Walter in 1868, to which you referred in your statement on Friday, Mr. Speaker. That case concerned defamation and not contempt, but many would agree with the view expressed in The Times on Saturday that there seems to be no reason to deny the protection of privilege to reports that might be contemptuous when such protection is given to those that are libellous. However, the action of the DPP last Thursday, acting on the instruction of the Attorney-General, seemed to contradict that view.
Without early clarification whether the qualified privilege enjoyed by the media embraces all matters or not, which only the House can assert, the DPP could be instructed at some future date to lean on the media again—and next time all newspapers and broadcasters might be persuaded to submit or face legal proceedings initiated by the Attorney-General.
The broadcasting of Parliament has added a new dimension to the reporting of our proceedings. Up to last Thursday, most people thought it inconceivable that the broadcast proceedings could have anything less than complete qualified privilege, but the broadcasters, along with the newspaper editors, were warned by the DPP.
If the freedom to report our proceedings fully, fairly and without malice is threatened or even held in serious question, the absolute privilege that hon. Members have to raise matters on behalf of our constituents without fear of legal action will, in turn, be rendered a serious blow. The protection that we enjoy here to raise matters, sometimes of extreme controversy and public importance and sometimes matters that could be, or have been, before the courts will be diminished if those who report us continue to be uncertain and anxious about the protection they enjoy.

1011
These are important matters which must be debated and cannot be neglected, for the sake of parliamentary democracy and the freedom of the Press.
Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member, who gave me notice on Friday last that he intended to make this application. I am also grateful for the way in which he has advanced his argument.
As the House knows, it is my responsibility to decide not whether there is to be a debate—I accept at once that this is a very important matter—but whether there is to be a three-hour emergency debate today or tomorrow. That is all I have to decide.
I would tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that in the Second Report from the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting in 1977 the BBC indicated to the Services Committee of the House that it was content to rely on the qualified privilege enjoyed by newspapers. The Joint Committee recommended that this was a matter which could be left to be considered in the light of any general revision of the law of defamation.
I should add that the earlier Joint Committee on the publication of proceedings in Parliament, which reported in 1970, concluded that the existing qualified privilege enjoyed by the Press and broadcasting authorities should not be made absolute.
These are not issues that I have to decide upon today. I have to decide only whether there is to be an emergency debate. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action and advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the reporting of the proceedings of the House of Commons."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the
1012
provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extremely important issues that were raised by certain questions on Thursday and subsequent events and your ruling on Friday, Mr. Speaker, and the important issues that you have raised in a statement this afternoon about the sub judice rule—I am sure that the whole House will be strongly in support of you—do you not think that the House must have a means of bringing the matter to a conclusion in the near future, or at any rate debating and thrashing out the issue?
Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, the ruling that you have just given to the application made by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), may I, through you, ask the Leader of the House what arrangements he intends to make for the handling of this matter? I am certain that all hon. Members, or a great many of them, will wish to express views. I am sure that the House will wish to come to certain views about what has happened.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Government I should like to study the statement that you have made today. I do not mean only the statement that you made in response to the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), but your earlier statement. We should like to study that statement to ascertain what in our view is the best way in which to proceed before making a recommendation to the House. I think that we should have a little time to do so. However, I fully agree with what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said about the great importance of the issues that are involved.
Mr. Heffer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicate whether he will take into consideration the decision expressed in the Labour Party manifesto that calls for the revision of the Official Secrets Acts? When we debate the matter that decision should also be before the House.
Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has raised a wider matter. I am sure that at some stage the House will want to discuss all the matters that have been raised. However, first, I should like to consider the statement that you made, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon to ascertain whether the suggestion contained within it—I think that it was a suggestion—is the right way for the House to proceed. That would not exclude any further debate on wider questions at a later stage.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether, Mr. Speaker, you can answer a question that has been puzzling me for some time. There are supposed to be no points of order arising from your decision on a Standing Order No. 9 application. There have been occasions when some hon. Members have attempted to raise points of order, and they have been stopped from making them. Yet on this occasion—this seems to have happened also on a few other occasions—the Front Benches have become involved in points of order after you have made your decision. These points of order seem to go unnoticed, or, if not unnoticed, they seem to get past. Apart from making a decision about Standing Order No. 9 applications, I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether you use any sort of criterion in deciding who may raise points of order arising out of Standing Order No. 9 applications.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has addressed his question in his usual manner. Obviously the House was concerned about the issue and I exercised my discretion accordingly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND ELECTRICITY (FINANCE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.6 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the House will know, it was the Government's intention, as indicated in the Queen's Speech, that a wider Bill should be presented to the House. However, there was no majority in the House for such a proposal and, therefore, the proposals that would have been in the Bill have been published as a White Paper and are now being considered by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The White Paper bears upon some of the issues—at least one of them—that arise in the Bill, it being a White Paper dealing with the relationship between a nationalised industry—in this instance the electricity supply industry—and the sponsoring Minister.
  One of the purposes contained in the White Paper and the draft Bill within it is that the supply industry should have some regard to the interests of its own supplying industry—the power plant industry. It provided for some special arrangements for combined heat and power which are not able to be included in the Bill. That wider proposal or Bill is for the next and final Session of the present Parliament. I hope that by then it will have been backed by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
  The shortened Bill has two purposes. The first purpose is to make provision to give effect to an agreement concluded in September 1976 between ourselves, the European Atomic Energy Community and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards in the United Kingdom in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It also makes provision for me to authorise, with the approval of the Treasury, contributions to expenditure by the Central Electricity Generating Board in connection with the construction of the second stage of the board's

  1015
  generating station at Drax, the so-called Drax B station.
  I feel sure that the objective of the first part of the Bill—the one dealing with safeguards that strengthens our stance on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons—will command the full and unhesitating support of the House of Commons.
  The non-proliferation treaty, of which the United Kingdom is one of the three depository powers, came into effect in March 1970. Each non-nuclear weapon State party to the treaty undertook to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. As a nuclear weapon State, we were not obliged to be subject to the safeguards but, during negotiation of the treaty, Her Majesty's Government volunteered that, at such time as IAEA safeguards were put into effect in the non-nuclear weapon States, they would be prepared to accept the application of those safeguards in the United Kingdom, subject to exclusions for national security reasons only. That is to say, we still retain our full powers under the provisions that we have as a nuclear weapon State.
  However, our object, and the object of our offer and of a similar offer made by the United States, was to encourage non-nuclear weapon States to become parties to the non-proliferation treaty. For example, France, though not a party to the NPT, has negotiated an agreement with the Community and with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of IAEA safeguards in France.
  A futher reason for our offer—that is, the offer made by the United Kingdom and the United States—was to demonstrate to non-nuclear weapon States that we should be gaining no unfair commercial advantage that we might be thought to have by not submitting our civil nuclear installations to IAEA inspection. Our offer has led to the conclusion of the safeguards agreement between ourselves—that is, the United Kingdom—the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Atomic Energy Community, EURATOM, to whose safeguards we had already been subject since 1st January 1973 when the United Kingdom joined the Community.
  I shall go into these matters in some detail because there is involved an international obligation that we have to fulfil.
  1016
  The agreement was presented to the House on 3rd March 1977 and has been published as Cmnd. Paper 6730. It is an important international obligation for us that we have already undertaken to fulfil. The Bill is a necessary step to give statutory backing to enable the agreement to be implemented.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said, this is an important agreement. I hope that he will say a little more about it. As well as being important, it is a complicated agreement. Has the Soviet Union made a similar offer? If it has not, are there comparable arrangements, similar to the agreement, for inspection of its civil nuclear activities so that there is not a diversion to military purposes in that country?
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman's question would appear to be based upon a misunderstanding. There is nothing in the agreement that is embodied or made possible by this legislation that would have any impact upon a nuclear weapon State. Nuclear weapon States—this is understood in the international community—are able to be nuclear weapon States. Therefore, there is nothing whatever for the Soviet Union, the United States or the United Kingdom under this arrangement which would in any way limit their development of nuclear weapons capability.
  Under these arrangements, if there is a desire by a nuclear weapon State to withdraw inspection from a civil establishment because of a military interest, that is provided for in the agreement. This is a provision for the inspection of civil nuclear capacity. Therefore, it has no bearing whatsoever upon proliferation. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) wishes to come back on that matter, I hope that I shall be able to answer his question. But the arrangements which the Soviet Union may have made would not fall to a Secretary of State for Energy to answer for. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it would have no bearing anywhere on the extent of nuclear weapon capability within nuclear weapon States which had undertaken that their civil capacity should be subject to inspection.
  Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

  1017
  He fastened on the heart of the matter—that under this agreement there are arrangements whereby the IAEA will be able to verify that nuclear material is not being diverted from civil power-stations for other purposes—presumably military purposes. As this was an international agreement at the beginning, may I ask whether the same procedure applies to other nuclear military States, such as the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I am quite sure that the House will not mind if he does not resume his seat every time he is interrupted. We wish him a speedy recovery.
  Mr. Benn: I was hoping that I had a leg to stand on in answering the hon. Gentleman's question. In view of the precise nature of the question and the fact that responsibility for this matter would lie in hands other than my own, if the hon. Gentleman is willing, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will be winding up the debate, to give a precise answer. I do not want anyone to get the impression that the Bill bears upon the balance between military and civil, for it does not. It constitutes a statement made by the United States and ourselves that we would agree to the inspection of civil nuclear facilities. The safeguard for nuclear weapons capacity is unaffected by the agreement. Therefore, although I shall see that the hon. Gentleman gets a precise answer by the end of the debate, I confidently assure him that this does not and is not intended to inhibit our capacity, as one of the nuclear weapon State signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, to work in that area. However, I shall see that a proper answer is given.
  I turn now to the safeguards in question. These include the following measures: first, the maintenance of accounts and submission of reports by nuclear operators of receipts, shipments and stocks of nuclear materials; and, secondly, the inspection of facilities to verify these reports and to provide assurance that the relevant material is present at the facility.
  The Bill seeks to confer powers of entry on IAEA inspectors for the purpose of making the inspections permitted by the agreement. I must stress that these inspections will be limited—this was
  1018
  the point that I was making—to civil nuclear activities in the United Kingdom and will not in any way prejudice our national security interests. We shall be given full particulars of those inspectors whom the agency wishes to designate to have access to civil nuclear installations under the proposed legislation, and we shall have the right to object to anyone who is not acceptable to us.
  In addition, the agreement gives the Community and ourselves the right to have IAEA inspectors accompanied during their inspections by Community inspectors and representatives of the United Kingdom. Therefore, unnecessary duplication of safeguards activities will be avoided as the agreement requires that the IAEA and the Community co-operate with us to this end.
  Subject only to the answer which I have undertaken will be provided to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I feel confident that the House will support this part of the Bill.
  As hon. Members are aware, we wholeheartedly support the safeguards regime administered by the agency. It is the front line of defence against the proliferation of nuclear weapons—that is, the spread of nuclear weapons to countries which do not now have them. We all recognise that international safeguards cannot by themselves guarantee to prevent a country from acquiring nuclear weapons technology, but we believe that safeguards can be made to provide sufficient and timely warning of the diversion of nuclear materials from civil use to enable other Governments to take action.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: As the Government attach so much importance to the IAEA safeguards systems and the people who would be responsible for implementing them, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as his right hon. Friend confirmed in answer to me in the debate on Windscale before Easter, that Her Majesty's Government's policy is to beef up both the money and the people that they make available to the safeguards side of IAEA? At present, I do not believe that we do enough in that direction.
  Mr. Benn: The civil operations which were being discussed in that debate will be covered in the normal way by the

  1019
  provisions which I have described. Security provisions come at various levels. They are the security provisions which any member State will apply to its own nuclear establishments. Indeed, I introduced legislation two years ago, which the House saw fit to pass, on the arming of Atomic Energy Authority constables. That is what one would call a security system.
  There is also a very detailed nuclear accountancy system operating in this country, again to be sure that there is no diversion or loss of materials. Over and above that, there are two other layers. One is the IAEA, which is the United Nations body with which we are entering into this agreement. Finally, there are the Community's safeguards arrangements which attached to us on our signing of the Euratom Treaty which came into force at the same time as we entered the Community. Therefore, we are engaged at three levels. I do not think that any responsible Minister, even if there were no international safeguards of any kind, would do other than apply the most rigid and careful security provisions to installations in his own country.
  The international dimension is important. The NPT was designed to prevent the diversion of civil technology into military technology in countries which were not then nuclear powers. To the extent that the safeguards provisions can be made to stick and to be effective, the prospect of expanding the use of nuclear power for civil purposes will be possible without running into the hazard of proliferating nuclear weapons. I hope that answer satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  I forget whether I made this point, but, if so, I should like to make it again before moving on to the other part of the Bill. In offering to submit United Kingdom civil facilities to IAEA inspection, we are participating in a system which we believe will become progressively surer and more effective in deterring other countries from developing nuclear weapons.
  I turn now to the second purpose of the Bill, which is to provide authority for contributions up to a total of £50 million towards expenses which the Central Electricity Generating Board will incur in building Drax B. The board advised me that without Government
  1020
  intervention it would not have placed an order for this station before 1980. By 1980 seven years would have passed without a single order for main generating plant either by the CEGB or by the Scottish boards. There would have been an irreversible loss of skills in the power plant manufacturing industry and serious consequences for employment in the North-East and in Scotland.
  Perhaps in passing I may be allowed to say that, whatever views there may be about other provisions of the draft Bill for the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry, it is not rational that we should have an electricity supply industry operating without having any obligation to have regard to its supplying industries. We cannot turn on a turbo-generator industry or a boiler-making industry just as and when we want.
  It is of vital interest to the CEGB that there should be an industry there. It may very well be argued, as I would argue, that there is something slightly absurd about a Minister having to draw the attention of a generating board to the necessity to maintain an industry upon which the generating board depends for its future supplies. Yet the truth is that this has been handled in the past in a most clumsy constitutional way which, alas has to be repeated in this form, whereas one would expect that this would naturally flow from the broad common sense terms of reference of the industry.
  The generating board operates under an Act of Parliament and it feels that its duty is to assess when it needs plant. Therefore, it falls to the unfortunate Minister, myself in this case—but my predecessor had exactly the same problem with the Ince B station—to draw the attention of the board, in a special way and with a slight sweetener in the form of Government assistance, to the need not to let its own supplying industry get into serious trouble. I hope that that will be put right when the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry comes into operation.
  There is another provision in that draft White Paper which would assist. Instead of having to go through the very cumbersome process of primary legislation, with its Committee and Report stages, since what is being done is very straightforward, the House could endorse a Minister's request to an industry to order plant and

  1021
  to pay for it. That could be done under a simplified machinery. That is one of the reasons why the White Paper being considered by the Select Committee provides for the House to have the opportunity to endorse a Statutory Instrument containing a directive and, with it, a provision to finance the industry, the CEGB, if it needs to order in advance.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I would have thought that there was an important principle here. The taxpayer is giving £50 million of public money. I would have thought that that was a reasonable excuse for special legislation.
  Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend says that there should be legislation. It depends what he means by legislation. I would question whether primary legislation is necessarily the best way of handling a matter of that kind. It may be best handled by delegated legislation with the authority of the House behind it, in the form of a Statutory Instrument requiring the affirmative or negative procedure.
  However, when a Minister seeks to intervene in the decision of an industry it is right that he should come to the House for approval. Whether we have to have quite such a complicated procedure is a matter of argument. My own view is that it would be better to simplify the matter so long as the powers of the House remain undiminished. That is almost a procedural point rather than a point of substance.
  I come to the second aspect of this matter. As everyone knows, from the hot public debate that occurred over the last few months of last year, the Government would have preferred that the power plant industry should be rationalised before an order for Drax was placed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry made every effort to bring the firms together. The CPRS report on the power plant industry was published and widely discussed. But no rationalisation can succeed if it does not command the confidence of the workers, management and the main customer. Despite many consultations, in some of which I was involved, this was not possible. Although rationalisation remains the Government's long-term aim, and in our view would help the industry to remain internationally competitive, the problem as it finally emerged for a decision by the Govern-
  1022
  ment was that we had to act in advance of the rationalisation that we sought.
  The Government decided, therefore—this was the subject of a statement in the House last summer—that further postponement of the decision on Drax would not be in the national interest. The decision to proceed to the second stage of Drax was also taken as a mark of confidence in the future of the coal industry, which in part would answer one of the supplementary questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a few minutes ago about the Common Market.
  Following discussions with the board, the Government have agreed that parliamentary authority shall be sought permitting interest refunds to be made to the board, with two limitations. First, whatever happens to interest rates and power station costs, compensation payments will not exceed £50 million. Secondly, although the decision to order was taken about two years earlier—that is, as compared with the CEGB forecast of need—payments will be based not on two years' but on six months' interest charges. As I am sure the House is aware, the manufacturing contracts for the turbo-generators and the boilers will begin in the summer of 1978. In April 1979 the contracts for the main steelwork will begin, anticipating commissioning in 1984. This will provide about 4,000 jobs—2,000 jobs in Parsons and Babcock and Wilcox, which I know will be welcomed in the areas in which those companies operate, and 2,000 in other industries. There will also be construction work which will provide more employment.
  However, it is not only a question of saving jobs, as is sometimes argued. It is a question of saving a capacity to produce this plant, which we know very well will be needed by the home generating boards and will provide the foundation for a world export market which, though slack at the moment, will recover. I do not believe that anybody looking at these two firms, which will be the prime beneficiaries of this arrangement, could see it as the spinning out of a decline. It is a maintenance in being with a view to a development of this industry. It is very important that that note of confidence should be sounded by the House.
  In commending this part of the Bill to the House, I should make it clear that

  1023
  the manufacturing work on Drax will be followed by manufacturing work on the nuclear stations to be ordered following the Government's decision on the advanced gas-cooled reactors in January of this year. This, too, will provide the same firms with important employment and will strengthen their home base for export effort. The Government will do all that they can to support the export efforts of the power plant industry. The Drax order will be of substantial benefit to that industry in the United Kingdom and, as I said, will put it in a better position to meet our long-term needs.
  As to the market for coal, now that we are moving, albeit slowly, towards the development of a national energy policy, we have to see to it that the investment that we have justified in the mining industry is matched and married by or with an appropriate market for coal. I had a further meeting with the coal tripartite committee, with Sir Derek Ezra and the mining unions this morning and we fully discussed this problem of coal markets.
  One of the answers is provided by the Bill. As the House will know, we are expecting the capacity for coal burn in power stations, according to our forecast, to rise to between 85 million and 90 million tonnes in 1990. I have had the opportunity today, which I much welcomed, of talking to the German economics Minster, who is over here with the Chancellor in preparation for the EEC Energy Council meeting on May 30th, when the coal market aspects of EEC energy policy will also be discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned this matter in a supplementary question. I hope that he will read Hansard and see that these matters are under consideration.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson:: Will the Secretary of State assure us that when he holds these meetings he will try to persuade his friends in Europe to stop buying cheap dumped Polish coal when they can have coal from a Community member such as ourselves for their North-West Germany power stations?
  Mr. Benn: This point is very forcefully brought forward—the need to develop indigenous resources rather than find
  1024
  those indigenous resources in some way undercut by importations. Some community countries have an import limit on imported coal. But, with the availability of coal that we now expect, we should find a market, as should any reasonable EEC energy policy, for British coal, which is much cheaper to produce than German, Belgian or French coal. I gave the figures to the House the other day in answering a supplementary question.
  In connection with the burn in power stations, I add that I, as an Energy Minister, would find it impossible to contemplate the ordering of more oil-fired stations. This is a matter of interest to those who know that some proposals are in the pipeline. I ought perhaps also to add that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary shortly will announce the result of the research and development study, which is probably of very great importance. This will be announced shortly and will indicate future uses for coal.
  That is the Bill in outline. In winding up the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary no doubt will be able to deal with some of the questions raised in the debate, and there will be one or two Committee points which will need to be dealt with at that stage. I hope very much that the full Bill, which would have catered at any rate for half of this legislation, will come forward and that the proposals made in the nationalised industries White Paper which the Government published earlier this month will also change the relationship to some extent between Ministers and nationalised industries so that we have less of the old arm twisting and more open exchanges where the Government have a clear interest, with public support, and seek to win the assent of the industry to work on that basis. On the safeguards side, it is an essential element of the development of nuclear power that we should encourage the wider use of safeguards and, by our own example in this Bill, I hope that we shall achieve that purpose.
  I commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: I am sure that I take the whole House with me in expressing our sympathy to the Secretary of State about the unfortunate

  1025
  accident which he sustained and in expressing our appreciation that, despite obviously being in some physical discomfort, he has come to the House today to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  I was sorry to see a slightly unkind cartoon in one of our national newspapers showing a gentleman, possibly purporting to be a supporter of the Conservative Party, passing a billboard saying "Benn injured" and commenting "Nothing trivial, I hope." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that on this occasion we all trust that it is trivial and that he will soon be restored to full vigour again.
  We must all be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman that he so quickly allayed any suspicions which might have been aroused by making it quite clear that in no sense did he believe that he was pushed. I see that it was even unkindly suggested that the Prime Minister might have been present on the occasion. I think that he was even asked about it at a Press conference. Those of us who are familiar with some of the background to the matters under discussion today would have been more inclined to seek to know the whereabouts of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) on the occasion when the accident occurred. But I am sure that he will be able to account for his movements.
  Clearly, this is a be-nice-to-the-Secretary-of-State day, in view of his physical disability, and I hope therefore that he will forgive me, now that he is at least seated and not at such a physical disadvantage, if I warn him that I shall be making one or two minor passing criticisms as we discuss these matters. I know that he would not wish the whole stuff of political controversy to disappear over a chipped ankle on one afternoon.
  It is worth remembering—and the Secretary of State fairly made the point—that this is merely the minor remnant of what is a much more major Bill which we had been expecting to see presented by the Government this Session. Therefore, I have to make my first unkind comment to the right hon. Gentleman.
  The saga of the electricity Bill is a classic example of how not to legislate in Parliament. The Secretary of State for Energy, or rather, his predecessor, set up the Plowden Committee with a
  1026
  request to report urgently, and that report was produced in a little more than a year, in January 1976. Then there was not a sound from the Secretary of State for Energy or from his Department for a full 18 months until, in July 1977, we had a statement. Then again there was nothing until suddenly a Bill, a draft Bill or whatever we are allowed to call it in constitutional practice, appears and is known to be under discussion with the Liberal Party. There was then a last-minute consultation with the Conservative Opposition, with the whole problem unfortunately leading to this important Bill being unable to proceed.
  The Secretary of State said that one of the reasons for the delay was that the widest possible consultations had to be held. Apparently he felt it necessary to consult a very wide range of people. It is somewhat staggering that, despite all the consultations and discussions, when the Bill actually appears it becomes apparent that there are a number of major features in it which were never discussed with the industry or the unions.
  The Secretary of State will know that both Mr. Frank Chapple and Mr. John Lyons, as chairman and secretary of the employees' national committee, made it clear that they were quite unaware of and would have been opposed to certain items in the B111. I was interested to see that Mr. John Lyons, writing in the Electrical Power Engineer in his capacity as general secretary of his association, said:
  "… the real responsibility for what has happened rests squarely with the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Wedgwood Benn. From the day the Plowden Report was published, he made no secret of his dislike of its main recommendations. It was not simply bad luck that it took two years to arrive at the stage when a Bill was ready for publication."
  I assume that that was written by someone whom the Secretary of State would claim was one of the people closely consulted on this matter, and I think that the House must take note of his judgment.
  Mr. Benn: I saw what John Lyons said. His comment is not unknown to me because he made it clear in the consultations. However, before the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) proceeded along that line, it was my hope that he would also recollect that Ministers have

  1027
  responsibilities for promoting legislation to which they themselves are committed and have to be committed and that it is not the task of a Minister in any Government simply to take a committee report and wheel it in a perambulator from the committee which has presented it on to the statute book.
  The matter at issue here is whether the degree of centralisation which many, including myself, thought was implied in the Plowden Report was desirable. So that although this argument, which no doubt we shall have in the Select Committee and later when the Bill comes forward, is an important one, clearly a Minister and a Government have to make up their own minds, as we did quite clearly on the recommendation made in the very important Plowden Report. However, we were not in any way obligated to accept what it recommended 100 per cent. Nor do I think that the House would have accepted that the 100 per cent. centralisation recommended would have been in the interests of the industry or acceptable to Parliament.
  Mr. King: I do not think that anyone in the House will disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But that is not what I was talking about Therefore, if I may, I shall quote a further extract from what Mr. John Lyons wrote. He was writing this and, I think, being constitutionally correct in not giving any evidence that he was necessarily aware at that stage of the contents of the Bill. However, his facts are borne out by the White Paper which has been published since. Mr. Lyons said:
  "… as well as for example to give the industry power to undertake manufacturing which, apart from being politically contentious, had neither been asked for by either side of the industry, nor even discussed with them."
  There is a world of difference between that and not necessarily accepting people's points of view. I accept entirely that the Secretary of State should not be a messenger boy for outside interests, whether they be unions or the industry, and that he has to make his decisions after consultations. My point in this case is that there is a very contentious ingredient in that Bill which, according to the secretary of the employees' national committee representing all the unions, was never even discussed with them.
  1028
  I should have thought that if the Secretary of State stood for anything in politics it was in giving high priority to the need for consultations and to taking people with him. I do not say that in a derogatory sense. The Secretary of State has just paid tribute to the tripartite arrangements in the coal industry. I thought that he gave the highest priority to discussions with all sides of the industry. However, a major ingredient in this Bill was discussed neither with the industry nor with the unions. That was not the point on which the Secretary of State intervened. Unless the Secretary of State says that it is an error of fact, Mr. John Lyons's comment must stand.
  Mr. Benn: That is rather like Drax B which also would have been in the Bill. I cannot honestly tell the House that the Drax B provisions in the Full Bill were at the request of the industry. They were not. It is not uncommon for a Minister to bring forward matters that are of interest to the Government. We must not debate a Bill which is not before us, but manufacturing powers had been provided for in legislation and have been removed. In past legislation the Government have given powers of manufacture. The Government were committed generally—and this has been known to the trade unions from the beginning—that as and when the opportunity to bring in legislation on nationalised industries presented itself manufacturing powers would be added. This matter involves no surprise. We did this in the Post Office Bill in 1968. With the good will of the House, last summer we extended the powers of the coal industry to involve itself with refineries. I do not believe that the hon. Member is making a good case. This is a Government addition to the Bill.
  Mr. King: I am sorry to provoke the Secretary of State to rise to his feet in his present condition, but I am afraid that that explanation will not do. He has just told the House that there are certain matters that sometimes cannot be discussed with the industry or about which no requests have been made. I am not suggesting that everything must be agreed by both sides. I thought that the Secretary of State and I were at one about the importance of consultation, in advance where possible, to ensure that the national policy objectives and the political objectives of the Government were achieved in

  1029
  harmony with those who worked in the industry.
  The Secretary of State cited Drax B. He said that the Drax B provisions were not necessarily at the request of the industry. But when the Secretary of State made his statement about Drax B I asked whether there would be a need for legislation. He said:
  "Discussions have begun with the CEGB and I cannot in detail answer the question about compensation arrangements, because the discussions are in progress."—[Official Report, 18th July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 1151.]
  He said that discussions were in progress last July. There was no suggestion that that matter, which is in the Bill now, was not previously discussed in advance of the legislation. I should have thought that that was not a good issue for the Secretary of State to pursue.
  Mr. Benn: I am anxious that the House should know exactly what happened and why. If the CEGB had felt in its judgment that it was right to proceed with Drax B in the timescale that the Government thought necessary, legislation would not have been needed. The legislation is necessary only to provide financial support. In the case of the manufacturing powers, there are statutory limits to what the board can undertake. It was for the Government to determine their approach to all the nationalised industries, including electricity. There is a strong case for a standard practice throughout all nationalised industries.
  Mr. King: That was an interesting intervention, but the argument is not about whether Government should take decisions. Clearly, the issue of Drax B and compensation should involve consultation in advance. Mr. John Lyons is saying that in the case of the manufacturing powers in the electricity industry there was no consultation prior to those powers being included in the legislation.
  The Secretary of State has pleaded in defence of the delay the massive consultation that there had to be across the board. But I have cited the secretary of the employees' national committee, who said that there was no discussion on that issue. If anyone knew what was going on, surely he would.
  1030
  I turn from the unfortunate background of the Bill to two provisions which I endorse. Whatever one's view about centralisation, anyone who has studied the White Paper will agree that there are some important improvements in the Bill which should command general assent throughout the House. One of the particular improvements concerns combined heat and power. The modifications of the statute for the industry are important. I accept what the Secretary of State has said about the need to have responsibility for the supplying industries and the wider help of the industry.
  I turn to the Bill itself. First, I shall deal with the nuclear safeguard provision. As the Secretary of State correctly anticipated, this commands our support, as far as it goes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) identified an important matter in a slightly different context. He may wish to elaborate on that later. This is a voluntary offer by the British Government. We are not really covered as a weapons State by the obligations contained within these safeguards which are designed for non-weapons States under the umbrella of the non-proliferation treaty. This is an excellent example to set, and I understand that that is why we entered into this arrangement.
  There is a minor but relevant issue at stake. When I look at the safeguards and consider the issues involved, I find it slightly bizarre that £1,000 is the fine for any breaches of the safeguards. We are not dealing with a rather recalcitrant storeman who refuses to open his store and has to be severely punished. We are dealing with non-co-operation by Governments.
  The more important issue, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), is the adequacy of the safeguards. My hon. Friend asked the same question of the Foreign Secretary and received a fairly robust reply that Britain would play her part in beefing up the work on the safeguards. Without being unkind to the Secretary of State, I thought that he gave a full reply in reply to my hon. Friend justifying the existing situation. I wondered whether he had read what Mr. Justice Parker said about this in paragraph 6.6 of his report.

  1031
  When speaking of the system of safeguards, he said:
  "This system was acknowledged by everyone to be in need of strengthening and improvement. I shall not therefore lengthen this report by describing the system and its shortcomings. It is sufficient to say that it could and should be improved, e.g. by increasing the numbers of inspectors and, possibly, by the development and introduction of improved methods for detecting any diversion of fissile material from peaceful uses."
  After that unanimous report, based on all the evidence given at Windscale, it was disappointing that the Secretary of State did not make clear the Government's determination to ensure that the safeguard system is beefed up. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can clarify the situation. It was a unanimous recommendation of the witnesses at the Wind-scale inquiry.
  I turn to what is perhaps potentially the slightly contentious area of the Bill—the clause that deals with the money for Drax. Certainly the background to Drax is a fairly unhappy episode. I would say—although it would be unkind in the present context—that the Secretary of State seems to have an ability to find every banana skin in the business. I would not say that in view of recent events. But this Drax problem has been made into a much more controversial issue than perhaps it need have been if it had been handled in a different way.
  I should like to make quite clear our approach to this situation. We are certainly not opposed to advance ordering of a power station, as is being done in this way. If I suggested that we were opposed to that, hon. Members would quickly point out the precedent of Ince B and that we have done this in the past. Clearly, there is justification in certain specific cases where particular problems arise.
  As the Secretary of State fairly said, it is difficult to imagine a more acute problem than that which faces an industry when its major customer gives it no business for seven years. The scale of the problems faced by what is a very important industry in this country is very clear and plainly derives from that background.
  However, the point that we have always made clear, as on the first statement, when I asked a Private Notice
  1032
  Question of the Secretary of State, is that if the Government seek to attain these objectives, they must recognise an obligation to pay compensation. The original approach, in the letter to Sir Arthur Hawkins, was that there was no question at that time of any compensation.
  Perhaps I may quote from what I said to the Secretary of State on 21st April. I said that the proper approach at that time was
  "to bring it openly before the House so that the House can see the costs involved, the matter can be properly debated here, and the Government can receive authorisation for the finance if they can persuade the House."—[Official Report. 21st April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 366.]
  The House will therefore understand why I am happy that this matter has now been brought forward in what I consider is the proper way for consideration.
  Mr. Hooley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is probably a cosmetic exercise anyway as every citizen is a taxpayer and every citizen is an electricity consumer? One pays one way or pays the other way. Therefore, in the end, what does the difference come to?
  Mr. King: That seems to be a recipe for anarchy in every nationalised industry if we approach our finances in that way. There may be an element in what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I would not follow him in that all the way.
  The next complication that we had in the Drax situation was the CPRS report and the very unfortunate sequence of events in which rationalisation was called for but failed to be achieved, in the turbine generator area in particular. The CPRS report made clear that Drax should be ordered only on condition of achievement of rationalisation, but that was not achieved.
  The Secretary of State had something to say about the Government's views on still achieving a measure of rationalisation and the desire to see a strong export industry. It was clearly the view of the CPRS that that would not be possible without rationalisation. I did not hear the Secretary of State—although I may not have caught the particular passage—give any views on the prospects for rationalisation in the turbine generator industry. I know that there have been discussions. The CEGB has been conducting them. I think that it is the right

  1033
  body to do so. If I missed it, perhaps the Under-Secretary could give us the latest position on this matter.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the business of the CPRS recommendation, I wonder whether he would accept, looking back on these events in rather calmer times now, that to make that recommendation at a point at which one company had had the most recent order and other substantial orders and when the other company was in serious difficulty was not to play the card—as the hon. Gentleman himself called it on 18th July last year—of the order, for restructuring, in the proper way, because it was a sanction that could be applied to only one side of the argument. The other side was not amenable to sanction at all.
  Mr. King: That raises a number of questions why one company had been more successful in getting those orders—for instance, export orders. It is a wide question. I understand, from a comment that the Secretary of State has made that on the question of open tendering, for instance, it would have been an unreal situation because of the issues that were really at stake. There are a number of complications. I still think that the most unfortunate thing about the CPRS report was that its main conclusions could not be implemented. One could not say "these things have to happen" and then fail to achieve them and advertise to the whole world that the CPRS said that there would be no future for the industry unless these things happened, and then leave the industry still fragmented in that way.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Why publish it in the first place?
  Mr. King: That is a fair question. But I think that the whole episode was a very unfortunate series of events which certainly did not help the general wellbeing of the industry.
  However, a lot of time has now passed since those debates and arguments of the middle of last year. We are extremely critical of the approach and the route taken by the Government, but the fact remains that this order is now under way. The Secretary of State gave authority for it last July. I think that the design con-
  1034
  tract is already well under way. I understand that the companies have been given authority for long lead time materials and are hoping to get the work on to the shop floors within the reasonably near future and, I think, in the middle of the summer.
  Against this background, therefore, we are faced with this clause for compensation for advance ordering. It seems to me that there are basically three questions to be answered. Is it early? Is it early enough to justify compensation? If so, how much?
  As to the first question whether it is early, this is a two-year-old saga. The Secretary of State may say that it is a lot older than that. He quoted his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who made a statement in 1969 saying that Drax B was firmly in the programme. Perhaps the more recent saga we can call two years old. It was stated in 1976 that this would not be needed until late 1979. Of course, we are now in 1978, and the order admittedly was started last year, so perhaps it is some two years old.
  However, I have already made clear to the Secretary of State—he knows that I hold this view—that in outside industry where there is a customer with certain crucial suppliers those customers, whether it be Marks and Spencer, as one clear example of this good commercial practice, recognise a responsibility to their suppliers to try to ensure a smooth flow of orders. This helps to ensure that their supplying companies can operate efficiently and so minimise their costs and charges to the customer. This is a factor that was missing perhaps from some of the earlier discussions, although I think that there is now a more realistic approach in the CEGB to this aspect.
  But if we say that there still may be a case for compensation, taking into account the point about responsibility to suppliers, we look at the problem of how much. The Bill says up to £50 million. The Secretary of State gave us a little guidance as to the method of calculation that will be observed. This is obviously a point that we shall want to pursue in Committee. However, as the Secretary of State made clear that this was being treated on a matter of six months advance ordering and not two years, it is

  1035
  very difficult to see how six months, allowing for the fact that no one will pay a cheque for £600 million on the nail tomorrow, and that this will be a matter of progress payments, completion payments, and a very protracted period of payment, comes to £50 million. That is a detail that we shall want to pursue.
  Finally, I should like to ask one other question and to make some comments on it. Is it needed? The Secretary of State will know that there are many who doubt the wisdom of our continuing to follow the path of yet more giant power stations. There are even some within the CEGB who have referred to the dinosaur policy which they believe they are following. There is the argument that giant power stations are relatively inefficient in thermal and electrical efficiency since they do not in any way utilise their heat output. We have embarked upon this order at a time of existing substantial surplus of electricity supply. It is anticipated that electricity demand will grow to take up that surplus.
  But the Secretary of State will know—I am sure that he is bombarded with as much expert opinion as I am, probably much more—that there are many who challenge those forecasts and suggest that we shall not have such a surplus demand. There are many who comment on the contrast between the capital investment in power station construction and conservation and point to the £600 million capital investment for Drax B when the Government have just announced a programme of £25 million per annum for the conservation of private domestic properties. When we consider that it is not merely a matter of £600 million but that we must add £1,100 million for two AGRs, one sees just how much capital is being invested in electricity generation.
  The Secretary of State for Energy has received a letter from the Electricity Consumer Council complaining about the price of electricity, drawing attention to the costs implicit in what that body considers to be the over-ordering of plant, and suggesting how much that may have contributed to the higher cost of electricity. Nobody, no matter how enthusiastic a supporter of the electricity industry, could pretend that it has done other than add to electricity costs. One can argue
  1036
  about the difficulties of forecasting demand, but the fact is that that is a heavy surcharge on electricity demand.
  The other issue that arises in regard to Drax is that of coal and the need to provide markets for coal. I have always wondered how valid that argument was, and whether the coming on stream of a 2,000 megawatt modern power station might not put just as much coal-burning capacity out of commission in other sites. I see much more potential for expanding coal markets in the European dimension to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred. I hope that the Secretary of State has rather greater success in his next meeting on that important issue for the British coal industry.
  When we examine what has been embarked upon, we must be conscious of the difficult decisions in energy matters, not least the very long lead times. I was struck by the Secretary of State's remark that it would be impossible for him to contemplate approving an order for an oil-fired power station in the current context of energy thinking. Yet the right hon. Gentleman knows that the next three major power stations that he will receive into the grid on behalf of the nation are the Isle of Grain, Ince B and Inverkip—all oil-fired power stations, but none yet in operation—yet they are to be the next additions in the grid. I do not criticise anybody over that. It is the clearest example of the way in which energy policy considerations can change and the penalty we pay for the very long lead times.
  I think that this is an issue that must be raised in respect of the ordering in terms of Drax because it is an important issue. It is very difficult to see now how we could proceed differently, but we should be aware of the problems that it may well create for us for the future.
  Against that background, it will be clear—not merely to save the Secretary of State the embarrassment of having to hobble into the Lobby—that we shall not divide the House. However, we shall wish to ask some serious questions in Committee both about nuclear safeguards and the compensation question.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I intend to follow closely the remarks of the hon. Member for

  1037
  Bridgwater (Mr. King) and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
  I should like to refer to what I describe as the ghost Bill—the 60 clauses or so which are not in front of us today but which are being considered by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. This is a good opportunity to inform the House of the work of the Select Committee, and also to take up one or two points which have already been made.
  Let me deal first with the work of Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). We felt that the White Paper on electricity containing the draft electricity Bill provided a unique opportunity. In normal times a Select Committee of this House whose Members wished to examine legislation through a series of hearings with those concerned with the legislation no doubt would be accused of all manner of heinous crimes—not least of obstructing and delaying the work of the Government, preventing vital legislation being enacted, and so on.
  However, as this bucket of opprobrium has already been voluntarily acquired by the Liberal Party, the Select Committee was not put in a position of having to face such difficulties. Therefore, for the first time, so far as I am aware, a Select Committee of this House is examining legislation in a pre-legislative series of hearings. It is an interesting experiment. It is encouraging that my right hon. Friend has welcomed this process, that Opposition Members are playing an active part in that development, and that it has been widely welcomed outside the House.
  I cannot yet inform the House of the outcome of our proceedings because we have not yet arrived at any conclusions, but it appears to me that there are a number of possibilities—not least that we shall be able to suggest to a future Standing Committee a number of amendments to the Bill which appear to command a general level of support. Furthermore, I believe that it will also become clear—and I regard this as the most important aspect of our activities—exactly who thinks what about the Bill. Those concerned will have said so in public before us and they will have been questioned about their views.
  1038
  I do not intend to pursue this line very far, and I shall shortly return to the Bill, but I hope that in two or three sentences I may trespass on the good nature of the Chair in explaining the situation. I believe that this represents a most important development in getting the discussion of legislation away from the "horse trading" in Whitehall where, whatever compromise is arrived at, everyone concerned then has a vested interest in defending it in this House. The former Sir Douglas Allen said at a recent meeting which I attended that the job of a Minister is to deliver the political majority for whatever compromise has been arrived at. That is a process which has rendered our Standing Committee proceedings extremely unsatisfactory and a frustrating process for many years. Through the pre-legislative process we can get that discussion out in the open. I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appears to be agreeing with that comment, as does the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) on the Liberal Bench.
  One thing we have discovered in the course of our inquiries in the Select Committee is that there seems to be a considerable lack of support among Liberal Members and representatives with whom we talk and correspond on the position adopted by the Liberal Party on the Bill. I understand that in February Lord Avebury resigned his position as energy spokesman rather than pursue the line being taken by the hon. Member for Truro. No doubt that is how the hon. Gentleman arrived in his present position today.
  I see that my right hon. Friend is nodding and smiling, but we have not much comfort for him in that it seems that there is a remarkable lack of agreement with some of the proposals that he wishes to put forward. We shall have to see how we progress and what sort of report we ultimately make.
  Mr. Benn: There is a conflict about what was said by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who complains that I did not sew it all up with the industry and the unions.
  Mr. Tom King: I did not talk about sewing anything up.
  Mr. Benn: Then I withdraw the phrase "sew up" and substitute the word "consult". The hon. Gentleman's point was

  1039
  that this should have all been brought out in consultation with the industry before the Bill was published. That was in contrast to the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), with which I have a great deal of sympathy, that in the consultative process Parliament has a prime role and not a secondary role. That provocative phrase of Sir Douglas Allen, as he then was, that the Minister is expected to deliver the parliamentary majority for the deal which has been arrived at beforehand is offensive to me, and also no doubt to the House. If the Select Committee permits these discussions to be held in the open, it will be to the greater good of the industry. That is not how we thought it would work out, but it is a very good way of handling these proposals.
  Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments. We shall proceed with our deliberations and see what happens. As a Back Bencher, I shall be interested to see whether we shall arrive at proper pre-legislative hearings, and, if we do, I wonder whether the Opposition or those who occupy the Government Benches, who now appear to view such a process with enthusiasm, will still do so. I suspect that they will not.
  I wish to deal primarily with Clause 5 of the Bill, for reasons which will be obvious. Let me say a word or two about the importance of the order for the completion of the Drax power station to Tyneside and to the workers at the C.A. Parsons factory at Heaton in my constituency. C.A. Parsons has a long and proud tradition in the turbo-generator industry. Its founder invented the turbine process and eventually applied it to electricity generation, having first applied it to the propulsion of ships.
  Just a few months ago, before this matter was resolved, this proud factory was faced with the prospect of imminent disaster. The hon. Member for Bridgwater refrained from any discussion of why that position had been arrived at, and I intend to do the same. We can all take a view on that. There were at Heaton jobs, skills, a proud tradition and a record second to none. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares with me the view that it would have been a tragedy if that had all been cast away
  1040
  thoughtlessly as a result of an almost casual industrial decision in a climate of serious electricity demand recession.
  I can indicate to the House the importance of this order by saying that I think that my right hon. Friend understated it a little. C. A. Parsons at present employs 5,000 workers, about 500 of them supported by the temporary employment subsidy, for which we are very grateful. Had it not been for the Drax B order and the announcement last July of the decision of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, we should now be on the way down to 2,000 workers—indeed, on the way down to a number of people working in the plant which would have rendered it unviable in practical terms. We should be on the way down to a reduction of about 50 per cent. in the United Kingdom's turbogenerator manufactuing capacity. I entirely share the views of my right hon. Friend and the Government, arrived at after this very difficult process of debate and discussion, that that was a situation that could not be contemplated and could not be allowed.
  I now turn—and I speak as a veteran of this argument, too—to the question whether the order is in fact an early one. I find this remarkable. I looked at the matter carefully again over the weekend to make sure that my mind was not playing tricks. I came to the Chamber today to find that once again various pieces of this jigsaw had been shifted around by those who were putting it down on the table.
  When I started in the argument towards the end of 1975, it was about the Drax B power station, which was to be started in 1978, being advanced to 1976. That was the two-year advance that we were talking about at that point in the argument. In order not to deceive the House, I shall quote the exact words in my right hon. Friend's announcement of 18th July last year, when he said:
  "The CEGB had not planned to place an order for the station before 1979".—[Official Report, 18th July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 1150.]
  At that point we were still talking about a two-year advancement, but it was no longer fom 1978 to 1976. It had changed to become from 1979 to 1977. Today my right hon. Friend spoke of 1980, so we are still on a two-year advancement, but this time it is from 1980 to 1978.

  1041
  This leads me to ask a question—I do no more—as to exactly what all this advancing orders business is about and how it can be computed with exactitude. We shall want to return to this in Committee, because on computing this matter with exactitude depends the amount of public money that should be provided to the CEGB in compensation. I share the view of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman that there is no doubt in principle that if the order is advanced the CEGB should be compensated, but the question whether it is advanced, and by how much, is an important one into which the House may wish to inquire further.
  I looked very carefully at three other matters that might explain this. First, the CEGB has said on a number of occasions that it does not need any power stations, such is the desperately low level of electricity demand. It has said that the forward look for electricity demand is such that power stations are things the country can manage without almost for the foreseeable future. I said to myself "That cannot be true, because my right hon. Friend has been under considerable pressure to order two more since he made his announcement last July." I do not argue with that, and nor do the workers in Heaton. They will be glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said today about the way in which work for those stations, too, will be looked at in the context of the need to preserve the capacity in the industry.
  But the CEGB cannot have it both ways. It cannot say "We do not need power stations, and ordering the Drax power station means bringing forward all this capacty that we do not need ", while spending time lobbying, arguing, going to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and making public statements saying "Please order two enormous AGRs." That is not logically consistent. So it cannot be the case that we do not need any power stations.
  The second possible explanation that I considered was that power stations were taking longer to construct. That is true. Indeed, there have been considerable industrial relations difficulties at the Isle of Grain and Ince. I do not think that it is reasonable to place blame on any particular group. We know that the CEGB has done some very good work in
  1042
  trying to co-ordinate industrial relations matters, trying to bring everything together and make it happen better.
  We all know that any construction operation is bedevilled by such problems where different firms with different rates of pay and different sets of differentials are coming together. However, I think that the British industry's record—Mr. England was frank enough to say this at a Select Committee hearing a few weeks ago—is not good on this front. But, if there are problems with power station construction and they are now taking longer to build, because they are more complicated and there are more problems, that is an argument for bringing power stations forward, not for delaying them or putting them off. It is interesting that we talk only about start dates. In order to complete at the required moment it might well be the case that the Drax power station had to be brought forward anyway, if only in order to insure against such problems.
  Thirdly, I asked myself whether it was true that the plummeting of electricity demand was still the same as it was, whether we were still expecting things to be as bad, or whether they had got worse. The answer is provided by my right hon. Friend's own Energy Commission. I quote from Electrical Review of 4th November 1977, which reported on the Energy Commission Paper No. 3 "Short Term Energy Forecasts 1977–78". In the first half of last year electricity sales were
  "running about 4 per cent. above the 1976 level"
  and the Department of Energy was already revising upwards its forecasts of demand and sales for 1978 and 1979. Therefore, it cannot be that electricity demand has got worse in the interim. The prospects appear to be getting marginally better than most of us expected they would.
  Therefore, I simply put the marker down. It does not seem to me that the case has yet been made that the Drax power station is advanced all that much. It is interesting that my right hon. Friend appears in a way to have accepted a formula that we shall say that it has been advanced for two years but shall compensate only for its being advanced by six months. We can pursue that matter in Committee. Perhaps six months

  1043
  rather than two years is the reality of the matter.
  Before I leave the cost point, I should like to ask whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to give an assurance at the end of the debate about the other aspects of the whole business of costs. My right hon. Friend mentioned interest payments, but, as has been mentioned obliquely in the debate so far, bringing the Drax power station on stream early gives other savings. The National Economic Development Office did some sums on this. When inflation was running much faster than it is now, it said that bringing forward the order for Drax would make a saving and not be a cost at all.
  There are savings on construction costs the earlier one brings forward a station, particularly when inflation is running at a high rate. There will also be savings in coal burn and reduction in the use of the more expensive and obsolescent power stations when the Drax power station comes on stream. May we be assured that those savings will be taken into the calculations as well?
  Although there has been some oblique criticism from the Opposition over my right hon. Friend's bringing the Bill forward in the way that he has, in my view he is behaving much more properly than the Conservatives did in 1971 and 1972. In the Electricity Act 1972, the product of the Barber announcements of 1971 that certain capital projects would be advanced to help the regions and help with the problem of unemployment, some of the reasons why this power station is being advanced, if it is being advanced, the amount of money to be used to compensate the CEGB for Ince was specifically not included. Indeed, it was not until this Government's Energy Act in 1976, when the outcome of advancing Ince had become clear, that a sum of money was allocated. It was then provided for and paid to the CEGB.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman has got that precisely wrong. It was in the Industry Act 1972, and the amount in the Energy Act was a supplementary payment to take account of inflation under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Thomas: I shall not quibble on the precise details. The fact is that the final amount was not settled until several years after the original decision had been taken. That is because it is not possible to say, as we stand here on 24th April 1978, with a power station hardly begun, hardly the smallest pieces ordered, what the ultimate compensation costs, if any, are likely to be. My right hon. Friend has been rather more straightforward on this than his predecessors.
  I turn to the question whether a power station should have been ordered in the absence of restructuring. I do not want to make a comment on the events of April to July 1977, but I owe it to my constituents and the management of C.A. Parsons to get one or two things on the record. The first thing I should say clearly, as I said on 17th July last year, is that neither the workers nor the management in C.A. Parsons were against restructuring on terms which properly protected their interests. I should also put it on record that at one point in the proceedings it was the case that my constituents, trade unions and the C.A. Parsons management, were prepared to accept a company in which they had only a 25 per cent. stake as long as the NEB held a 25 per cent. share and there was an independent chairman of the company.
  That arrangement was far and away different from the 40–40–20 arrangement which had originally been discussed and was eventually not acceptable to other parties involved. To ask a company to go any further than that in this type of discussion would have been entirely wrong and unacceptable. In the circumstances the decision taken by the Government was the only one that they could take. I make no pretence, nor do any of my hon. Friends who were involved—nor did my right hon. Friend today—that it was necessarily the best decision but it was the best available decision.
  The future is certainly still open. I hope that we shall not enter into any new uncertainty about restructuring. I believe that it is profoundly damaging to have such uncertainty. I share the view of the hon. Member for Bridgwater in this respect. I hope that we shall be realistic about the degree to which the technologies of the two companies in the turbo-generating sphere are compatible. It is

  1045
  not possible simply to amalgamate turbo-generator technology, as if it was all one and the same thing, like different sets of Lego to be put in the same box. It is not like that.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: While I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether he would not agree that there is a great need for the standardisation of design of turbo-alternator sets in this country?
  Mr. Thomas: I could not possibly disagree with that as a general sentiment. All that I am asking—and I know that my hon. Friend will agree—is that no one should say that amalgamation would be easy, that it can be done overnight. No one should say that we should pick up what we have at the moment, put it all together and make it work. I know that that is not possible. Some of the discussions that we have had about this matter seemed to contain the implicit assumption that such a thing was possible.
  I deal now with the importance of exports. Over the next few years the industry will have to survive with about half of its work—possibly as much as two-thirds—coming from export orders. The state of the world market is not markedly better than it was six or nine months ago. I hope that it will be better in the 1980s and we know that electricity demand is increasing once more. That is a hopeful sign. I hope that we shall be beyond the seven gigowatts to eight gigowatts a year of new orders from early in the 1980s. No one can be sure. Everyone at C. A. Parsons has been glad to see some of the export orders from abroad coming to Britain. Not enough credit has been given to my right hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Industry and for Trade. I was glad to see the China light and power order coming to GEC. That is very positive news. There was never any prospect of C. A. Parsons getting that order.
  I hope that when we are bidding in markets in which we are favoured—India is one that comes to mind—the Government will help us and give us that sort of support. I am sure that on past experience they will do so. Export assistance is critical because it is received in substantial measure by all of our
  1046
  competitors abroad. Unless we can meet the terms that they are able to get out of their Governments concerning export assistance, financing, interest payments and the rest, we shall not be able to compete in world markets, no matter how good our turbo-generators are, or, looking at the other half of Drax, how good our boilerwork is.
  May I ask the Under-Secretary to say a little more than the Secretary of State on this question of steady ordering? We have discussed this matter in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries with the industries concerned, with Sir Francis Tombs and Mr. Glyn England. We now know that even if we count the Drax 2,000 megawatts as 1978 and the two AGRs as spreading over 1979–80, even on the minimal proposals for a 2,000 megawatt steady ordering programme, we shall run into difficulties again by 1980–81–82 even if there is at that point, and we do not know this, a PWR order knocking about.
  Can we have a further indication about the next coal-fired station which, it seems, ought to be ready to come on stream at about that point? Can we also have a commitment from the Under-Secretary on the spares and maintenance and refurbishing front? There is a lot of work that could be reasonably carried out on a cost-effective basis. Exactly the same son of policy is being pursued by the Government in the steel industry, making useful improvements in efficiency by small investments in refurbishing. More of these kinds of things could be done.
  I was delighted to hear much of what the hon. Member for Bridgwater said today although, in another way, I was a little disappointed. I spent most of the weekend reading carefully the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and the words of his noble Friend, Lord Barber, as well as a number of other people involved in the Ince affair. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not come here today and say that there was something wrong in principle with what the Government were doing. I could have quoted in every instance at least a paragraph or two which would have shown clearly that his party, when in power, took precisely this view in what were similar circumstances. It is nice to be here today and to be able to

  1047
  say that we hope to see no hypocrisy in the House tonight.
  5.27 p.m.
  Sir William Elliott: I am more than pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas). Quite obviously, we have a mutual concern with regard to that part of the Bill affecting employment in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne and upon Tyneside as a whole to a considerable degree. I very much agree with the Secretary of State's phrase towards the end of his speech to the effect that Clause 5 of this Bill sounds a note of confidence for the North-East. It is a very welcome note.
  I also suggest to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that his own efforts and those of many Members of his party, inside this House and outside it, have been considerable. I am in full agreement with him that in principle there is no difference between us in that there is an established precedent with regard to Ince B. The fact that we are not to vote against this Bill tonight gives me pleasure. It does so because of the promise of employment and the maintenance of skill which the Bill holds out for my area. I feel that the same thing will also be said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) should she catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I say this to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. It has not only been the leaders of the local Labour Party who have campaigned for the completion of Drax B. I was shown a letter this weekend which slightly surprised me, although I fully accept that it was perfectly legitimate. It was from the leader of the Labour Party on the Newcastle City Council. He was writing to the trade unionists employed in C. A. Parsons, encouraging them to work for Labour candidates in the local elections because of the considerable efforts of the Labour Party in obtaining the Drax B continuance decision. May I suggest to the hon. Member that the leader of the Conservative Party on the city council might well send a similar letter since the hon. Member and I have been at one in our desires over this project.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but I wonder whether he is telling the House that, if we had a Conservative Government placed in the same position as are my right hon. Friends, we should have arrived at the same and the right decision. I suspect not.
  Sir W. Elliott: As I have said, a precedent has been established. But I think that I can best answer the hon. Gentleman by continuing with what I have to say. I admit at once that I shall not say as much as I had in mind to say since the hon. Gentleman himself has made quite a number of the points I wished to make.
  I noted the hon. Gentleman's views on the future handling of legislation—speaking as he did as a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries—and I found them very interesting. I thought, however—returning to the Bill—that he was arguing against himself somewhat when he said that no sum was mentioned with regard to compensation to the board in the Ince B circumstance and at the same time suggested that perhaps the wrong sum was being mentioned—now because of the question of timing. It is feasible enough to argue the complication of construction as being a ground for bringing forward rather than delaying decisions, but the economic arguments are the main arguments.
  In company with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, I argue that there is considerable danger in the suggestion that we have too many power stations, or that we shall have too many power stations in the future. This will, of course, always be debatable. It will always be arguable, and, no doubt, it will be argued during our debate today. But there are suggestions that we could be running short of natural gas in 1990, and there are suggestions that we could be short also of North Sea oil.
  I put this question especially to the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply, and I put it as someone who comes from a coal-mining area, having known coal mining all my life. How long will deep mining of coal be socially acceptable? Will it continue to be socially acceptable beyond the end of the century?

  1049
  In other words, it might be folly to neglect our electrical power industry. As a leader of the power industry suggested to me not many days ago, it might be folly to allow our power garden to become overgrown with weeds.
  Therefore, as a Member from the North-East of England, I particularly welcome the provision in Clause 5 of £50 million compensation for the second stage of Drax B. Nevertheless, it is important to have properly understood that, because of the straight employment consequences, it would have been more than tragic, as the hon. Gentleman said, if the firm of C. A. Parsons had been drastically reduced in size, probably going out of existence altogether.
  This sector of our industry is located in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but, of course, it employs people from a much wider area, and we have in Parsons a remarkable concentration of skill. I have known this firm for many years, I have recently visited the works. It would be tragic and dangerous if that great concentration of skill were lost for ever.
  We are for ever talking of our shortage of skill in the North-East and of the need to train for skill. Many times in debates on regional development, on the problems of the Northern area and on unemployment, I have advocated that more firms should look more carefully at their own activities in training for skill.
  The firm of C. A. Parsons has a proud and wonderful record in training for skill. Indeed, no less than 40 per cent. of its work force, a work force of considerable size, today has some form of technical training.
  There has already been reference to the CPRS report, and here again I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. Both management and men in C.A. Parsons have never objected to the idea of a merger and have never regarded a merger as undesirable. In fact, from the beginning of the argument they have accepted that a merger might be desirable, and they have even accepted that a certain amount of redundancy among their own work force might be inevitable.
  However—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will again agree with me—I have always considered that a forced merger has never been desirable and that
  1050
  union insistence on NEB control could do nothing but bring inevitable delay. I am referring, of course, to the Scarborough conference when the unions suggested that there should essentially and inevitably be NEB control of an amalgamated concern.
  The all-important need for the North-East remains that the turbo-generator industry should be maintained over the next few difficult years so that full advantage of an indigenous industry may be taken when world trade picks up. I believe that it is picking up. I believe that there is considerable merit in the suggestion made by the Parsons management that whatever employment and orders it can obtain nationally can be matched just about equally with export opportunities which Parsons can thereby gain.
  I have argued many times that the North-East must help itself, a great deal more than it has done thus far. We have been inclined to do too much complaining and not enough to help ourselves. Essentially, regional policy must always be designed to bring an area such as ours into economic balance with the rest of the country. That is how I have always seen regional policy, and that is how I have always attempted to develop it.
  Such inter-union disputes as we have known recently in other industries—whether in Swan Hunter or in the Seal Sands dispute—have done a great deal of harm, and they were very badly timed for the interests of employment and the prosperity of the North-East as a whole.
  C. A. Parsons is helping the North-East and is helping the nation at this time. I believe that, through the passage of the Bill and as a result of being given the go-ahead some time ago on stage 2 of Drax B. this great firm has a launching platform for considerable export orders which will benefit our region and our nation well. I therefore wish the firm—and certainly the Bill—every success.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: As has already been said, the Bill is the rump or relic of a much larger Bill which many of us—perhaps most of us interested in these matters—were anxious to see, a Bill urgently needed for the restructuring of the electricity industry.

  1051

  The pity of it is that this is the second failure in the past decade. There was an attempt in 1970 to alter the 1958 Act, but that attempt failed because of the intervention of the General Election. It is a great pity, therefore, that there should have been this second failure.
  I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I thought that he was altogether too harsh on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has joined the widening circle of readers of the Electrical Power Engineer. that famous journal. I edited it for 25 years, so I know it well.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Bridgwater should have made quite such a song and dance about the inclusion of manufacturing powers in the Bill. I know that he quoted my general secretary—like all good trade unionists, I pay attention to what my general secretary says and writes—but there is nothing particularly novel about electricity supply undertakings having residual manufacturing powers. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that under Conservative legislation still in force the CEGB has certain residual manufacturing powers. Certainly, before nationalisation some of the large power companies which had been set up under Private Acts had the right to manufacture in some circumstances. I do not think that that was a particularly controversial matter to be included in the legislation that never was, so to speak.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman will know that I made that reference because the Secretary of State made such a point that all this delay had arisen because he had had to have such full consultation. Although there were a number of interventions, I think it will be accepted that we did not have an answer why there had not been consultation on that particular point. I was interested to see that the general secretary of the hon. Gentleman's union made the point of specifically mentioning manufacturing powers. He said that these had never been asked for and that the union would be opposed to it.
  Mr. Palmer: I am not doubting that. The electricity supply unions, of course, are not always so directly concerned in
  1052
  these matters. Certainly the supply unions did not ask for it. Whether the unions more engaged in the manufacturing industry have a point of view on it, I do not know. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He was citing this as an example of what had gone on in those consultations.
  My own view is that, if anything, my right hon. Friend tried much too hard outside this House to get general agreement before presenting this legislation. Perhaps if there had been rather less effort to obtain consensus outside this House, we should have made better progress in the end.
  I think that the Government, after the Plowden Report, should have made up their minds fairly quickly what they proposed to do about the report and presented their ideas to Parliament in the form of a White Paper. Then the House could have had the opportunity for a general debate on the White Paper. After that, once the Government had had time for reflection, consultations should have started in earnest with the outside organisations. I believe that Parliament should always come first in these matters. That is why I welcome very much the work that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is now doing in establishing a pre-legislative stage. We did at one time have debates on White Papers on the Floor of the House preceding the presentation of a Bill. If I may say so with my usual modesty, I have advocated that course on several occasions since Plowden but no one seemed to pay much attention.
  The first part of the Bill deals with international nuclear inspection. There are those who take the view, as I do, that energy use in the world as a whole will continue to grow. It may be modified somewhat, perhaps, but not greatly, by conservation and the so-called benign sources, if they prove to be practicable. My view is that, in spite of that modification, the total installed nuclear capacity in the world will grow in proportion to general energy advance.
  There is also the view—I know that some of my hon. Friends and other Members take it—that perhaps the installed nuclear capacity in the world, because of alleged risks and dangers, will arrive at its all time maximum and that then the curve of growth will flatten out, and that

  1053
  the gap will be filled by the other alternative sources.
  Whether people take my view or the second view, I think we can all unite on the need for maximum safety and for the strict control of radioactive substances in all their forms. As these radioactive substances—highly dangerous, I agree, in some circumstances—have a military use, the control of nuclear plants of all kinds must inevitably be intimately bound up with international politics. It is important that the control and inspection should be international, and I therefore welcome the first part of the Bill.
  Although there may be a flattening out in the growth of nuclear capacity, the fact has to be faced that the number of reactors in the world is rising fast. In 1960 there were fewer than a dozen altogether in the world. Since that time the number of reactors has risen to 500. Most of them are for power production, electricity production, and the number of countries possessing reactors has grown from five in 1960 to 30 at the present time. Nuclear development is obviously proceeding apace for the present at least.
  What is happening to the spent fuel in these reactors which are now dotted across the globe? In many cases—perhaps in most cases—the spent fuel is being left at the ponds at the power stations and is not being reprocessed, as in the United Kingdom. In other words, it is just a once-through cycle. It is for this reason that some people argue that the spent fuel is best left where it is, as the plutonium is then for the time being virtually inacessible, and that is perhaps the safest way of dealing with it. That must be substantially the argument of President Carter's advisers.
  But, of course, radioactivity decays and the dispersed plutonium, in time, becomes much more accessible. I think the risk there is that with the growth of the number of reactors in the world, we are creating a considerable number of points at which potentially dangerous spent fuel is available.
  Mr. Forman: With regard to the once-through cycle, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very learned lecture by Dr. Walter Marshall which appeared in a recent issue of "Atom", in which he said that the once-through cycle and storage policy has attractions from the
  1054
  non-proliferation point of view, and went on to say how much he hoped that these attractions would be seriously examined in the course of the international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation?
  Mr. Palmer: I was about to say that I was hoping that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have read or are about to read Dr. Marshall's paper. I have read it, as has the hon. Gentleman. It was the Graham Young Lecture, was it not?
  Mr. Forman: Yes.
  Mr. Palmer: I agree that it is a very fair survey of the whole position. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that Dr. Marshall made the principal point that the real issue is not always so much reprocessing as such but the recording, collection and the control of the plutonium sources. Dr. Marshall is, of course, not only an eminent scientist. He used to be the chief scientist in the Department of Energy and is now deputy chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. In his lecture he went on to make an extremely constructive recommendation. He argued for a limited number of international centres for reprocessing and plutonium recovery. He suggests that this would make for tighter control and make effective international inspection much simpler. Therefore, I wonder whether the Ministry agrees or disagrees with Dr. Marshall, or does it feel that the idea is too Utopian or impractical? If the idea has a real future it drops what is happening at Windscale into a much wider international perspective.
  I turn to the second part of the Bill. As the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, the decision to bring forward Drax B and the Government's decision to approve the construction of the station was preceded by considerable debate about the organisation, efficiency and capacity of the electrical plant manufacturing industry.
  It is no secret that the electricity supply industry itself—and the generating boards in particular, which are the principal purchasers of home market equipment—is dissatisfied both with the present organisation of the manufacturing side of the industry and with its performance. After all, there is a margin of

  1055
  generating plant and of installed capacity over maximum demand. That will not last for ever, and it is already shrinking. This is a golden opportunity for the electricity supply industry to get rid of some of its out-of-date plant, and to advance the combustion efficiency of the British system.
  The question of the performance of the manufacturing side is of great importance to the supply side. The truth is that the poor performance of large sets has led the CEGB to lower its future forecasts for the winter availability of generating plant. One can put into a single large machine the entire capacity of a pre-war generating station. The generating capacity of Battersea is about 500 megawatts. There is now a single machine planned with a capacity of 600 megawatts. To lose a generating machine of that size is no light matter.
  It could be argued that we should not have moved so quickly to these large sets. But if anything the tendency in the United States and the rest of the world is to advance to even larger sets. If the British industry is to compete these large sets must be made for the home market as well.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that in America and other parts of the world standardisation of 800, 1,200 and even 1,300 megawatt sets is not uncommon although the love affair with the very big sets is starting to come to an end? Certainly to compete in foreign markets we must have a good 660 megawatt set standardised and working abroad, which both British companies have done. This is of immense importance. If we were to go smaller we would restrict our opportunities enormously.
  Mr. Palmer: I agree with my hon. Friend. As members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology are aware, when we were looking at the question of the choice of reactor and listening to the arguments put forward—by the CEGB principally—for the American light water reactor, the board was able to bring forward costs that were very favourable to that reactor, but on the assumption that they would be combined with 900 megawatt generating sets.
  1056
  With this tremendous concentration of so much electric power in one machine, obviously the question of reliability is of utmost importance. It cannot be more important. It is the view of the supply side that the problem of poor availability of some of these large sets, which have given a great deal of trouble, stems partly from the use of varying designs from separate manufacturers.
  Some progress has been made in rationalisation of the heavy plant manufacturing industry, but there is still a need for the turbo-alternator companies to rationalise their designs. Certainly the CEGB and the South of Scotland Board hoped that Drax B and the reasonable request of the Government that the CEGB should bring forward the construction of that station would provide a lever making towards reorganisation. But at the end the question of immediate employment took supremacy.
  I make this plea. The electricity supply industry is tied to British manufacturers. There has always been a great difference in practice between the relationship of the electricity supply industry with its constructors and that of the airline industry—again a nationalised industry—and its suppliers.
  British Airways thinks very little of buying aircraft from the United States but the CEGB would hesitate—in fact it has never been known—to buy plant from outside this country, even if ours is not up to standard. Why there should be any difference between the atmosphere and outlook of these two nationalised industries I do not fully understand.
  If it is the view of successive Governments that the nationalised electricity supply industry in this country should stick to British manufacturers, there is a big obligation on British manufacturers to see that their plant does come up to the best international standards. If little could be done at a time when some of us thought there was an opportunity—at the time of the Drax B decision—then the question of organisation of the manufacturing side becomes even more urgent in future—particularly in relation to the nuclear stations.
  It is no secret that GEC is anxious to loosen its hold on the Nuclear Power Corporation. Some of us thought that it should never have been given such a

  1057
  hold. To be granted without much argument the management contract was indeed an extraordinary business. The Select Committee on Science and Technology whose reports are read, even by the Government, pointed this out and said that if GEC did, at some stage, wish to withdraw or withdraw in part because return on capital was not good enough, we might be left with a financial structure difficult to hold together.
  I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what would happen when GEC pulled out in part. Would this mean that there would be a larger State holding, or that other manufacturing companies would be enticed in? I also asked whether the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation is the best that can be obtained. I am very doubtful if this is so. One of the weaknesses in the present system—and I hope that this is receiving attention—is that since the establishment of the National Nuclear Corporation, there has been no true direct consumer-contractor relationship.
  When designs were being obtained for the ill-fated steam generating heavy water reactor, it was not the generating boards that placed the orders with the corporation, but the Atomic Energy Authority. In the future construction of nuclear power stations—and this applies also in part to coal-fired stations—we need to move back to a system that gives a direct relationship between those who buy and operate the plant and those who design and make it. There should not be so many middlemen. Certainly the AEA should revert to being more of a research organisation and less of a design-management organisation.
  6.1 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I start by declaring my interest in this subject, which is duly recorded.
  I do not intend to follow the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who spoke with his usual expertise. We always listen with attention to the hon. Gentleman.
  I am glad that we have this mini-Bill because the major Bill to which the Secretary of State referred would have been of considerable controversy and might have delayed many matters in areas where we want to see progress. In
  1058
  supporting the Bill, I am particularly concerned with Clause 5 and its wider implications for the future.
  I cannot but reflect that I do not know the views of the Central Electricity Generating Board in terms of need. The evidence of the last few years is so conflicting that the onlooker is left uncertain about the extent of the need and about the question of timing with which I am particularly concerned.
  The sentence in Clause 5 to the effect that Drax B is being started earlier than it would otherwise have been was referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who drew attention to the fact that it is extremely difficult for most hon. Members to judge which two years are referred to in relation to the two-year early ordering. The terms of cash recompense in the Bill suggest to me that a compromise has been reached and that we are talking about a very much shorter period than the often-mentioned two years.
  My concern is about the timing of the order because, from the manufacturers' point of view, the fact that the order is being made solves only a small part of the solution to the continuing problem before us. If we must assume the lower rate of economic growth forecast in the Green Paper of February 1978, Annexe 1, the average ordering requirement is 2,800 megawatts a year. The CPRS and the Government have accepted 2,000 megawatts a year as roughly the annual requirement.
  It has been insufficiently emphasised so far that the Drax order is equal to only one year's requirement in those terms. We must emphasise to Ministers that we are dealing with only a minuscule part of the great problem facing them and successive future Governments.
  This is the first new order for more than three years. We must reflect that the average ordering over the previous decade was for about 2,000 megawatts a year. The strong political point that must be made is that this is a grave indictment of the total stagnation of our economy in recent years.
  The current position in the United Kingdom boilermaking industry is that the labour force has an output capability of 2,400 megawatts a year, but it has not been sufficiently emphasised that about 1,000 megawatts of that annual capacity

  1059
  now is on export work. This is a very high proportion in an industry in which we are looking forward to increased export orders, partly as a result of the Bill.
  I was pleased to hear reference being made to the China light and power order, which will make a great difference to boilermakers and to the turbo-generating industry. It is a good example of a major order being secured in the face of considerable competition and it illustrates the capacity of the British industry to gain such orders. By the end of this year, there will be very little work left to be done on home orders. For that reason, every day's delay on the Drax B order, for any reason, will widen that crucial gap.
  The CPRS report recommended mergers, but this matter is well advanced in the boilermaking industry and I am sorry that reference has not been made to this fact. The two firms concerned are in areas of high unemployment. The work force, rightly, expects to operate the merger without serious redundancies. There has been general agreement and undertakings have been given.
  The industry is aware that, by its very nature, it cannot work at half cock. It cannot drop half its work force today, let the rest get on with their jobs and expect to build a power station next year. We have to contemplate an industry which has to work at peak load in order to get its capacity to match home requirement and export potential.
  There is in the industry the skill and the know-how and, particularly important, the will in this highly specialised area. The job of hon. Members and the Government is to encourage consumers and the generating boards, as the middlemen, to hold a work force that is capable of building generating stations.
  It is sometimes forgotten that the part of the work in which the boilermaking industry is interested arising from this Bill is worth about £200 million in cash terms. In employment terms, those of us who live in areas of high unemployment know what a significant factor a sum of that order can be.
  It is wise to look at the Bill, and especially Clause 5, in the light of the alternatives that may face the industry
  1060
  unless subsequent orders are given. Although we are considering, in effect, a reprieve for the industry, we have to look to the future and resolve that the industry shall continue, because it has a useful, indeed essential, role in this country and because it has been shown to have considerable export potential. If manufacturing plants close, we shall lose the export content and the know-how and we shall have to buy from abroad ourselves.
  Are we seriously to consider putting the power generating industry into a situation where, unlike British Airways which still has a choice, it will have no choice, but will have to buy abroad? That would be totally unacceptable to the majority of people in this country, irrespective of their political views or their personal involvement in the industry. We have to consider that as a major factor in future and ally with it the fact that we have to repair and maintain existing power stations. I very much doubt whether that expertise would be available to us if we no longer had the manufacturing capacity. Therefore, we have every reason to wish to hold a work force that is as skilled and responsible as any in the country.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) said how important a contribution the industry makes to apprenticeships. I know that a firm which for many years was in my constituency but which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has made a considerable contribution and has excellent liaison with Paisley Technical Training College.
  The alternative is that we must consider bringing forward orders. That is what the Bill is about. However, there are other theories with which we in Scotland are blessed or cursed. There are those who look to the future exclusively in terms of wind and waves. They seem to think that power from those sources will become a reality within the timescale of need. Even the most eager expert appears to put the date at 1984. There are other experts with much experience who would put the date a great many years after that.
  It seems that many who seek power from the wind and waves regard it as manna from heaven that will fall and

  1061
  bless us all. A curious feature is that few of them believe in Heaven. It seems that they are sometimes rather confused, but that is by the way. I do not believe that wind and waves will fill a gap in electricity generating. We had better look to the future in more realistic terms. I should be glad to think that I shall live in the era of wind and wave power, but I am pretty sure that I shall not. Therefore, the gap between now and when that happy day comes is vital to the industry and vital to the future of our industrial capacity.
  We must look to a forward ordering programme that makes sense as the basis for supporting the industry. In addition, we must take a much bolder step. I have no intention of going into the pros and cons, but we must take quickly the bolder step of ordering the fast breeder reactor. The two decisions should be made without delay. They will have to be accepted by both sides of the House. Today we can take only the modest step of supporting the Bill.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I shall concentrate my remarks on the first four clauses. I have no intention of entering into the argument about Drax, important though that is.
  The first four clauses deal with a matter that in a sense goes way beyond energy questions and electricity generation and impinges on foreign policy and our relations with other countries. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy said, the Bill derives from our accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force on 5th March 1970. The treaty has been ratified by 102 countries, although two of the nuclear weapon States, France and China, have not acceded to it. France has agreed to observe its provisions in practice.
  Over and above the countries that have formally signed and ratified the treaty there are many others to which the safeguards apply. The major exceptions are Israel, South Africa, India and Spain. Those who are always anxious to tell us what a splendid freedom-loving democracy Israel is in the Middle East might sometimes encourage that country to accede to the treaty. Equally, those who are so often apologising for South Africa
  1062
  might likewise encourage the South African Government to observe the safeguards that are spelled out in the treaty.
  The treaty poses a fundamental problem. I find within it a contradiction that I do not see how we can resolve. In the first place, it provides essentially that the nuclear weapon States shall not transfer to other States nuclear weapons or material for making nuclear weapons either directly or indirectly. In laying down a fundamental principle the treaty states:
  "The inalienable right of all the parties to the treaty to develop research production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination".
  The problem that faces the United Kingdom and other countries is that nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand. There is no way of saying that there is not a danger in the production and development of nuclear weapons if any country proceeds along the line of developing nuclear power. There is a fundamental problem. There is no inherent wickedness about it. It is a difficulty that the world faced, for example, when the aircraft was invented and developed. There was no way of countries developing civil aircraft without at the same time developing the technology of the bomber and fighter, with all the developments from that. I suspect that we have a comparable problem in nuclear power.
  Mr. Palmer: I do not disagree very much with the general trend of my hon. Friend's argument. However, is it not true that the United Kingdom had the nuclear bomb before it had a nuclear power station?
  Mr. Hooley: It is true that we may never have had any civil nuclear power if we had not developed the nuclear bomb. That is the point that I am making. The two things go hand in hand. I am not certain whether we would ever have spent hundreds of millions of pounds and billions of scientific and engineering manpower hours on developing nuclear electricity if we had not originally, for military purposes, developed the technique of nuclear fission. What my hon. Friend says does not contradict my general argument that the two matters go hand in hand. It is difficult to see how they can be separated.

  1063
  The director general of the International Atomic Energy Authority, Dr. Siguard Eklund, made a speech to the British Nuclear Society on 8th December 1977 in which he said:
  "Proliferation can be prevented only by political consensus translated into legal agreements."
  In other words, we can have the nuclear power system, the development of nuclear power and all the concomitant technology that goes with it, and we can forestall or prevent the danger of nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons by what he describes as nuclear agreements—the sort of matter that we are discussing.
  I have no opposition to the Bill and no opposition to the agreement that we are, in effect, ratifying or putting into effect by the Bill. However, I very much doubt the basic validity of the argument that Dr. Eklund puts forward. I believe that it will not be possible effectively to prevent many countries from obtaining nuclear weapons if there is a general desire to go along the road of nuclear fission to satisfy the world's energy needs.
  Despite Dr. Eklund's claim about the validity of legal agreements, unfortunately the safeguards of the non-proliferation treaty did not prevent India from producing an atomic explosion. Whether it is an effective bomb, we are not sure. I doubt whether the safeguards would prevent a bomb from being produced by Israel or South Africa in due course if those countries put their minds to it.
  My view is that we must provide the world with alternative energy systems and lure countries away from what Flowers called the Faustian bargain of a plutonium economy. So long as we insist that we depend on nuclear power, the offshoot of nuclear weapons will continue. So long as nuclear technology looms large in our economy and begins to loom large in the economies of other countries, inevitably that technology will lead to the production of the terribly dangerous substance plutonium, and that in turn will lead to nuclear weapons and the greater danger of nuclear war.
  But we are stuck with a situation in which civil nuclear programmes exist. We have a programme of our own and
  1064
  other countries have comparable programmes. Therefore, such safeguards as exist through the non-proliferation treaty clearly must be taken seriously by this country and by other countries.
  I want to comment briefly on Cmnd. 6730, which is the text of the agreement that the Bill seeks to put into effect. The House should be aware that the Bill is in many ways an enabling piece of legislation. Presumably a vast number of orders will be laid before the House in due course to cover all the details. How far we are to have effective parliamentary scrutiny over this matter remains to be seen, even if, as I expect, in due course we enact the Bill.
  Article 5(a) of the agreement provides that there shall be no obstacle to the
  "international exchange of nuclear material".
  In other words, according to the terms of the agreement, it would be perfectly proper for this country to shift nuclear materials to Japan if the Windscale exercise were to come into being. I wonder whether this is a wise provision. I should have thought that, on the part of the International Atomic Energy Agency, there might reasonably have been some specific safeguards or limitations on the transport of fissile material from one country to another. But Article 5 seems positively to encourage international traffic in this material. I wonder whether that is wise.
  Articles 8 and 42 to 45 provide that the International Atomic Energy Agency shall be given design information about facilities concerned with the processing or manufacture of nuclear materials. Will this cover the Windscale operation and the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant, if it is ever built? Has the design at Windscale been cleared with the Agency?
  Article 42 specifically provides that
  "in the case of a new facility or part thereof, such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into that facility or part."
  I take it that the oxide reprocessing plant at Windscale is regarded as a new facility. Has that been cleared with the IAEA? If so, at what stage will it be done and will Parliament be informed about it?
  Article 14 talks about the possibility of the withdrawal of nuclear material "for national security reasons", given due

  1065
  notice to the Community and to the Agency. That is the withdrawal of nuclear material from the civil programme. If that is done, what checks, if any, on the use of that material then exist? If we notify the Agency that we are withdrawing so many kilogrammes of fissile material, enriched uranium, plutonium or whatever from our programme, is that the end of it? Does it have any possibility of checking what happens to it? Can we ship it off to South Africa and to Israel and let them use it, because those countries are not parties to the treaty?
  In particular, will Parliament be told in detail or in general terms whether this has been done? Shall we ever know whether material has been diverted specifically from the civil programme to other use? The agreement as such permits that. Since it permits it, presumably Her Majesty's Government could at some stage do that. I should be interested to know whether, in addition to the agency, the House would be informed of the reasons for it.
  Article 25(b) raises a somewhat different and curious point on which I should like some enlightenment. Part of it reads:
  "any party to this Agreement"—
  there are three: the United Kingdom, the European Community and the agency—
  "may, upon giving six months' notice to the other parties, terminate this Agreement if after consultation with them that party considers that the purpose for which this Agreement was intended can no longer be served. Termination of this Agreement in accordance with this paragraph shall be effective for, and as between, all parties to this Agreement."
  Does that mean that the European Community could take a decision to terminate the agreement—a decision which would then be binding on the United Kingdom? In other words, could we, as it were, be overruled by the Community as regards our adherence to this agreement and its effectiveness? If I read that article correctly, if for some reason the Community decided to withdraw from or to cease to observe the agreement with the agency, automatically our adherence to it would also fall. I should be interested to know whether that is correct.
  1066
  Article 76(d) provides:
  "In the event of the United Kingdom or the Community concluding that any unusual circumstances require extended limitations on access by the Agency"—
  that is, in its role as inspector—we can apply such limitations, presumably unilaterally. That again is a curious provision. Does it mean that the Community could decide separately that such limitations should be imposed? Presumably it means that we can decide unilaterally, if we wish, that the rights of the agency to inspect certain facilities—for example, at Windscale or elsewhere—should be limited, abrogated or undermined. If that happens, will Parliament be told about it? Will the House be informed that we no longer wish the agency to have access to Windscale or wherever and that, therefore, we have withdrawn the facilities from the inspectors and do not propose to allow them any further to have access to the plant?
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is raising a very interesting matter. Is not the answer to his question basically that the United Kingdom is volunteering to be bound by this treaty, and therefore it reasonably said that it could unilaterally withdraw from what it had volunteered to do? I understand that the Community could not change its position if one of its principal members—certainly the only one of the two nuclear power States within the Community—did not wish it to do so.
  Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman may be right. This country can withdraw from any treaty to which it is a party, but a wholesale withdrawal would have major political implications. There would be a great deal of public debate and debate in the House on that matter.
  I am more concerned with the possibility of a creeping decontrol, whereby the Department of Energy or the Ministry of Defence may adduce some reasons for limiting the access of the international agency and the right of inspection of the various facilities. Perhaps Parliament would not even be told about it but might discover it accidentally in the course of Questions, or something like that. Therefore, I am concerned that, if Article 76(d) were to be invoked, the House should be properly informed.

  1067
  In the United States the Senate and the House of Representatives have paid a good deal of attention to the activities of the IAEA and suggested that in some ways its powers ought to be strengthened. They point out that the safeguards, though written out very clearly, cannot in any way guarantee that the theft or loss of nuclear material would be detected. The safeguards provide no protection against attack or sabotage of nuclear installations. There is no compulsion on States to ratify the non-proliferation treaty. There are no sanctions provided if countries which have ratified it or expressed a willingness to abide by it in practice divert nuclear material for illicit purposes.
  There is the question of the physical security of nuclear installations and nuclear material. Is it desirable to set certain international standards in this matter and to see that they are observed?
  The United States Senate was concerned also about the question of secrecy. A great deal of the information which is transmitted by the individual countries to the agency is secret because the requirements of the statute make it so. However, this means that public information about the effectiveness of safeguards, of inspection and so forth is limited. In the view of the United States Senate, a reduction of secrecy might increase public confidence.
  There is the question that a country which transmits nuclear material to another country does not receive inspection information from the agency about its nuclear exports. Therefore, there is the question whether the country which sends off the exports has an adequate assurance that its nuclear exports are not diverted to military or weapon purposes at the other end.
  Does this affect our exports to Japan? Would the House be told if the Government decided that they wanted to export nuclear materials to India, Israel, South Africa, Spain or another country that was not subject to safeguards? I do not think that a sane person would oppose the introduction of safeguards against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  The query that I have raised, and which I think other people might wish to raise, is whether the safeguards are strong enough. I have no intention of voting
  1068
  against the Bill, though it is in many ways an enabling Bill and the essential provisions will presumably follow in the form of orders placed before the House. However, behind the concern about safeguards is the fundamental question posed by the Flowers Report and studies in other countries on whether mankind should run the risk of having a fully-fledged plutonium economy. It is quite clear that if there becomes a general fear that we shall lack energy resources for our daily needs, or if there is a fear in the world at large—particularly in the Third world—that there will not be access to all the energy resources that the growing economy is likely to want, there will be no stopping the nuclear juggernaut.
  Fortunately, other resources exist. There is infinite energy available in the sun, the tides, the wind, the waves and the natural heat of the earth. There is no real energy gap. There is a technology gap. We do not at the moment know how to harness these infinitely renewable sources to our daily needs—at least, not on a sufficient scale. The central aim of energy policy should be to close that energy gap and to diverge from the dangerous road of nuclear fission.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) into the part of the Bill that deals with nuclear safeguards, but I shall reiterate what he said in his closing remarks. There are alternative sources of energy, but they are not as convenient as those which are known to us now. It is, therefore, those sources of nuclear energy about which we now know to which I shall address my remarks.
  If we are tonight to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will make a present of £50 million to the CEGB, we ought to know in more detail than has been forthcoming so far from where the money comes. When the Ince B station was ordered a figure of £25 million for advance ordering was originally put in, which was subsequently increased to £45 million. However, no reason has been given this evening—I should be surprised if a reason was given in Committee—why £50 million is the figure that has been settled on, apart from the fact that it has been pulled out of the air and considered to be moderately all right.

  1069
  Clause 5 of the Bill is designed to do only two things: to give support to the coal industry, and to the plant manufacturers. The Secretary of State said towards the end of his speech that he would not sanction the ordering of any more oil stations. One must set that against the fact that it was not so long ago that the Ince B decision was taken. Therefore, the first comment that I make is that energy forecasting is an extremely fallible art. We are considering not a station that will be opened next week but one which will not be coming into operation for many years and which when it has been completed will be with us for many more years after that. Therefore, we are taking a decision which will commit the energy policy of this country to a certain course of action. If we are to take that sort of decision, we must ask why we are taking it and whether it is sensible. We could ask why we are giving £50 million to the CEGB for the building of Drax B and not to the CEGB for the building of an advanced gas-cooled reactor. The answer to that question, we all know, is the National Union of Mineworkers.
  In order to set the scene fairly we must consider the two facts known at the moment about energy resources. This fallibility of the art leads different people to draw different conclusions about what we now know. In this country oil will peak out in the 1980s and 1990s. That does not mean to say that new reservoirs of oil may not be found in the North Sea, but most of the predictions, with which I agree, suggest that the period between the 1980s and the 1990s will see the best part of the supply of North Sea oil ended. The alternative energy sources are all very well but they will play a very small role until the end of the 1990s. I have nothing but admiration for my own constituent, Sir Christopher Cockerell, the hovercraft pioneer, who is now doing great work on wave power. I wish him every possible success. But the engineering problems which have to be faced in harnessing the waves and, indeed, with the other forms of alternative energy are so colossal that again we cannot look to early help from that quarter for alternative energy sources—probably not before the end of the 1990s. If we go further ahead to fusion, we are into the second part of the next century.
  1070
  Looking at the world's known energy resources and their likely lifetime, at present extraction rates, we find 90 years for uranium, 48 years for natural gas, 30 years for oil and 235 years for coal. But the odd quirk is that we as a nation probably have coal which will last longer. Some people are predicting that it will last up to 300 years.
  We have to ask ourselves what we are to do when the oil is gone after 30 years and when the natural gas has gone after 48 or 50 years. I believe that we have to face the fact that we may not regard it as sensible merely to burn coal under a boiler. At the end of this period, it may be far too precious to do that with it. At the moment, we have such a glut of coal that the National Coal Board is putting low grade coking coal under boilers. It is not carbonising any coal because the British Steel Corporation does not want it. But, looking not long-term but 30 to 50 years ahead, we may be saying to ourselves that coal is too precious to put under boilers.
  If that is true, as I believe, we should be asking ourselves for what purpose we want coal. We know that it can be gasified. We know that it can be liquefied. We know that it can be used as a chemical feedstock and carbonised. Alternatively, it can be used as a crude fuel, to be burnt. However, in supporting CEGB and NUM policy to continue coal burning for electrical generation we are talking about the crudest form of burning coal. We are not even talking about the most sophisticated form.
  Only a fortnight ago, I was at a seminar given by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers to look at the developments in fluidised bed combustion. We all know that the future is very promising. But we are still in the early days. Grimethorpe is being constructed and will provide some information. There are small industrial plants in operation. But I do not think that there is any question of the CEGB or anyone else regarding fluidised bed combustion as being a likely part of any power station which will be ordered in the near future. Certainly there is no question of it at Drax.
  We are burning this fuel not in a wasteful way, because the furnaces are efficient so far as they go, but they are

  1071
  not the most efficient that we could have if we were prepared to develop our coal technology a little further. I believe that this is leading us to create a number of hazards for the population of which people are perhaps not aware. The hon. Member for Heeley and others have argued—and I know that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will raise it if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the dangers of the plutonium society, radioactive fallout and all the terrors that these can bring to our people. But is it realised that there is far more atmospheric radioactivity around a coal-fired power station chimney than there is from any nuclear power station? The level of radioactive fallout around a coal-fired power station is 40 times as high as that coming from a nuclear station.
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he can assure us that the CEGB, which is receiving this very large sum of money as part of this advance ordering package for Drax, will take action to make sure that this dangerous fallout at these levels is not only monitored but minimised. Only recently, a senior station planning officer of the CEGB said:
  "More radioactivity reaches the environment from coal-fired stations than from nuclear stations."
  I do not think that anyone in the CEGB or the National Coal Board has any idea of the uranium content of coal. Therefore, when we are talking about a Bill which not only envisages the building of this new power station but also talks about nuclear safeguards, we should think of nuclear safeguards in terms which affect the ordinary citizen.
  We can leave aside the nuclear fallout and the radioactivity and mention the fact that between 200 and 400 tons of lead fall on the population from the chimneys of coal-burning power stations. Can the Minister say whether the nuclear inspectorate monitors radioactive fallout from coal-burning power stations and what the CEGB intends to do about it? Can any figures be produced to confirm or deny that there is much more radioactivity coming out of the chimney of a coal-burning power station than there is out of a nuclear power station?
  1072
  We are about to embark on another phase of the development of the CEGB's generating programme. I question how far we should commit ourselves permanently or for the foreseeable future to coal burning as part of that generating policy. I hope that the Under-Secretary, when talking about the financing of this station, can tell us about the European Commission's plan to subsidise power station coal and whether we can get some of this money from the European Commission—which is, I understand, to subsidise it to the tune of $12 a ton—when we order a station in advance in this way.
  The Drax power station continues to help the justification of the Selby coalfield. As one who has supported the coal industry and the development of Selby, I cannot therefore say that I do not like the idea of a power station on top of a coalfield. But are not we, in terms of the energy equation, expecting coal to be used for a purpose for which in future it will be too precious?
  Although I support the Bill, because it merely confirms a piece of history, when in future the Secretary of State talks about energy policy we have to realise that perhaps the days of pouring coal under a boiler are over and done with.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: As the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) anticipated, it is my wish to concentrate attention upon the early clauses of the Bill.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), I agree that we must all welcome any attempt which may be made to increase safeguards which are designed clearly to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, I thought that the Secretary of State pitched it rather high when he suggested that as a result of our voluntary relinquishment of our existing position and our submission to an international inspectorate, we were strengthening our stance and, as he indicated, going into the front line against proliferation. I do not believe that our welcome to this Bill should be so overeager.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) drew attention to that portion of the Parker Report which deals with the

  1073
  lack of efficacy of the existing regulations. More important is the authoritative Fox Commission Report in Australia which categorises eight defects within the existing International Atomic Energy Agency. This concluded:
  "These defects taken together are so serious that existing safeguards may provide only the illusion of protection."
  When failures to have adequate safeguards are fraught, as they are, with such awesome consequences, there is a temptation to indulge in the illusion that we have sufficient or increasing protection. In the scrutiny of the treaty upon which the Bill is based, the existing difficulties have been identified. Once we face the blemishes of the regulating system it is only painfully to acknowledge that the reality is that mankind is walking along the rim of the abyss. We deceive ourselves if we lull ourselves into the belief that the international agency, undermanned, under-financed and staffed—in the view of many informed people—by too many nuclear enthusiasts, operating tardy warning systems will, in its present form, be capable of pulling us back from the ultimate disaster.
  I repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Bridgwater and my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley: what Government initiatives are there to meet the blemishes in the existing international inspectorate system which were identified by Fox and indicated by Parker? In short, is the beefing up, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, taking place? I trust that we shall hear an answer since the question comes from all sides of the House.
  It is more immediately relevant to ask what use is our commitment to these international obligations if the avid search for profit by our nuclear industry is in practice subverting the attempts being made by President Carter and the Dutch Parliament to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation. Our involvement in the German-Brazil nuclear deal makes a farce of the pretension embodied in the Bill that we are committing ourselves genuinely to international control.
  The House will be aware—and I hope that the country will become increasingly aware—of the monster nuclear package worth about £2 million that West Germany is preparing to sell Brazil. Brazil
  1074
  has a military dictatorship and refuses to subscribe to the non-proliferation treaty. The deal not only consists of the supply of eight power stations but includes a reprocessing plant and an enrichment plant. After the understandable endeavour by President Carter to persuade the Germans to stop this transaction, fraught as it obviously is with so many menacing consequences, all the efforts have been of no avail.
  Into this notoriously unstable sub-continent of South America, Europe, led by West Germany, is calculatingly and for profit about to inject a capacity for making crude atomic bombs. It is a capacity which cannot in any circumstances be effectively inhibited or invigilated by any inspectorate system.
  We must also begin to think or our responsibilities. British Nuclear Fuels, the nationalised atomic concern, is enthusiastically colluding without constraint from the Government or protest from the Opposition, to ensure that not only should Brazil have its power stations—it could be claimed that no country should be denied that—but that it should achieve its declared objective. It is an objective which has been expressed to me in an unsolicited letter from the Brazilian Embassy in London. The letter states:
  "Brazil must be sure not to have to rely in the future on the goodwill of others for the supply of the enriched fuel and must be able to produce this fuel in the country. This is the objective of the nuclear agreement with Germany."
  This goal, openly acknowledged by a country which is not even prepared to submit to the flaccid invigilation by way of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is to be reached by British Nuclear Fuels building for the Brazilian dictatorship—as Mr. Jeremy Bugler in last week's New Statesman so painstakingly described—a nuclear installation called a "Hex" plant. This goal is also intended to be reached by Urenco, an Anglo-Dutch-German company in which our nationalised company is deeply involved as a partner, supplying enriched uranium to Brazil from Capenhurst in this country.
  "Hex", or uranium hexafluoride, is the material that must be acquired before one can start enriching uranium for military or civil purposes. It is reported that for some million of pounds British Nuclear Fuels is offering to sell the Brazilian military dictatorship its design engineering

  1075
  and expertise so that Brazil can have its own "hex" plant. Since sinister consequences could flow from the construction of such a plant in Brazil has British Nuclear Fuels discussed the issues with the Secretary of State? If not, why not? The House is entitled to know. If it has been discussed, have the Government given their sanction and if so, why?
  We used to have a slogan "Export or die". The slogan of British Nuclear Fuels is apparently "Export and die". The deaths that are likely to take place will not be those of the avid nuclear salesmen or myself but of their children and mine.
  I turn to the question of the supply by Urenco of enriched uranium to Brazil. Although the Brazilian dictatorship has refused to be a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and has also refused to accept the safeguards proposed by the Dutch Foreign Secretary, van der Stoel, which would have meant that all Brazil's nuclear plant and installations could be inspected, it is claimed that a safeguard agreement is being negotiated. The Under-Secretary has written to me to that effect.
  The agreement is by no means finalised and the documentation has not yet been made available to the House. At best this agreement provides that the plutonium derived from the enriched uranium which Urenco will send to Brazil, and which in a matter of hours could be converted into bombs, will be stored in an international store set up under the International Atomic Energy Authority. But the frightening intention is to agree to submit to the Brazilian demand that this international plutonium storage regime will not come into effect until Urenco fuel is actually reprocessed by Brazil.
  The Dutch people, alerted, as they have been, by the Dutch Press and by the Dutch television, to the meaning of this potentially catastrophic agreement, alerted as the Dutch people have demonstrated by their massive demonstrations, have caused the Dutch Parliament to overrule the view of the Dutch Government and consequently to affirm that such an agreement is unacceptable and that not one cylinder of enriched uranium is to go to South America until an agreement on plutonium storage has first been
  1076
  reached. It would have been thought that our Government would not have been laggard in giving support to such a rational demand, but far from supporting the Dutch Parliament's position, the finance director of Urenco, Wilfred Rooke, has openly boasted that if Holland refuses to permit the enriched uranium to be sent from the Dutch plant at Almelo, it will be sent from Urenco's only other plant, that is, the one in this country, in Capenhurst in Cheshire.
  Therefore, I put to the Secretary of State this blunt question: are the Government ready to condone the State-owned British Nuclear Fuels acting as the black-leg, frustrating the initiatives by President Carter and by the Dutch Parliament to prevent a nuclear proliferation inside South America? It is increasingly clear that British Nuclear Fuels is aggressively and zealously searching for foreign business by selling expertise on enrichment and reprocessing, and is perhaps hoping to regain the prestige that it may feel it has lost in the export of power stations.
  No doubt the directors have their apologia. They may claim that they have a duty to make money for Britain. But that is not the only test. To put at risk the whole future of mankind is no way of conquering a balance of payments problem. By our Windscale project we tell the world that we are ready to sell plutonium to Japan. By our involvement in the Brazilian deal, we tell the world that we are ready to place plutonium into South America.
  We do not need to exaggerate the effects of the Bill. It implements a warning system in the event of plutonium being discovered on its way not for peaceful purposes but for weapons. It has been said to have a warning system, however, that is as rapid as the second-class post during a GPO strike; and yet even this inadequate regulatory system would not operate in Brazil.
  So far, in comparison with Holland, Sweden, France and Germany, public opinion and the media have been comparatively muted on these issues. Indeed, it is a sad commentary that when it has an opportunity, as it has today again, to discuss these fateful awesome matters, the House is almost empty yet again. But I believe that there is a growing public awareness, and although as yet opinion in this country in comparison with others

  1077
  has been laggard, I believe that there is a growing realisation that there is a need for greater public involvement in the issues, since all human life may be at stake.
  Indeed, next Saturday afternoon the first national demonstration in Britain against Windscale will be taking place. I do not doubt that thousands of young people, literally fighting for their future, will be marching from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square. I believe that this House will be showing a very dangerous insensitivity, as I believe the present Government will be showing, if it continues to go so easily along a path that seems to be taking us inevitably to a holocaust.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I am pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) because I believe that, together with him, I shall be one of the two speakers at the demonstration on Saturday. No doubt we shall be able to use the opportunity to express a few opinions.
  For myself, however, the odd job that I have this evening is to talk quite a bit about what is not in the Bill. There may be many people in the country who believe that the arrangement that the Liberal Party entered into with the Government some time ago was not a great success. One can argue that we have had a good effect or that we have had a bad effect, if one so chooses. However, if ever we wanted living proof that we have had some effect, this Bill must be it, more than anything else.
  The original Bill as presented by the Government would have contained 50 clauses and nine schedules. This Bill has six clauses. To me it looks a much better Bill for that. The odd thing is that what has happened is really a breakthrough in the way in which we consider reorganisational legislation in this House. The fact that it has gone to a Select Committee is absolutely first class. I hope that this will be a precedent for a procedure through which such legislation in general terms has to go before it is presented to the House. A Select Committee has the time, the ability, to call experts and, to a certain extent, especially on recent form, is less inhibited by party dogma and is able to look at a Bill such as this at slightly more
  1078
  leisure and, therefore, perhaps to come up with something that causes less strife when it is eventually presented.
  It is certainly important for the House to start getting its efforts to reorganise matters on a slightly better footing than they have been over the last 10 years. I am hard pushed to think of anything that this House has reorganised in the last decade which many people, five or six years afterwards, defend as being the right and proper thing to have done. In recent years I think of the health care reorganisation, local government reorganisation and the water authorities reorganisation; and I rather suspect that the Community Land Act will come into the same category before long—complicated legislation rammed through the House by whichever party has had a majority at the time, which then sits back afterwards and regrets at its leisure.
  With legislation of this sort, to reorganise entire industries, the duty is very much with those who wish to propagate it to convince people that there is a clear and obvious necessity for such reorganisation. Even if they win that argument, they must then win the argument that what they are suggesting would be better than what has existed hitherto.
  The Secretary of State said that the reason why he dropped all the clauses was that there was no majority for them in the House. I am absolutely certain that he is right about that. I rather suspect that he might have a job to get a majority in his own party for some of the clauses if his party were given the opportunity to express a view upon them before they came to the House.
  I have no doubt that many of the Secretary of State's colleagues would support the first provision that I want to mention—the power to manufacture. If the Bill had been introduced as it was shown to me in draft form, the new corporation would have had powers to manufacture nearly anything it fancied. All that it had to indicate was that it had some connection with the electricity industry, and it could manufacture it at will. It had power to buy shares in any body corporate. It could mine any mineral whatsoever that had any connection with the production of electricity.
  I have spent some time sitting on this Bench waiting to be called and trying to

  1079
  think of some mineral that is mined but does not have some connection with the generation of electricity. There must be one, but I have not been able to think of it. Perhaps it is china clay—although no doubt that would be needed for the paper and the sending out of bills and the general bureaucracy.
  I am sure that the draft clauses I have mentioned would get no support from the Opposition Benches. I can speak only for the Liberal Party, but I have no doubt that the Conservative Party will agree with me in that statement. Indeed, I should be surprised if such sweeping clauses had been given universal support by the Labour Benches.
  There is one change from the draft Bill compared with that which has been published. There was a magnificent populist clause, for the good of everybody, that the new chairman, when fixing tariffs, was to pay due regard to the customer's ability to pay. It had a magnificent sound about it, but what does it mean? Does it mean cheap electricity for grannies—and, if it does, which grannies? Is an appointed chairman of a nationalised board to decide that my granny is to have cheap electricity while some other granny is not to have it?
  Many hon. Members are worried about the effect of increased electricity prices on constituents. Many of us might well examine with interest legislation that aims at remedying the situation, but I do not think that many hon. Members would be willing to give to an appointed chairman of a nationalised board power to decide which people should have cheap electricity and which people should not, but that is what was originally proposed in the Bill.
  The Bill proposed to scrap all the regional bodies and it envisaged scrapping the CEGB. All its powers and assets were to be put into a new centralised bureaucratic organisation which would have all the powers relating to distribution and electricity generation from that day onwards. It would have been a new centralised monolith of the first order.
  There is one gleam of hope in the Bill. There was some talk of further orders having to be put before the House to give back to the regional authorities the
  1080
  maximum power possible. One of the points that was discussed was in whose judgment that decision would lie, and what powers it related to. But we were not told those powers and we had to wait until a later date. We were being asked to vote for something of which we were not very well aware. We were told continually that it was impossible under the present system to achieve an agreed corporate plan. But there is nothing difficult about getting an agreed corporate plan in the present set-up.
  What is impossible in the present setup is to obtain from the centre an imposed corporate plan—a plan to be imposed upon those who do not wish to have it and who have power by statute to resist. All this reorganisation gives more power to the centre and provides the ability to produce a corporate plan, such as occurs in the British Steel Corporation or British Leyland. That was the whole argument given in favour of the Bill.
  We knew that it was to have a chairman, and we also knew who was to appoint the chairman. The answer is that he would be appointed by the Secretary of State for Energy. The new central board was to have 25 members and we know who was to appoint those people. Again, the answer is the Secretary of State for Energy. We know that if these 12 regional boards were to come into existence each was to have its own chairman. We also know who was to appoint them—the Secretary of State for Energy. We know who was to appoint all the subsidiary members. Again, they were to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Energy.
  I welcome the fact that we were to have a consumer body. The Department of Prices and Consumer Protection was not involved in that. The new chairman was to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Energy. It was to have 25 members all appointed by the right hon. Gentleman. It was to have 12 regional consumer bodies, each with a chairman. I did not think there were enough mates to go round at that stage, but each chairman was to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Energy.
  We also know from the Bill that each of these regional bodies was to have 10 or 12 members, all appointed by the Secretary of State for Energy. That is

  1081
  the way we do these things now. There are similar set-ups in gas and other nationalised bodies. This is no excuse for taking this course again.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I would in no way wish to argue that; indeed, I have consistently argued the opposite. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has made the mistake of reading the Bill wrongly. Indeed, I do not think that he can have read the Bill at all.
  In this context the Bill refers not to the Secretary of State for Energy but to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. The Government publicly announced, long before any of this argument began, that all these bodies, with national and regional chairmen, were all to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. This has been the case for two or three years in respect of all similar bodies in all the nationalised industries. That is the Government's policy. I hate to spoil the hon. Gentleman's flood of cumulative oratory, but he was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Wrong I might be, and an excellent intervention that was, but when I spoke about the matter to the Secretary of State for Energy he did not seem to know about that. He was challenged time and again about the extension of patronage.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Withdraw. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. He did not talk to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Penhaligon: It is true that the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) was not invited to the meetings, but I spent a lot of time talking to the Secretary of State for Energy on this issue. I can understand the Government's embarrassment, but we have stopped that nonsense, and I am pleased that the Liberal Bench has had a strong and effective part to play.
  Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman took his daughter to a pantomime.
  Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman refers to my daughter. It was in fact my son, who is five years old, and I had promised to take him to a pantomime.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Now he has brought the pantomime here.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I refused a meeting with the Secretary of State to take my son to a pantomime. The Minister and the Government thought that was an outrageous thing to do. That probably sums up what is wrong with the Secretary of State's attitude.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Now he is acting like the Widow Twankie.
  Mr. Penhaligon: There are two provisions in the Bill to which I should like to refer. The first concerns the compensation for what is called Drax B. It should be called compensation for the manufacturing industry, because in real terms that is what it is. I accept the argument—and I have accepted it since last August when this matter was first raised in our negotiations—that there is a good case for compensation, and I am pleased to support those clauses. I notice that nobody else opposes them. Therefore, there is a good chance of their going through the House with no trouble.
  The reason I support those provisions is not that I have total enthusiasm for the project for which this money is required but because I as an engineer well appreciate that, if we are foolish enough to let this industry and skill disintegrate because of great changes in energy demands which have hit every concept of future demand, the day will come when we want that capacity back. If we let it fall apart, it will be yet something else that we shall be forced to import from some country which has had the sense to keep its industry together.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Although I may disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the structure of the electricity industry and the way in which the hon. Gentleman dealt with the matter, at least on the question of Drax compensation he is being consistent—in stark contrast with the deathbed conversion which we have just seen on the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I seem to have upset the Labour side of the House enough today. I shall save any upset for this side of the House for another occasion. All I can say is that we have taken our stand.

  1083
  The other clauses to which I should like to refer relate to nuclear safety. I was most interested to hear the comments of the hon. Members for Pontypool and Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). They both implied that the changes were welcome, as indeed I welcome them, but both hon. Members said that they had sincre doubts whether those clauses would overcome some of the major doubts which I have expressed in this House on many occasions about nuclear power.
  The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) mentioned nuclear fallout from power stations. I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the worries and fears of people who take the same line as I do on nuclear power. I have never for a moment doubted that the nuclear-powered station is as safe as, perhaps in some ways even safer than, many other pieces of machinery throughout the world. I have never once denied that. What has always worried me about nuclear power is its obvious jackpot potential. The most that can possibly happen with a coal-fired power station is that it blows up.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He implies that he is quite unaware of the environmental implications of successful operation of a coal-fired power station, quite apart from its blowing up.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I have long recognised that.
  People's fear of a nuclear power station is of its jackpot potential, its potential for an accident on a major scale, whereas the worst that can happen with a coal-fired power station, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is the possible long-term effects of carbon dioxide, compared with the possible long-term effects of nuclear fallout, depending on how much a power station produces. The fear that many people have over nuclear power is just how big is the potential jackpot accident.
  What do the clauses do about that? I suspect that it is very little. What powers would the new European inspectorate have to check security within, say, Windscale, just to mention a matter that has been debated a great deal of late? How will it succeed in checking that there
  1084
  is no movement of plutonium from civil use to military use?
  I recall having exchanges with the Under-Secretary during the passage of the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill, which provided the money for Windscale. I remember having quite a long discussion with him on just how good a bookkeeping exercise one could do with nuclear materials. After some exchanges, it emerged that it was very difficult to do it with any accuracy better than about plus or minus 2 per cent. If one had a finished burn with plutonium in at plus or minus 2 per cent., one would have little idea precisely how much plutonium one did or did not have. If the bookkeeping is of that sort of order, even when one is genuinely trying to find out how much plutonium one has, the idea that an outside inspectorate can stop a country transferring some of the material from civil to military use is stretching imagination much too far.
  On that clause, I should like an answer to the question just how much power the inspectorate will have to comment on one nation's security methods as against another's. It is a difficult area. I can see the difficulties, but will it be entitled to make submissions to various Governments that in its view the type of security of one country is better than that of another country? If it can, it could well act as a body which gradually pulled up by a ratchet effect the standards of security in the various countries in which it inspects, because it will have more knowledge of what various countries are doing than anyone else has.
  I have not heard one hon. Member say that he will call a Division tonight, so the chances are that there will not be a Division. But if there were, what is left of the Bill would certainly receive support from my party.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) into his rather exotic area of phantom QUANGOS, Liberal pantomimes and Cornish grannies. I want to concentrate on this important but modest Bill and to pay particular attention to the first four clauses, to do with the safeguards on nuclear material.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that those

  1085
  clauses should be supported, because they fulfil in law the obligations to which the United Kingdom, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency agreed in the agreement of 6th September 1976. However, as the clauses and the articles of the agreement make clear, the safeguards are to be implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the minimum of interference with our own peaceful nuclear activities.
  I am concerned that the rights of the IAEA inspectors may be too hedged about with limitations. One has only to look at the relevant part of the agreement, Articles 71 to 84, which constitute quite a large chunk of the agreement, to see just how hedged about those rights are likely to be. Indeed, if one turns back to the earlier part of the agreement, where the general spirit in which it is to be conducted is set out, and looks at Article 5 or Article 9(c), one can detect the flavour of the spirit in which it will be carried out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said in an intervention that the fact that we were entering into the agreement voluntarily governed to some extent the approach and the safeguards that we build in, by which I mean here the safeguards on the operation of safeguards. None the less, I think that it demonstrates clearly that the effect of the agreement may be more minimal than some of us would wish.
  Furthermore, Article 87 appears to exclude the possibility of our handing over operational control of at least some of our nuclear facilities to the IAEA or other international bodies. An idea that is worth pursuing, as it has been commended in public by Sir Brian Flowers and others, is that it might be worth the Government's while considering, as a token of our seriousness in fulfilling our non-proliferation objectives, the placing of certain of the Windscale facilities under multinational control and operation. It seems to me that the IAEA people would be the logical people to come into that act.
  Clause 2(2)(b) specifically refers to Article 83, in which there is strong insistence on the idea of the IAEA's giving advance notice of its inspection routines. It is on this point of advance notice that I want to dwell for a moment. This may not matter very much with us in Britain,
  1086
  because with us it should be largely a matter of administrative convenience whether the inspectors give advance notice of their presence. But it matters very much in some of the less reliable places in the world, in which the agreement will be taken as a precedent, and upon which it will be binding through the IAEA.
  It is disturbing, to me, at any rate, that only Article 84 of all the 13 or 14 articles I mentioned a few minutes ago appears to allow the IAEA to swoop in without notice to inspect nuclear facilities. Anyone who has been involved in studying these questions of the alkali inspectorate or other inspectorates, in this or analogous areas, will know that the ability to go in unannounced is often crucial to the satisfactory operation of safeguards. It is important that that ability should be preserved and, I believe, extended.
  I am also slightly disturbed, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, by the rather paltry nature of the penalties for infringement of the agreement.
  Mr. Tom King: I, too, said that.
  Mr. Forman: I misunderstood my hon. Friend.
  We read of fines "not exceeding £1,000" and prison "not exceeding two years". When we are talking about offences—if I may call them that—which would affect the survival chances of millions if things went badly wrong and which could facilitate terrorism on a new and almost unprecedented level of horror, the House should be prepared to be more draconian, not less, in the penalties it makes available. After all, we are dealing with State corporations and corporations which have the power and the wealth of the State behind them, and which will be inspired in their actions by Governments in any case. Therefore, we can afford to be more strict with ourselves.
  Mr. King: In case there is any misunderstanding, may I put clearly on the record that the point of view my hon. Friend is expressing now is entirely the one I sought to express?
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  One final and wider point on the nuclear safeguard clauses concerns the

  1087
  doubt in my mind whether the IAEA is getting sufficient financial and professional support from the United Kingdom. This is a point to which a number of hon. Members have already drawn attention. According to an answer to a parliamentary Question which I tabled to the Under-Secretary, there are five times as many people involved in the promotional side of the IAEA as there are in its safeguards department. This imbalance must be rectified. It is particularly important that the Government should honour their commitments in this matter.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will make this matter perfectly clear when he replies since his right hon. Friend has failed to do so. I remind the Under-Secretary that I asked the Foreign Secretary in the debate on 22nd March on the Windscale inquiry report,
  "will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will back American efforts to see that the staffing on that side"—
  by which I meant the safeguards side of the IAEA—
  "is substantially increased in the near future to cope with this additional international ressponsibility?"
  The Foreign Secretary replied:
  "Yes, we shall. We are prepared to take any measures in this area which are aimed at the common objective of reducing what we all believe to be a serious risk to the future of the whole world".—[Official Report, 22nd March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 1669.]
  I would appreciate the same sort of assurance in the same sort of terms from the Under-Secretary.
  It is worth drawing to the attention of the House that the United Kingdom contribution to this agency in the latest year for which we have figures was only £1·625 million—not a lot of money in comparison with some of the sums which we vote so freely in this place. We in this country provide only five professionals for the safeguards department, which is only about 60 strong. When we consider the likely projections of the use of nuclear power and facilities over the coming years, it will be seen that the need is to beef up the safeguards side of the IAEA and for the British Government to put their money where their mouth is. They should commit more men and women and more money to this vital side of IAEA active-
  1088
  ties.It is on that agency that we shall be relying so heavily to make these safeguards effective.
  I turn to the other aspects of the Bill which interest me as someone concerned with energy, namely the payments to the Central Electricity Generating Board for Drax B. I understand, from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, that my party does not oppose this compensation payment to the CEGB, mainly perhaps because we recognise the need for the CEGB to look after its own suppliers in the power plant industry in a responsible way. Does that mean that the Government have to see that the CEGB is not out of pocket on an occasion like this and does it mean that they have to do it in such a way that the taxpayer has to find the money indirectly to pay for the consequences of his own understandable unwillingness as a consumer to buy more and more expensive electricity?
  Somewhere along the line this expensive game of publicly subsidising waste—that is what it is with power stations of this kind—and unwanted energy production must be stopped. I am not convinced that this is not the time to do it. The Government have made clear in another parliamentary Answer in response to a Question tabled by me recently that without this compensation "major orders" would not have been placed before 1980.
  My doubt, which I put to the Under-Secretary, is whether these orders will be placed before then, even under the terms of the new, advanced, timetable. I stress the words "major orders", because those were the words used in the reply. How long would it be after the placing of such major orders in 1980 before the manufacturing work would have begun? In other words, had we been on the original timetable, how long would it have taken between the placing of these major orders in 1980 and the beginning of manufacturing work?
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I ought earlier—this is perhaps an appropriate time to do it—to have paid tribute to the CEGB for the way in which it has been able to allow the companies, both boilermaking and turbo-generating, to get forward ordering of raw materials, particularly

  1089
  crucial forgings and so on, so that work can come forward on a rather skewed forward schedule. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point entirely of advanced ordering. Not only has it been advanced in terms of the announcements being made; it has been translated into concrete facts. Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the reason why his hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not now oppose the Bill might have something to do with the fact that all of my colleagues might be going round Newcastle saying that the Conservative Party did not care about the jobs that were at stake?
  Mr. Forman: On the contrary, I believe that the rather rapid conversion of the senior echelons of the Government to this new policy followed directly on a certain visit by President Carter and the Prime Minister to the North-East, to a number of rather dodgy Labour-held seats.
  Mr. Tom King: If we are to have a succession of interventions from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr. Thomas), who made none of these comments in his own speech and who is now having second or third thoughts, may I ask him to consult Hansard on every occasion when this matter has come up? He will find that our attitude has been entirely consistent. If the hon. Gentleman will do his homework and then cares to challenge me, I believe that I can give him chapter and verse for what I have said.
  Mr. Forman: The main point that I wished to make is that the whole exercise seems, on energy grounds, to be somewhat expensive and ill-advised when we bear in mind the present energy predicament. It involves forcing a major nationalised industry to do what it has no need to do in an attempt to bail out industries in the private sector which, in the case of the turbine manufacturers at any rate, seem determined to continue resisting the best strategy for restoring them to buoyancy once more. This policy also involves obliging a major energy supplier to use more of one fuel than it might freely choose to do, rather than encouraging it to pursue the more energy-efficient route to which several of my hon. Friends have referred, such as coal gasification and even in the future, liquefaction.
  1090
  I doubt, and the CPRS report doubted it, too, whether this Bill does not merely postpone for a few years unemployment in a few sensitive constituencies in the North-East and elsewhere. I wonder whether a future Government will not have to come back to Parliament asking for more money for compensation when the cost in present value terms rises because of lower than expected economic and electricity growth rates.
  Mr. Hooley: Surely the more important question is whether C. A. Parsons recognises that this Bill is putting off a certain day and giving it time to diversify its activities into those areas which some hon. Members still deride, such as obtaining electricity from waves, wind and other sources. There is an enormous area of technology to be explored, which our competitors are already exploring.
  Mr. Forman: I am in favour of such diversification of energy supplies, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to know the extent to which it would be possible for Parsons, for example, to be involved in such matters.
  The whole Drax B saga raises wider doubts about the conventional wisdom of electricity and energy policy. For example, is it right or necessary for the CEGB to go on ordering such large, remotely sited energy-inefficient power stations, whether coal or nuclear fired?
  Have we reached a point where there may be increasing dis-economies of scale in power generation, as I believe we see in Drax B, Isle of Grain and Dungeness B, to take three examples using different fuels? Should we not be encouraging the electricity industry down the different and more energy-efficient route of cogeneration and combined heat and power? Are there not, in short, other more sensible ways of using the valuable output of the planned Selby coalfield with which this power station is meant to be synchronised?
  Many of these concerns were brought out in the recent letter written by Mr. Barnes, the chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council, to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, with a copy to the Secretary of State for Energy. Since that expression of concern was supported also by the National Consumer Council and has been given significant support in the Chamber today,

  1091
  I only hope that the Government will see whether they can mount an investigation into this important matter.
  All these questions underline the need for us to go into these matters in much greater detail in Committee, since there is much to examine. However, in company with my hon. Friends, I am content that the Bill should have a Second Reading today.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Hannam: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I shall not take up many of the points so far made regarding Clauses 1 to 4, because I shall concentrate on the Drax B situation and other aspects of the Bill. In my view, the earlier clauses dealing with the nuclear safeguards proposals represent some very sensible steps towards setting up the international monitoring system for nuclear plants.
  This is just a wisp of a Bill compared with the original reorganisation of the electricity supply industry. It is really the remains of legislation which foundered on the hidden rocks of the Lib-Lab pact. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has now departed, having engaged in some rather pantomime activities during his speech. It has been said that the biggest Labour-saving device in use at the moment is the Lib-Lab pact. I think that recent by-elections have shown that it is also working in reverse, because the most effective destroyer of the Liberal Party is the present Labour Government.
  What has in fact been destroyed in the present virility struggle by the Liberal Party has been the long-awaited reorganisation of the electricity supply industry. What we have before us today is, in effect, an electricity industry remnants Bill, and those engaged in this vital energy sector are rightly angry and up in arms at the way their highly technical industry has been kicked around by the Secretary of State and his side-kick, the hon. Member for Truro.
  The trouble is that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Truro are wrongly motivated. One of them is anti-nuclear and therefore adopts a hostile approach to a pro-nuclear industry. The other is a political fanatic who
  1092
  uses each and every piece of energy legislation to further his objective of total State control and participation, and those parts of the original Bill which have been opposed by hon. Members are, of course, those which he has used to promote his objective.
  However, I confess that I should not have supported all the proposals in the lost electricity Bill. Basically, I accepted the broad anlysis of the Plowden Report but objected to the centralisation proposals which were being advanced. Nevertheless, the failure of the Secretary of State to consider the implications of his aborted Bill concerns me greatly.
  The electricity supply industry cannot possibly achieve unity of purpose until some kind of reorganisation takes place. Many of the energy saving requirements and responsibilities which were to be placed upon this industry are now left in limbo. The only good thing to come out of the whole affair is the examination now taking place in the Select Committee which is looking at the original Bill. I agree completely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who is a member of that Committee. As one who wants to see a new system of parliamentary government in which legislation is pre-examined in a Select Committee at a White Paper stage, I welcome this somewhat accidental opportunity for that pre-legislative examination to take place at the hands of Back Benchers. I only hope that it is the forerunner of things to come.
  I come now to the Drax B clause. I am a long-term supporter of the Selby coalfield development, as are the Conservative Opposition. I must tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that, together with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and others of my hon. Friends, I have taken part in the consideration of successive coal Bills since 1971, and I have consistently argued for and supported the case and the finance for these developments and for the construction of the Drax B power station. Moreover, when the matter came before the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) supported compensation for the early ordering, if that was necessary. It is, therefore, quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that we

  1093
  are showing inconsistency in the debate today.
  However, I wish to make clear that I do not support the indefinitely continued construction of large remotely situated power stations, and I hope that this will be the last of that: kind.
  Mr. Mike Thomas rose—
  Mr. Hannam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. There are others who wish to speak, and he has had a fair crack at the whip so far.
  In my view, our future use of coal should be in the other directions to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest pointed—the new developments in industrial and chemical uses, together with combined heat and power schemes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest spoke of the radioactivity and pollution which come from coal-fired stations. He did not mention the sulphur pollution. In the edition dated 10th March of the Electrical Review, the Under-Secretary of State is reported as giving statistics for this other form of pollution, namely, sulphur pollution, from power stations. The report tells us that the Under-Secretary of State said that
  "he was advised by the CEGB that Drax A power station consumed 3·6 million tonnes of coal in 1976 and emitted about 66,000 tonnes of sulphur. The second part of the station, Drax B, was expected to consume 4·7 million tonnes of coal during the first year of full operation and to emit between 70,000 and 90,000 tonnes of sulphur."
  That degree of pollution is plainly a matter of great concern, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give us some details of the way in which that sort of pollution also is to be dealt with when the power station is constructed.
  I wish to see more flexibility in the electricity generating industry. I hope that we shall have more flexibility in the reorganisation so that we have smaller units giving a more flexible use of our fuels, so that we thereby create better thermal efficiency and we overcome some of the plant engineering problems which inevitably result in higher-cost electricity for the consumer.
  In my view, any reorganisation of the industry should be aimed at creating decentralisation, moving to a more flexible system of local competing power boards.
  1094
  This would ensure maximum opportunities for the development of the smaller but more efficient local electricity systems, using every possible avenue for greater thermal efficiency and more rational use of energy. It is that latter concept which seems to be forgotten whenever we talk about power station construction.
  I accept that we should still require some kind of co-ordinating central body to administer the grid and to plan the overall strategy for electricity generation.
  Reluctantly, therefore, I accept the constructionu of Drax B. It is something which I have always accepted as being an inevitable link between the Selby coalfield and the production and use of that coal in the production of electricity. But I am not at all happy about the way in which this whole affair has been conducted, following the Prime Minister's intervention in the advance ordering, because it seems to have destroyed the chance of an early rationalisation of the boiler and turbine manufacturing industries.
  As it appears at present—this was confirmed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East—we have reached a kind of halfway stage on rationalisation. We have a single merged boiler-making group for the large contracts and we still have the two turbine groups operating, one of which, namely, GEC, is an exceptionally successful exporting firm, with recent large orders in Iran and Hong Kong.
  If, as is officially forecast, we shall need an estimated construction programme of upwards of 2,000 megawatts a year, it is vital that we have a construction industry ready and able to carry out such a programme. But I am not convinced that the precipitate early ordering of Drax B was so imperative last year that the rationalisation of the industry had to be forgone. I hope that we shall have more evidence of this need and more details of the implications of the early ordering when we go into Committee.
  However, since we have taken the plunge and advanced the order, I accept that compensation should be paid to the CEGB for the extra costs involved in ordering what is in fact at this stage an unwanted power station at a time of

  1095
  surplus capacity. Whether the £50 million maximum allowed for in Clause 5 is the correct figure is for us to discover by cross-examination and debate when we examine the facts in Committee.
  I shall support the Bill tonight, although I greatly regret the confusion and dismay caused by the loss of its parent Bill. I deplore the drift over which the Government are presiding in all our affairs, but especially do I deplore the hiatus now created for the electricity industry, which is preventing the development of more efficient energy systems and hence, of course, preventing the supply of lower-cost electricity for the consumer.
  I trust that the Under-Secretary will answer some of the important questions which have been raised in the debate. In particular, I hope that he will respond to some of the queries hanging over the future of the coal industry and its relationship with the Central Electricity Generating Board, and thereby ensure the support of the House for his Bill.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. George Thompson: It mostly happens on nuclear matters that I come here to criticise the Secretary of State, and it is rather a pleasure once in a while to be able to agree with him and congratulate him. It would be churlish of me to let the occasion pass.
  I welcome the Bill in both its parts—the nuclear safeguards and the provision for Drax B. I very much welcome the decision of the Government to accept inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency of peaceful nuclear activities. The Government are to be congratulated on setting a good example, and I hope that it will be followed by others. I believe that the more the whole international community is involved in regulating nuclear matters, whether civil or military, the more likelihood there is that reason, humanity and good sense will prevail over the insanity which appears to me to characterise both these scenes at present.
  It is infinitely sad and quite crazy that mankind should be spending so much money on armaments—especially nuclear weapons—when people still die of hunger and of sickness that could be cured. In addition, precious unrepeatable
  1096
  resources are lavished on such armaments. I hope, therefore, that Governments throughout the world will learn little by little how to lower their own suspicions, to the extent of eventually permitting inspection of military nuclear activities as well as civil nuclear activities.
  The House is well aware of my continuing concern at the production of high level radioactive wastes, at a time when we still do not know how to cope with these wastes over the long period that they will remain dangerous. Admittedly, the provisions of the Bill do not concern themselves with these wastes, and we shall have to await other debates—on the Windscale special development order, and possibly some day on the Flowers Report—before we can deal with them. But I cannot help welcoming every effort towards international inspection in any field.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) suggested that the safeguards may not be strong enough, but I think that we can only start where States and Governments are willing to start. There is no way in which we can force them to it, and from humble beginnings we do not know how far we may be able to go in the end.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) expressed his concern at what is happening in regard to nuclear development in Brazil. On occasions, when I hear these concerns evoked, I cannot help remembering that in my lifetime, and in the lifetime of all hon. Members present, two of the great States of Europe were governed by men who were quite certainly mad. We always face the possibility that some madman in charge of a State may decide to use nuclear weapons.
  I welcome the decision to go ahead with Drax B, partly because of my interest in nuclear energy. I am certain that we should proceed with coal-fired power stations rather than hasten down the nuclear road until we have had full consideration of all the factors involved. I take the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that coal-fired stations produce their own hazards, but in my judgment these hazards are not so great as the hazards of the high-level long-life radioactive wastes.
  The Bill will enable the industry which constructs power stations to remain in

  1097
  existence for our future needs. That is bound to be welcome in Scotland as well as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  For these reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: It is rather puzzling that we have had no proper explanation today why the Secretary of State for Energy has deferred the important measure to reorganise the electricity industry. I suspect that he is sulking because he could not extend nationalisation in the way that he wished, but that surely is no justification for rejecting a reform which is overwhelmingly agreed to be urgently needed and on which there could have been some consensus within the House.
  The truth would appear to be that the Secretary of State for Energy has funked the reorganisation. Despite the very powerful case made by the Plowden Committee, and the subsequent delay of two and a half years, he has still refused to introduce a measure which could have received the support of the House.
  Most of us would agree that there is need for a single authority rather than the two authorities that we have at the moment. Most Conservative Members would argue that we urgently need more regional autonomy, so that we can have greater flexibility to provide for innovation and the reduction in the energy waste which is accepted in the industry at the moment. Instead, what we are offered tonight does not begin to remedy the problems. It just continues the uncertainty, and in fact creates further uncertainties. It will, in my view, damage very seriously the future viability of the electricity industry and also of the coal industry.
  It is for this reason that I find myself very much out of tune with the rest of the House tonight. I do not support the construction of Drax B and therefore, of course, do not support the subsidisation of it. I challenge in principle the whole strategy upon which the Government have given their consent to the electricity industry for the construction of a coal-fired power station which, even if it is the most efficient in the system, will still only burn its fuel at a 35 per cent thermal efficiency.
  Drax B is no solution—not even an interim solution—to the problems of the
  1098
  construction industry and the electrical supply industry. It will only defer the problems, which are structural. Drax B will be no solution for the coal industry. On the contrary, I believe that it will seriously damage the long-term viability of the coal industry. Drax B is no solution for the electricity industry and certainly is no solution for the consumer. I regard it as a folly to accelerate towards a dead end by perpetuating an outdated conventional power station technology when the world trend is moving in an opposite direction.
  I am not opposed to coal burn. On the contrary, it is because I am concerned about the viability of the coal industry that I believe that Drax B is a ghastly error, unless it is combined with cogeneration of heat and power, but there is no talk of that. I believe that it will prove to be uneconomical, probably even before it is fully commissioned, and this will be so unless it is designed and planned to utilise the reject heat.
  Twenty per cent. of the primary energy consumption in this country is wasted in our electrical supply industry. That is equivalent to throwing away over £2 billion a year at current energy costs. Far more seriously, it is an energy wastage equivalent to the total contribution made by natural gas to this country's energy supplies. Put another way, it is throwing away over half the coal consumed in this country, extracted at great hazard to those involved.
  Drax B, even at a 35 per cent. thermal efficiency, represents an appalling waste of finite resources, and yet here we have a marvellous opportunity to prevent squander. The Plowden Report in several places highlighted the need for a rethinking of the way in which we produce our electricity so that we can do so more efficiently. Even the Government's own Green. Paper on energy strategy, published recently, strongly recommends that we should make an early start on combined heat and power.
  The Government's Energy Paper No. 20—the report produced by Dr. Walter Marshall on combined heat and power—shows that it is cost effective even if we allow a 10 per cent. discounted rate. In this way we could proceed with district heating and combine heat and power to a larger extent than we have

  1099
  done so far. Now the Government recommend in the new White Paper on the nationalised industries that in long-term projects of this kind a 5 per cent. discount rate should be applied. That makes it even more cost effective to cut out wasteful burn of fuel in our power stations.
  The folly of perpetuating an outdated and wasteful system of electricity production will cause great economic damage, not just to the electricity industry but to the coal industry as well. We are already bottom of the league in thermal efficiency in Europe—by a substantial amount. Drax B will not help to lift us from the bottom. We are bottom of the league in combined heat and power production, and we produce less electricity by co-generation than most other European countries.
  The Under-Secretary himself has been to Sweden and he has seen co-generation there. In Denmark 36 per cent. of electricity is produced in co-generation. In Belgium it is 29 per cent., in Germany 21 per cent., in the Netherlands 15 per cent., in Italy 13 per cent., in France 12 per cent. and in the United Kingdom only 6 per cent.
  I do not believe that it will prove to be economically viable for electricity to be produced for much longer, bearing in mind the rising cost of energy in real terms, unless we use that energy and extract more than 35 per cent. from it by converting it into electricity.
  Instead of using the subsidy proposed for the Drax B early ordering, and the £600 million plus for constructing the station, the Government should take a broader longer-term view and should use the money to provide incentives that are necessary to reduce this massive 20 per cent. wastage of our total energy resources by stimulating localised co-generation and encouraging partnerships in industry and with local authorities. We should be converting, not closing down, the older low merit order power stations, particularly those in urban centres where they could be converted to pollution-free and high thermal efficiency stations.
  The Government should encourage the construction of a heat grid in the infratructure to utilise waste heat. The institutional immomentum which is the main
  1100
  handicap to the promotion of co-generation, compared with our competitors, is being perpetuated by this measure. The Government are encouraging yet another power station's construction—a power station of low efficiency standard. Instead, they should remove the statutory restraints on the nationalised industry and encourage in the private sector, if the public sector refuses to do it, the cogeneration of electricity and heat by changing the tariff structure and giving a fair deal to those who produce electricity and heat more economically than the nationalised industry does today.
  Only by encouraging less centralisation in the public sector and allowing the regional electricity boards to get on with it, as the West Midlands is already doing, shall we break out of this chicken and egg cycle. More money should be spent on encouraging the new technology, not just the fluidised bed which is already progressing at Grimethorpe, but the gasification which is under development by GEC in America. This is an advanced type of Lurgi system, on which the National Coal Board already has an agreement on technical development.
  A pilot plant is being built there which will gasify coal into electricity producing a 44 per cent. rate of thermal efficiency. The technology that is moving in America and elsewhere based upon gas turbines and coal burn, using Rolls-Royce gas turbine engines as manufactured in Derby, will raise thermal efficiency from 35 per cent. to more than 50 per cent. This is not just a marginal percentage. It represents a massive saving in energy and it is time that the Government gave it some encouragement.
  The overwhelming evidence and opinion of those who have authority on these matters is that the future for smaller energy centres is economically viable and that companies in the supply industry and the power plant industry, such as Clarke Chapman at Derby, have a future only if they are prepared to adapt to the way the world trend will force them.
  At Derby, where smaller boiler systems are made, the potential market at home and abroad could be vast if we moved away from the concentration on only large power stations. Of course, we must continue to build 1,000 and 2,000 megawatt stations, but these should be nuclear only. As far as conventional fossil fuel power

  1101
  stations are concerned, we should concentrate on the far more efficient combined heat and power energy centres. Unless we move away from the wasteful system that we have now, the coal industry will be the biggest loser.
  Because I am a supporter of the coal industry, I am against Drax B. I believe that electricity will price itself out of the energy market in the public sector unless we are prepared to convert coal into electricity more efficiently. If the public sector electricity industry prices itself out of the market, the coal industry will suffer because it is its main customer.
  The alternative option, therefore, is for the coal industry to recapture a substantial part of the market that it has lost in the past two decades. It can do this if it gets encouragement from the fluidised bed process and if coal bum and energy efficiency can be increased. Because it will be too costly to burn coal in a few years' time—apart from being too wasteful in energy terms—I am against Drax B.
  I want to see a prosperous future for coal, which will be our main fossil fuel when reserves of oil and gas run out. Unless the nationalised electricity industry can adapt itself to that, it will not just price itself out of the market; it will endanger the market for coal. The answer is to convert our electricity in a more efficient way. The technology is there, and it is being done in the rest of the world. It is time we did it here.
  A short-sighted solution for short-term political reasons will only lead to the decline of the electricity industry, the coal industry and the power plant industry. The Government are wrong to underwrite the institutional inertia which has existed in the industry for too long. By subsidising outdated and wasteful conventional technology, the Government are encouraging the survival of this inertia which will lead to the rundown of the coal industry.
  It is tragic that once again British inventiveness in gas turbines and coal technology is being wasted. If our skill and ability were turned to reducing the waste of energy, we could make a major contribution to the conservation of energy in the world context, but once again this is being rejected. What is even worse is that the damage it will do to the power supply industry in the long term, as well
  1102
  as to the coal and electricity industries—not to mention the consumer and the national interest—is a price that we shall all have to pay and live to regret.
  The missed opportunity of encouraging Drax B rather than moving to alternative combined heat and power systems will be a major mistake. Once again we shall be playing a part in missing an opportunity to support innovation and will instead have to watch the rest of the world showing us how to prepare for the twenty-first century.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Bill incorporates an international treaty and, in the second paragraph of Clause 1, is rather badly drafted. I dislike legislation by reference and it is difficult for the House to follow all the complicated terms of the Vienna agreement which is an inherent part of the Bill.
  I also want to complain at the start about the inability of the House to deal with the legislation because the Secretary of State, in his perfectly sound speech, hardly gave us a full description of the complex treaty. The treaty contains 92 articles and the attached protocol has an additional 24 articles. With the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary, I doubt whether he has read them.
  I hope that this deficiency will be remedied in Committee, because where an important international treaty is annexed to a Bill and will become part of an Act, it is incumbent upon all hon. Members to examine the treaty which we are, in effect, ratifying through the Bill.
  I wish to deal with three questions arising on the international front. First, are we, through the Bill, submitting our nuclear power industry to a one-sided international inspection which is not being applied to the Soviet Union's nuclear industry? This may prove to be yet another example of the Soviets agreeing to this type of international inspection in the non-proliferation treaty and not doing it, while we, having also agreed, will bring it into effect in very great detail.
  Secondly, in applying these arrangements, may we not be opening the door to international inspectors moving in and out of our nuclear installations and obtaining information which, if it were

  1103
  leaked, could be damaging to the public interest? I have in mind here the problem of nuclear terrorism.
  Thirdly, when talking about safeguards, why is there not one word in the legislation about safeguards for the environment?
  On the Russian connection, the whole Bill arises from the non-proliferation treaty which established an international regime for inspection. The United Kingdom and the United States, as nuclear weapon States, volunteered to submit their industries to that treaty, partly to encourage non-nuclear States to sign the treaty and partly to give them some assurance that their competitive position in peaceful nuclear development would not suffer.
  Why has the Soviet Union not adopted the same approach? This is relevant to the Bill, because the agreement makes clear a number of matters, including, for example, that the inspectors will have a duty to check on the dispersion of nuclear material from our power stations. The inspectors will be able to ask where the stuff is going. If we can demonstrate that it is going abroad for peaceful purposes, presumably the inspectors will be satisfied under the terms of the treaty. If the fissile material is plainly going for civil power or for certain non-nuclear industries, for example, into alloys or ceramics, the inspectors will presumably be satisfied.
  However, if the material is diverted for other purposes and the inspectors are not clear where it is going, we must suppose that it will be going for our weapons development. I am in favour of that, but any scientifically trained inspector who can establish how much of the material is going to civilian power, non-nuclear use or export will automatically be able to establish how much of the material is going into our weapons industry. This provides the inspectorate with a means of establishing precisely what level of nuclear weapons we are able to develop in this country.
  It may be that the Government intend the international inspection of civilian nuclear power to be a back door to the examination of military nuclear installations, but I doubt whether that is their
  1104
  intention. The House should be aware that within the treaty and the Bill there is a means of international inspectors being able to form a judgment of the United Kingdom's military nuclear power industry.
  In those circumstances, I am worried about the possibility of leaks. I do not know how many inspectors will be appointed. As this is a large industry, the number may run into scores or perhaps hundreds. In many cases, they will need to be specialists—physicists, metallurgists and so on—and people with ample training in nuclear power of all sorts.
  The protocol provides ample scope for the United Kingdom to reject inspectors whom it does not trust, who are of the wrong nationality or background or who, perhaps, have the wrong training. Equally, the treaty provides that we can put off limits any part of our industry. Having volunteered to accept the treaty, we retain the unilateral power to put certain parts of our sensitive installations outwith inspection if we judge it right to do so.
  My anxiety is that if we have a significant number of highly trained international inspectors poking about our nuclear power stations, conducting random tests, there is a possibility of highly sensitive information—which is highly relevant to the security of our weapons industry—being dispersed into a large number of hands. Information will be carried around in the brief cases of a significant number of international inspectors.
  It may be that the Minister will say that there is nothing to worry about, but we live in an age of international terrorism and I fear that the day will come when an organisation such as A1 Fatah, or some other group prepared to stop at nothing to achieve its political aims, will not be satisfied with kidnapping an ex-Prime Minister of Italy or hijacking an aircraft but will take the next step of seizing whatever weapons it can lay its hands on in order to blackmail and threaten lawful Governments. That possibility must exist because a young man in the United States has already made a nuclear device. It must exist because information about the technology is widely spread.

  1105
  My anxiety is that in the Bill we are permitting, nay encouraging, large numbers of highly trained international inspectors to have access to our nuclear technology and secrets and that this information is bound to be more widely dispersed and therefore more capable of being purloined by those into whose hands it should not fall. Therefore, there must be a danger in that regard.
  When he replies, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will say that in Committee he will make it his business to give some assurances that the security checks carried out by the international inspectors who come to the United Kingdom will be, rigorous and that we shall not accept Russian inspectors on the international inspection team. The very least that the Soviet Union can do is itself to agree to the same sort of open inspection that we are placing upon our industry. Until the Soviet Union has done that, I do not see why we should accept Soviet citizens among the inspectors who will be carrying out this important work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give such an assurance in Committee, and that he and his right hon. Friend have addressed their minds to the problem of espionage and the theft of technical information that could be useful to the international terrorist.
  For some years I had responsibility at the Department of the Environment for all forms of pollution control. I was shocked to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that the radioactive fall-out from coal-fired electricity stations can be 40 times higher than that from nuclear generating stations. It may be that that is a measure of how little fall-out there is in nuclear stations.
  During the period for which I was responsible for the alkali inspectorate I am bound to say that I was never advised that the fall-out from coal-burning electricity stations was anywhere near as dangerous as that. If it be that there still is from our coal-burning stations the amount of radioactive debris of sulphur and other impurities that has been suggested by my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State owes it to the House and to the coalmining industry to demand that the alkali inspectorate—it is an estimable body and one of the most expert in the world—reapply its mind to the problem and advise
  1106
  the Committee how dangerous, if there is a danger, is the policy of pursuing more and more coal-fired electricity stations.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take these matters seriously. I hope that the Committee will be able to give the treaty the scrutiny that it requires. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will meet the point that I have made about the dangers of international terrorism from too wide a dispersal of information.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) knows a great deal more about the subject of the debate than I do. Therefore, to follow him is a humbling experience as well as a pleasure.
  I must declare an interest, as I did a fortnight ago, in the British Leyland debate. I have earned my living as a management consultant. My firm has served Babcock and Wilcox for more than 10 years. The General Electric Company has a robust attitude towards consultants, as in many things, and my connections with it have been tangential. However, GEC, like Babcock and Wilcox, had its headquarters in my constituency. I must make it clear at the beginning of my remarks that there has been no contact with me by GEC, as there has been no contact by me with GEC, on this subject. Nor did Babcock and Wilcox make any approach to me other than the letters written by individual constituents, which I dare say other hon. Members received, at the time of the Drax B order.
  I shall speak only about Clause 5. The background to last July's decision is well known to everyone in the House and has been adequately covered already. In the CPRS report Drax B was to be the trigger to the rationalisation of the power plant manufacturing industry. In July, 1977 the Government claimed that the rationalisation was in the event impossible. When the merger between Reyrolle Parsons and Clarke Chapman was announced last June, it was stated that union disagreement was preventing the rationalisation of the industry along the lines suggested in the CPRS report. I am conscious that the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions

  1107
  moved to veto any resulting company arising out of the rationalisation that was not under NEB control.
  In passing, it is worth remarking that no such veto was deployed when in February the merger was announced between Babcock and Wilcox's large boiler interests and those power plant boiler interests formerly belonging to Clarke Chapman and now part of the Northern Engineering Industries located at Gateshead. The merger went through Without any NEB participation being involved.
  Before leaving the issue of what prevented the rationalisation of the turbine generating industry, I remark that it seems unfair to suggest that the unions alone were responsible for blocking it. I assume that the Parsons management had something to do with it as well.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: First, the hon. Gentleman is not quite right about the union position. The union said that there should be no company in which the NEB did not hold the balance of power. It was prepared to have a 50–25–25 company or a 40–40–20 company or whatever. However, it was not prepared to have a company in which one of the existing companies had more than 50 per cent.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about what made a new company unacceptable. It was nothing to do with the union. It was nothing to do with the Parsons management. It was that one of the parties to the deal, GEC, would not accept any company other than on its terms.
  Mr. Brooke: I accept the hon. Gentleman's first gloss, but his second gloss seems to be a rationalisation of series and strands of discussion going backwards and forwards.
  Mr. Thomas: No.
  Mr. Brooke: Now that the Drax B decision has been taken, I share the misgivings about the precise logic of the compensation that is being paid, although I recognise that the CEGB may commercially have had the Government at its mercy in the way that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) suggested that the Government
  1108
  had his constituents at Parsons at their mercy after the CPRS report.
  The track record in constructing major power stations world-wide over the past 15 years, and the delays at the Isle of Grain, which have already been mentioned, which form the latest case in point, do not encourage us to think that the CEGB's respective time frames of six years and seven and a half years, depending on the definition that is followed, will be met.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East argued ingeniously that the delays were themselves an argument for early ordering. However, that argument of itself does not justify compensation if Drax B is not to be generating power before it is needed.
  On my understanding there will not be a standard design. I can readily understand that the great engineering department at the CEGB would want to take advantage of the first major order placed since 1973 to advance the state of the art. However, that does not encourage us to think that that will accelerate the delivery of the station rather than delay it. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was right when he said that the £50 million will need considerable scrutiny in Committee, even though the limit to six months to which the Secretary of State referred is an encouraging start. But the £50 million and the reasons for it remain an element in the development of the power plant manufacturing industry, even though some of us may feel that the decision to spend the money last year could have been invested to greater effect on behalf of the industry.
  We are left with the turbine generator industry in an unrationalised and still potentially unsatisfactory state. The CPRS called for two measures with shorter-term aims. Both were to be triggers to the rationalisation. One was to be Drax B and the other the provision of additional assistance to exports.
  At the time of the Reyrolle Parsons—Clarks Chapman merger, Reyrolle Parsons was said to be contributing to that merger 14 per cent. of its assets devoted to power plant engineering on which it was earning 20 per cent. of its profits on 40 per cent. of its turnover. In the light of the CPRS reference to

  1109
  machine tool capability in turbine generator manufacture, Parsons would look to be under-capitalised for world competition. I acknowledge that I am not sure whether those figures include Parsons' investments in Canada and Australia, which are partly held and which would distort the picture, but the basic point still stands.
  Before leaving this issue of capital resources, it is worth remarking that, though Clarke Chapman employed 20 per cent. of its work force at Gateshead—I am quoting from the map on page 39 of the CPRS report—and was said to have 20 per cent. of its turnover in boiler-making for power stations as against 40 per cent. in power engineering overall, only 3 per cent. of Clarke Chapman's assets were in this area of manufacture. Some of the 1,560 employees at Gateshead were employed on heat recovery boilers—Gateshead also sheltered the advanced technology division, which comprises Clarke Chapman's research and development and the headquarters for its power engineering division—but the majority were presumably employed on the manufacture of power plant boilers. Therefore, 3 per cent. of the assets being deployed would not seem to be the right ratio to the number of people involved. I appreciate that machine tool capability in boilermaking is less important than in turbine generator manufacture.
  It looks as though the case for rationalisation in the industry remains. I note that at the time of the Reyrolle Parsons—Clarke Chapman merger, Reyrolle announced that the company intended to run down the sector of activities devoted to power plant manufacture and that Drax B would enable this to be done
  "in a controlled and orderly manner".
  All this is against the background of the export situation to which the CPRS devoted much study. The principal export market for Parsons has been Canada, which has taken 55 per cent. of Parsons' exports in the years 1961 to 1975. One of the worrying things about this concentration on Canada is the vulnerability of Parsons to it as against the orders which GEC has been securing in Korea, Hong Kong and South Africa. Anyone who does business in Canada knows the preference of the Canadians
  1110
  for dealing with Canadian companies. For many years Parsons has derived great benefit through Howden Parsons, in which it owns 49 per cent., being a preferred supplier with Canadian General Electric to Ontario Hydro, which has been Parsons' largest overseas customer.
  The loss in the comparatively recent past by Parsons of possible orders both in Calgary and in Eastern Canada worries one about Parsons' present competitive strength in Canada. That anxiety is compounded by the knowledge that Brown Boveri has now bought its way into a Canadian supplier, with all that that implies as a tenderer in that market.
  Of course, nothing that the Government can do will overcome a manufacturer who is fundamentally uncompetitive. I certainly am not suggesting that Parsons globally is uncompetitive. But the most worthwhile contribution that the Government can make in the export sphere is to help our industry to deliver a turnkey capability.
  It could be said that the industry and the Government have failed in the past—I am taking a 20-year look—to identify the trend towards turnkey projects throughout the world while other countries and companies have overtaken us in their collaboration between Government and manufacturer. The Government have lost the chance of using Drax B to help nationalise the industry. I hope that they will not likewise waste the similar opportunity which export collaboration affords, and I hope that the Minister, in summing up, will be able to give us encouraging news about the further conversations which are said to have been taking place.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have listened to a speech from another Tory Member attacking workers in the heavy manufacturing industry. I have been consulting the Daily Mail about its latest list and I notice that there are pretty much the same names in the list as those who are missing from the Chamber today. It is as well that I, as one of the people who come here more regularly than most, should make representations about what is known as the idle brigade.
  Mr. Rost: Did the hon. Gentleman consult the Daily Mail about how many

  1111
  minutes a day that newspaper's representatives attend the Gallery?
  Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point because we do not agree on a great deal.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. We are discussing the Second Reading of a Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: I have started to speak on the subject raised by the hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), and I should have thought that I would be allowed to comment on what he said. During the course of the hon. Member's speech there were some asides from the Tory Front Bench. As they were serious remarks I thought that it was my duty to reply. It has taken me two minutes to say what I have just said. I am now in the course of replying to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), one of my Derbyshire—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tried to indicate to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the remarks to which he was trying to reply were not related to this Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, if everybody in the House was pulled up because he did not relate his remarks to the Second Reading of a Bill, the Daily Mail would be right five times over. The debate would be finished by about 4 o'clock.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to try to relate his remarks to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: It seems clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are to be firm about how the debate is to be continued at this hour. Therefore, I will make the point that I had started to make earlier about what was said by the hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South. Here is another Tory Member attacking workers who work by and large in the blue collar industries—in heavy manufacturing. The hon. Gentleman used euphemisms and spoke about rationalisation and so on. What he was really saying was that people in the power construction industry are idle. I am fed up with hearing this.
  Mr. Brooke: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was not my purpose or intention.
  Mr. Skinner: That is what came across to me. I am fed up with hearing talk about rationalisation and about people who work hard for a living. Before I became a Member I was engaged in heavy industry and I am able to draw comparisons. I know which is the soft job. It is not the job that I did in the pits and not the job in which Reyrolle Parsons is engaged. I am referring to my job in the House of Commons. There are many volunteers for jobs in Parliament and similar jobs outside. There are not so many volunteers for a job that entails starting work at 5 o'clock in the morning and working three shifts.
  It is high time that Conservative Members and Liberal Members who speak about these matters outside—they very rarely come into the Chamber to speak about them—
  Mr. Penhaligon: I am present.
  Mr. Skinner: There is one Liberal Member here. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has almost disappeared from view. Tory Members and Liberal Members should curb their tongues and realise that the people who produce the wealth of this country are people such as those who work for Parsons and who will be responsible for Drax B, which is referred to in Clause 5 of the Bill.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be even more upset when I tell him what I have to say. While I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) for their support in the matter of the Drax B order, I reserve my position on the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). My hon. Friend has said that he has been a consistent supporter of the advancement of the Drax B order all along and has asked me whether I can find any evidence that he had not been such a supporter. This is what passes for unalloyed enthusiasm in the book of the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the matter that we are debating on Second Reading today—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) has already made one speech.
  Mr. Thomas: I think that my hon. Friend wants to hear this.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be, but the hon. Member has the right to make only a short intervention.
  Mr. Thomas: Then may I intervene again, briefly? On 18th July, referring to the announcement for which we are voting compensation today, the hon. Member for Bridgwater said:
  "his announcement has been taken in the teeth of the advice of the CPRS, the National Enterprise Board, the CEGB, the Secretary of State for Industry and the Department of Industry … what hope is there for British companies in the export market?—[Official Report, 18th July 1978; Vol. 935, c. 1151.]
  Now he asks us to believe that he was and is a committed supporter of advancing this order.
  Mr. Skinner: I have been present during all the statements about Drax B and about the future of the coal industry, so I have heard the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) speak about these matters many times. However, I have noticed a deliberate change of policy on the Tory Benches in only the last few days towards jobs such as those in Leyland. Therefore, I am not surprised that there has been this sudden turn of events in relation to Selby and Drax. It is not all that long ago that the Tory Benches cheered an Opposition Member who attempted to stop a Private Member's railway Bill going through which would have assisted the Selby coalfield and thereby enabled the Drax B project to be more useful when the Selby coalfield was exploited.
  I have noticed not only a change of emphasis but a distinct change of policy, and it may be that the Tories have been conducting some market research with the assistance of the advertising firm which they have engaged. It has a foreign-sounding name. It sounds a coloured name to me—Saatchi and Saatchi. Certainly it does not sound very English.
  Mr. Rost: Skinner and Skinner.
  Mr. Skinner: That is very English. Therefore, I am not surprised by what my hon. Friend the Member for New-
  1114
  castle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) said.
  I welcome this Bill, especially Clause 5. I have a few doubts about some of the other provisions, which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has raised from time to time. Therefore, I am a little hesitant about them. However, I know that the Wind-scale problem is not a matter that we are dealing with at the moment.
  The decision about Drax is a welcome move, although a bit belated. The whole project was held up by the intervention of none other than Arnold Weinstock, who seemed to be running various Government Departments at the time. I was getting very upset by this man's meanderings through the various Departments. It seemed to me that he was wielding tremendous power, notwithstanding the fact that the Tory civil servants were doing their best as well to try to wreck Drax B.
  I believe that civil servants should be tackled on these matters. I do not agree that they are apolitical and do not become involved. They were very much involved in this matter, and in my view this Bill represents a victory over those civil servants who tried to prevent Drax B from coming into existence. We should remember that. It was not just the politicians and Mr. Weinstock who tried to delay it and to ensure that Parsons men did not get any additional work. It was these civil servants as well, and their role in this affair needs to be put on the record.
  Hon. Members should look at this problem more closely. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), who is now chief monitor to the Secretary of State, has been involved in looking at the problem of Civil Service power. I think that we should be doing it quite openly and not be mealy-mouthed about it, and I take this opportunity to do precisely that.
  Earlier, I referred to the Liberals. This Bill has been delayed not merely because of Arnold Weinstock and the civil servants but because of the Liberals.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Skinner: No. I have not got to the gist of the matter yet. There was a

  1115
  moment when the Liberals fleetingly, between prolonged by-elections, believed that they were wielding some power. At that time no opinion polls showed how badly they would do and no by-elections indicated that they would lose deposits.
  In that intervening period they began to develop muscles. The Liberals decided to start flexing those muscles over the Bill which should have come before us. The Bill that we are now considering has been brought to our notice as a result of the Liberals saying that they did not want the package as a whole. It is interesting to note that as soon as we had a further by-election and we could see how the Liberals were doing in the country they began to tell a different story.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I recognise that the hon. Member is a constant seeker after truth. The Government dropped 52 of the 60 clauses in the original Bill. We indicated our support last August of the clauses that remain. Never in any negotiations have we wavered in our support of the clauses that remain.
  Mr. Skinner: For the past two or three years, apart from the nonsense trotted out by the hon. Member, the Liberals have been engaged in a simple exercise known as a job creation scheme—saving their own jobs.
  Mr. Rost: They saved yours.
  Mr. Skinner: Mine? The hon. Member would be interested to know that I have spent a great deal of time trying to look after the jobs of those of my hon. Friends who represent seats with narrow majorities. As a result of pressure that I have brought to bear on the Government, we have been able to keep these hon. Members in a position from which they will be able to escape. Perhaps the Tories are now beginning to revise their industrial strategy because they know that the General Election will be decided not in rural Britain but in the industrial areas where the majorities are small. That is why I have been assisting.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter that we are discussing is the Second Reading of a Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: I was interrupted by the Liberal Member. I noticed that he was
  1116
  not here at Question Time. I was explaining why we should safeguard jobs of this kind. Every day we hear talk about the need to expand manufacturing industry and save jobs. We hear about the 1½ million people who are unemployed. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who is not here today, was on television at the weekend rightly complaining about the amount of money that it costs to keep the unemployed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did the right hon. Member for Worcester mention this Bill?
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member was talking about the need to create additional jobs in manufacturing industry. That is what the Bill does. It provides £50 million to ensure that labour-intensive jobs are brought on stream more quickly than the Tories would want, despite their change of attitude. I welcome the Bill in that respect. It will bring about vital additional jobs in certain areas of the country.
  It is no good for the Government or anyone else to complain continually about the lack of manufacturing jobs when there are opportunities to make inroads into the serious unemployment problem. This is an example. That is why the Liberals were wrong to delay the Bill. We needed it sooner so that these jobs could be brought on stream more quickly.
  This Bill, and Clause 5 in particular, will result in Drax B burning coal. As we know, it is associated with the Selby coalfield. It is at this point that I deliver a word of warning, for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is probably quite well prepared. It is in respect of the question of the expansion of the coal industry. I want to see not only Drax B but many more such power stations as well. My hon. Friend and our hobbling right hon. Friend know that the power station take of solid fuel, even if there is no change, and even taking into account Drax B, will drop during the next two decades from about 60 per cent. to about 50 per cent. That means that, if nothing else is done, there will be pit closures as a result.
  My hon. Friend should bear in mind that Drax B should be the forerunner of many more such stations and that we should not get hooked up on the nuclear

  1117
  thing. We ought to expand our coal industry's production from its present 180 million tons, and get it up to 250 million tons.
  Mr. Forman: Is not the answer new markets for coal in terms of both new technologies and exports to the rest of the EEC?
  Mr. Skinner: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House when we had that disgraceful episode of the Tories, assisted by some of my hon. Friends, dragging an unwilling Britain into the Common Market. Now we have the galling situation of actually selling less coal to the rest of the Common Market after the referendum than we did before it. It is less than 2 million tonnes a year. We must take into account the fact that we are having to take all their skimmed milk and sheepmeat regimes, and all the other products. I am talking about the Bill and the question of expanding the coal markets, and we need to expand them inside the Common Market.
  Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend is paying some attention to this matter and that he will tell the Secretary of State. I know that the Secretary of State is not keen on his Common Market colleagues, and he might be using his recent accident as another excuse not to go to Brussels. However, it is important that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary should tell people inside the Common Market that as long as Britain is a member, which I hope will not be for long, we shall demand that they buy more of our coal instead of buying coal from third countries. We are told that we must take their products and refuse to take products from third countries.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Under which clause in the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Bill does this come?
  Mr. Skinner: It gets on to the question of Drax B and £50 million of taxpayers' money. I am speaking in terms of trying to ensure that taxpayers' money, similar to the £50 million, is used in the future, as well as now, in a way that will assist the indigenous coal industry and will keep our own employment and not export employment. I think that in general terms the Bill is trying to do that, and I am trying to do it in this debate.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that on the coal argument the Drax power station is being built late, because the two boards agreed, according to the NCB's annual report for 1976–77—and I quote exactly—
  "The two boards concluded that, if the station were to be commissioned in phase with coal output fom Selby, it should be ordered in 1977".
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been dealing with this matter very closely for a considerable time. It grieves me to think that we have not dealt with it before. I am trying to stress the point that this is only a one-off job and that we need to do more if we are to safeguard the industry's future. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should not be thinking in terms of the Selby coalfield being used as a reservoir for manpower from pits that have closed in Yorkshire. Arthur Scargill and many thousands of his members, and myself as well, will not stand for that.
  The same applies to the coalfield in the Vale of Belvoir. We believe that it is not right that certain Notts pits should be closed, including perhaps Teversall, which would eventually mean a massive movement of miners away from the traditional coalfields to the Vale of Belvoir. We want to see all those pits expanded and we want to see more Drax B type stations taking up those markets. There are more than 30 million tons of coal lying on the pit top. We need to sell that coal and I have given a few examples of how that can come about. Drax B is one of the ways in which that coal may be used.
  That is my principal reason for taking part in this debate. I welcome the limited opportunities that exist within he Bill for the coal industry, All I am saying is that we need to do more.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Hamish Gray: We had a very good debate until 20 minutes ago. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was not free this afternoon to sit in and listen to the debate. He might have been able to make some constructive comments. It was a pity because the hon. Gentleman has a great deal to contribute. I have served on Committees with him during which he has made many

  1119
  constructive suggestions. It is sad that at times the privileges of the House are abused by situations such as we had tonight in which the hon. Gentleman did not come out of this engagement in his best light. His remarks this evening are best forgotten and I shall not comment upon them.
  This Bill was introduced by the Secretary of State, and we fully accept the reason he cannot be with us tonight. He has a very important engagement and he did us the courtesy of advising us that he was unable to be here for the Government reply.
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt first with the original Bill and then dealt with the Bill we are now discussing. The first part of the Bill deals with nuclear safeguard clauses and the second part with Drax. The original Bill did not meet with general approval even before it was presented. The comments made by the Liberal Party and by others who were privileged to see the Bill indicated that those involved showed considerable concern for the electricity supply industry and that they were disturbed by the Government's failure to produce a Bill implementing some of the recommendations of Plowden. I wish to highlight the point by drawing attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Bolsover, having come in and interrupted a constructive debate, has now seen fit to leave. No doubt he will return later, but we shall deal with that situation when he arrives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) criticised the way in which the Government had dealt with the original Bill. I do not think there are many people in the House who would disagree with him. This was a peculiar original Bill. We were led to believe that it would deal with a variety of items including the reorganisation of the electrical supply industry. In fact, it did a great deal more than that and contained certain aspects which were clearly unacceptable to many hon. Members.
  One interesting fact is that the members of the Plowden Committee were among the first to voice reservations about the original Bill when devised. Let me quote from The Daily Telegraph of Thursday 13th April referring to the members of
  1120
  the Plowden Committee. I quote from an article by Mr. Roland Gribben:
  "They felt the proposals undermined the reforms they suggested and were highly critical of a decision that would allow Mr. Benn, Energy Secretary, to retain patronage powers to appoint members of area electricity boards."
  This was substantiated by none other than Mr. Frank Chapple of the EEPTU of whom the same article said:
  "Mr. Chapple said that suggestions from Mr. Benn that civil servants should be appointed to the new body would add bureaucratic nonsense to bureaucratic nonsense."
  Obviously this Bill was not a starter from the very beginning. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Energy wasted so much time over his consultations with the Liberal Party, because it was obvious that it would use this as a means of justifying this sordid piece of political intrigue commonly known outside as the Lib-Lab pact. Even if the Liberals had supported it, it was doubtful whether the whole of the Labour side of the House would have gone along with it.
  The three principal unacceptable proposals have already been dealt with, and I shall not deal with them further at this stage. However, I repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), that the Select Committee is now playing an important part, one which many of us would like to see enlarged, in pre-legislation proceedings. I think that for the first time Members from all parts of the House can comment on the merit of a Bill in its very early stages, so that the Government know the views of the various parties and people outside the House about a measure before they introduce a Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, what we really face today is the remnants of the original Bill. The clauses dealing with the right of entry to civil nuclear installations of inspectors of the IAEA, together with provisions relating to the United Kingdom obligations in respect of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, are very important. They are not matters with which we would take issue, nor are they the kind of stuff likely to pack the Press Gallery. They are perhaps lacking in a certain amount of political sex appeal, but they are typical of the many energy debates that we

  1121
  have, on Bills which usually involve the spending of millions of pounds and the future of thousands of jobs. When the Bills concern the nuclear industry, we as the elected representatives of the people must consider them with the greatest care.
  By our decisions we must assure the population that what we are doing is in their best interests. Yet, regrettably, it is all too often only when the miners decide to have a strike, or when the power workers cannot agree a wage settlement, that the subject of energy receives from the Press the attention that it deserves.
  When he was translated from being Secretary of State for Industry to the Energy Department, many people suggested that the Secretary of State had been demoted. Those of us who take an active interest in the subject of energy know that it was in fact a promotion, because no subject dealt with in this House is of greater importance than energy. Whether or not we like the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his remit, he occupies probably the most important position for this country at present.
  The IAEA has two main objectives—to enable nuclear energy to make a maximum contribution to world energy and to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. I should like to quote briefly from a speech by Sir John Hill at a forum on nuclear power on 11th-12th October last year, when he outlined the second requirement in as succinct a way as possible. He said:
  "the Agency has the great advantage that it is recognised as a promotional organisation endeavouring to find a machinery which will enable civil nuclear power programmes to operate and expand while stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and not one concentrating on denial measures and with little concern for the effect these might have on nuclear nower programmes."
  That is precisely what is intended, and it is purely in this light that we are asked to approve Clauses 1 to 4, which deal with inspection of our nuclear establishments by the inspectorate.
  Later in his remarks, Sir John said:
  "The Agency maintains records of all source and special fissionable material, that is thorium uranium and plutonium, held by a country for its civil nuclear programme. Checks on these figures are carried out by the Agency's Safeguards Inspectorate".
  1122
  Those who express worry on this subject would find that most of their reservations would be removed if they read this speech in detail.
  The nuclear inspection clauses are relatively non-controversial. The nuclear argument was, I thought, well highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He put the issue into perspective and asked a number of important questions of the Government Front Bench with which I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to deal in his reply. If not, I hope that he will, as is his custom, write to my hon. Friend. The Minister is one of those Ministers who always carry out their promises to write to hon. Members about matters raised in debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) drew attention to the safeguards and the contribution which the United Kingdom can make. This point was reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who also drew our attention to the subject of nuclear terrorism. He questioned the requirements of the treaty. It is not for me to explain the terms of the treaty. No doubt this is something with which the Minister can also deal.
  Information regarding our own position would also be useful. It is important that the international monitoring of nuclear installations to detect possible withdrawal of material from civil activities should be supported to the full. I welcome the safeguards to protect commercial and industrial confidentiality. We realise the importance of this and fully support it.
  There are, however, a number of questions which we shall wish to pursue in Committee. In a few moments I shall deal with the issue of Drax, because this is probably the part of the Bill which causes at least some controversy. While talking of our nuclear establishments subjecting themselves to inspection, I draw the attention of the House, not for the first time, to the excellent safety record which the British nuclear industry has achieved. Our nuclear establishments are already subject to the most stringent examination. They have much of which to be proud. The first report of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, entitled "Health and Safety in Nuclear

  1123
  Establishments, 1975–76", is summarised in the March issue of Atom. I should like to quote three small passages.
  The first passage stated that:
  "no worker in nuclear power stations in Britain during 1975–76 received a radiation dose in excess of the annual limit set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection."
  That is a most important statement when we consider the number of people involved and the high standards demanded. The report also referred to
  "the important role played by the major licensees such as the generating boards and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. in setting and maintaining safety standards."
  Third, the report said:
  "Details are given of the stage by stage supervision by the Inspectorate of all nuclear projects from early design through construction to commissioning and operation. This role is not complete until de-commissioning and site clearance or closure."
  That is both interesting and extremely significant for us.
  It is noteworthy that the organisation and administration of the nuclear industry in this country has been subject to the most rigorous examination not only by the inspectorate but by every conservation body in the land, from the Friends of the Earth downwards, and it has withstood in splendid fashion the attacks and criticisms which have been directed upon it.
  I have no doubt whatever that the cause adopted by those who advocate the nuclear power option for the future is one which this country can back without fear. Although I wholly respect the
  1124
  views but forward today and on other occasions by those who have severe reservations about nuclear power, I say to them now, as I have said in the past, that it is all very well to cast doubt upon nuclear power but, when their arguments are satisfactorily answered by the experts and when they have no reasonable alternative to present within the necessary timescale, I see no purpose in their continuing their argument.
  The truth is that, although alternative sources of energy may be available, they are unlikely to be available within the timescale that we require, and a responsible Government or responsible Opposition must at all costs keep the nuclear alternative available. I do not suggest that we should wholeheartedly and without reservation support the nuclear industry to the detriment of all others, but I say to those who cast such doubts upon it that they must produce something more credible than any alternative which they have offered thus far.
  A good deal of attention has been directed to Clause 5, which deals with the whole question of Drax. In a very good speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) told us again why she believed in the future of Drax. I have something to say now to hon. Members on the Government Back Benches, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover, who made such a brief visit to the Chamber this evening, has not waited to hear the rest of the debate.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman should be grateful for small mercies.
  Mr. Gray: I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, but if the hon. Member for Bolsover stayed he might learn something, and that could only be an improvement.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East has been a resoluts, defender of the Drax project for many years. In this connection I mention also my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), who, despite a serious illness recently, never allowed those of us on the Opposition Front Bench to forget the importance of this project and continued to fight hard for it.
  It must come as rather distasteful to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend to hear suggestions from the Labour Back Benches that it was the Labour Party only which was pressing for the Drax project. I see the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East getting restless in his pew, but I shall not give way to him. He has already had a fair deal in this debate. He made a lengthy and constructive speech, and he has since made more interventions than one cares to remember. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that he must be itching at the moment to shoot me down.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) expressed considerable doubt about the Drax project. Although I fully respect the reservations which he holds, I must tell him that I believe it to be beyond doubt that we on this side have given the Drax project our support, despite all that has been said from the Government Benches. Notwithstanding what has been said about my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, for example, the truth is that we have at no time voted against the Drax project. We have been as much in support of the principle of Drax B as have Labour Members. This has been a nonparty issue, and we are just as entitled to claim credit for what has happened as are Labour Back Benchers.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East also raised, quite justifiably, the question of compensation. I think that we would all agree with her on that issue because a number of changes have taken place since the original order was made.
  1126
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East made some very interesting points in his contribution when he raised the question of the year-to-year period and the two-year period. We shall need to explore this further in Committee, and the amount of compensation—if, indeed, compensation is to be paid—should also be considered. The £50 million mentioned in the Bill must be taken as a ceiling. I think that we would all like to have that figure fully justified before agreeing to the passing of the clause. No doubt we shall have many more opportunities in Committee of discussing these points.
  On the question of compensation, I refer to an article in The Times of 2nd October 1977 in which it was stated that
  "The order now appears to be necessary much sooner than the late 1979 date put for ward by the CEGB during negotiations with the Government".
  In the same article it was also stated that
  "experience suggests that an early start is necessary merely to get Drax finished on time."
  I think that we would all agree with that. Experience has taught us that every station has been late. When a major station such as Drax is built, inevitably changes have to be made for which, presumably, the work force cannot be held responsible. There may be design changes or, indeed, changes in technique in the building of the station. It is highly likely that there will be changes in this case. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to suggest that the case for compensation should be examined very carefully indeed.
  We have allowed ourselves this evening to get into a general debate about nuclear energy. These questions were thrashed out fairly fully in the Windscale debate. There will also be other opportunities when we shall again be able to debate these questions. I do not, therefore, want to say anything more than I have already said on that aspect.
  We shall want to look very carefully in Committee at Clause 5, which relates to Drax. By then we shall no doubt have the advantage of further information and suggestions from those who are most closely involved.

  1127

  Although it may have been for the convenience of the Government and of the Liberal Party that the original Bill was set aside, it has caused a great deal of apprehension outside this House. There is no doubt that the thousands of people who earn their living day by day in the electricity supply industry feel very let down. They were given to believe that a Bill was to be introduced implementing at least some of the recommendations of the Plowden Report. I do not say that their future has been jeopardised but certainly they have been left in the unfortunate position of wondering what will happen to them.
  Mr. Palmer: Would the hon. Member say whether the Conservative Party would have voted for it, either in its entirety or in a modified form?
  Mr. Gray: The Conservative Party would have been unlikely to vote for it in its original form. As I mentioned earlier, there were at least three requirements that we found objectionable—Clause 3, for example. But as is the case in these things, had we not been able to defeat the Bill on Second Reading, we would have tried to amend it in Committee. But we did not get the opportunity. Had the Government consulted the Tribune group instead of the Liberal Party they might have found some support. What the nationalist parties would have done, I cannot imagine. I can only speak for the Conservative Party and I can say that we would very much have liked the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry but not at the cost of certain requirements that the Secretary of State wanted to include in that Bill.
  I wish this Bill well. We shall look at it closely in Committee and there may be some amendments that we shall hope to make.
  9.22 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): As the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has just said, there are aspects of the Bill which I am sure are more suitable for discussion in Committee.
  The nuclear safeguards clauses in the Bill have one purpose and one purpose
  1128
  only—to enable us to bring the IAEA-Euratom-United Kingdom Agreement into force. The Bill accords to IAEA inspectors rights of entry to our nuclear facilities, and rights of access to information to enable them to carry out their duties. That is the sole purpose of Clauses 1 to 4.
  Perhaps I may go over very briefly the sequence of events which have led up to the need for this part of the Bill. During the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the non-proliferation treaty in 1968, the United Kingdom announced that it would submit its civil nuclear installations to IAEA inspection. The IAEA-Euratom-United Kingdom agreement of 1976 was made in fulfilment of that voluntary offer by the United Kingdom. Euratom became a party to the 1976 agreement as a result of our joining the Community in 1973, after our offer had been made, but an agreement would have been made in any case between the United Kingdom and the IAEA in fulfilment of our offer.
  The Bill now before the House will, when enacted, enable us to inform the Community and the IAEA that the internal requirements have been met to give effect to the agreement.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in introducing the Bill, its second purpose is to seek parliamentary authority for payments to the Central Electricity Generating Board in recognition of its having advanced the decision to proceed to the second stage of the Drax coal-fired power station.
  The Government's decision to ask the CEGB to proceed early with the completion of Drax and the board's response to that decision were made with a view to meeting the immediate needs of the United Kingdom power plant industry. As a result of the Drax decision and the thermal reactor decision announced in January, the industry has in prospect a work load of 4·6 gigawatts for Great Britain in addition to any export orders it might gain. The House will be aware that GEC has recently won an order to supply 700 megawatt generating plant to Hong Kong after negotiations in which the Government played a leading part. We are confident that the Drax order will safeguard a great many jobs over the next few years in the power plant industry at Parsons in Newcastle and Babcock and Wilcox at Renfrew, in the suppliers to

  1129
  these companies and in the construction industry.
  The Drax decision is a mark of the Government's confidence in the future of the British coal industry which will be investing in the ultra-modern mining project nearby at Selby.
  In acting as we have to safeguard the future of the power plant industry, we are following the previous Administration who asked the board to bring forward its order for the Ince station and agreed to compensate the board for doing so. Both parties have thus had occasion to conclude that early ordering of a power station would serve the national interest.
  On the question of the coal for Drax B, I must correct an assumption of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), who spoke about tremendous expense in the use of coal and generating of electricity at Drax B. When my right hon. Friend and I met the CEGB, we were told, unsolicited, that the electricity from Drax B would be among the cheapest generated electricity in the world. In the interests of the power plant industry and the people who mine the coal, I make that correction because it would be unfair to allow the hon. Gentleman's remarks to go unchallenged.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) asked about the designation of the IAEA inspectors. The safeguards agreement provides that the agency shall give the United Kingdom and Euratom details of each inspector proposed to be designated to visit United Kingdom facilities and the United Kingdom and Euratom will have the right to reject any proposed designation. In addition, Euratom and the United Kingdom will have the right to have IAEA inspectors accompanied during their inspections by Euratom inspectors and by representatives of the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) raised a number of issues, some of which, as he conceded, are more appropriate for detailed examination in Committee. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not being in the Chamber. He has been here for six or seven hours, and I do not complain about his absence now.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the scope of the inspections. Design information
  1130
  on the civil nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom will be sent to the IAEA safeguards inspectorate. This information will detail the type and flow of nuclear material in each facility and the nuclear material accountancy and control methods applied. This data will be studied by the agency and in conjunction with Euratom and the United Kingdom, it will draw up a facility attachment for each individual facility which will set out in detail how that facility will be safeguarded—that is, record keeping, reporting procedures, the scope and frequency of inventory taking and the methods of inspection and the frequency and intensity of inspections.
  On large plants the amount of nuclear material processed may be sufficient to allow for continuous inspection, but, on smaller plants, inspections may be at intervals. Here an inspection would consist of visiting the plant, updating the most recent report, visiting the process areas to sample, measure and count items as appropriate to establish the physical presence of the nuclear material detailed in the accounts. If there is a continuous inspection regime, there will be a continuous system of verification.
  I felt that it was necessary to deal with those procedures, as the hon. Gentleman spoke at great length about accountability, and about checks and balances. I therefore felt that it was in the interests of the debate that I should answer those questions. I have noted some other questions that he asked and I shall answer them by letter.
  Mr. Forman: Article 84, on which I laid some stress, deals with non-notified visits by the inspectors to our nuclear facilities. There is an apparent paradox in the article whereby it lays out the possibility of non-notified visits by the inspectors and then states that the agency
  "shall advise the United Kingdom and the Community periodically of its general programme of announced and unannounced inspections, specifying the general periods when inspections are foreseen."
  Does that mean that the inspections are announced or unannounced?
  Mr. Eadie: I should prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman about the procedures he is questioning. I may come to the point this evening, but I give the undertaking that I shall write to him.

  1131
  I promised that I would answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend the question of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds about the USSR. Has the Soviet Union made a similar offer to submit to the IAEA safeguards? The answer is that it has not. We should welcome it if it did. However, a nuclear weapon State is not required to accept safeguards. The purpose of the United Kingdom's and the United States' offer to place their civil activities under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards is to show that the non-nuclear weapon States would not suffer any commercial disadvantage by becoming party to the NPT and being subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The offered agreements do not affect the national security or defence interests of the United Kingdom or the United States.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) indulged in some remarks about the legislation that never was, if I may put it that way. I do not want to deal with that, because I think that it has been adequately aired already. I may deal later with some of the assertions made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon).
  I noted that the hon. Member for Bridgewater gave positive support to the power plant industy. When introducing a Bill of this sort it is necessary to realise that the confidence of the industry means a great deal. I think that there should have been a commitment by the hon. Gentleman of support for the power plant industry. In the course of replying to the debate I do not want to say who did what, who is stronger or who is weaker. It is better that the industry should know that it has support.
  In the course of his remarks the hon. Gentleman mentioned the question posed by his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton, drawing attention to the passage in the Parker Report which stated that safeguards could and should be improved. The question was what is being done to beef up the safeguards. The United Kingdom is extremely interested in the beefing up of the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards as are the other member States.
  We are certainly seeking ways in which to help the agency: for example, training inspectors, providing equipment and making available advanced nuclear faci-
  1132
  licities in which to develop improved safeguard techniques. The IAEA is now putting forward proposals to member States for an increased budget and a significant increase in the numbers of inspectors. The United Kingdom is sympathetic to these requests and will work towards meeting them.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of coal exports and the Community. We have had these exchanges across the Floor of the House before. I have always made it perfectly clear that we are a member State of the EEC and that we have the largest coal industry and the cheapest coal in Europe. I think that, in the interests of all countries, we should have learned the lesson of the 1973–74 Yom Kippur war when countries were placed in great difficulty because they lacked supplies of indigenous sources of energy.
  If the Community is supposed to mean anything, I believe that it should develop its own indigenous sources of energy. I could probably devote all the time at my disposal to the question of what the Community should do about sources of energy. It would be a pity if the memories of the member States were so poor that they could not realise that it is in the interests of the Community that, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, we should beef up our indigenous sources of energy and that coal should play a predominant role. We know that probably 40 million or 50 million tonnes of coal are coming in from third countries.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could assure the House that the Department of Energy would pursue this matter. I certainly give that assurance. We shall certainly pursue the matter. Indeed, I have already made two speeches at the Council of Ministers on this issue.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind my spending time on dealing with his speech. It was an important speech, and I hope that his hon. Friends do not think that I am spending too much time on it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned research and development. I am replying to him on behalf of my hon. Friends and on behalf of the Department of Energy.
  I agree that we should be looking for other markets for coal. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I hope

  1133
  at the beginning of next month to publish a working party report on research and development—coal technology. I have been chairman of this working party. I know that the report has the support of the Labour Party, but I should like it to have the support of the Conservative Party. The report deals with the question of other markets for coal. We do not believe that coal should be used simply in industry and power generation. It is in the best interests of the nation, as was said by the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), that we should be considering other markets and examining the question of coal derivatives.
  In the report we propose to deal with the efficient burning of coal, how we can use coal better and how we can deal with some of the environmental factors that have been mentioned during the debate. We also deal with the question of synthetic natural gas.
  The hon. Member for New Forest mentioned the expected lifespan of fossil fuels such as oil and gas. The working party report will try to signpost the road along which the nation should go on the question of the liquefaction of coal. My hon. Friends will be interested in that. I had it drawn to my attention that the Labour Party first suggested the idea in 1934.
  We are told that we owe some of our financial strength to the fact that we have oil. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty understands what I mean. It has been suggested that we have enough coal to last 300 years. If we consider the liquefaction of coal, the financial strength does not any longer become financial strength simply because we have got oil. There can be a continuity of this financial strength if we adopt the proposals in the report.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) mentioned the recent lecture given by Dr. Walter Marshall, in which Dr. Marshall suggested that in the interests of nonproliferation nuclear facilities such as reprocessing should be concentrated in a limited number of countries. There would be advantage in that kind of development. The International Atomic Energy Agency has recently published a
  1134
  report on multinational fuel cycle centres which would fulfil that role. This proposal is being examined in the international fuel cycle evaluation. We are very interested in it and are playing an active role in that part of the evaluation.
  Perhaps I might now take up a comment of the hon. Member for Bridgwater when he asked about orders under the 1972 Act. I have a note before me to the effect that under the 1972 Act the main order was Ince B. However, whereas the argument was that it was only Ince B, in fact one of the Inverkip units was also advanced, as was the Leicestershire gas turbine station. I do not make that as a debating point. I mention it only for the record.
  Mr. Tom King: The Minister is actually making the point to his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who suggested that there was no provision made for compensation for advanced ordering. The Minister has very kindly confirmed my point.
  Mr. Eadie: I am not too sure that the hon. Member made his point there at all. In the course of our exchanges it was suggested that only one was involved. I think that I have demonstrated successfully that there was more than one—[Interruption.] Perhaps we ought to leave it at that.
  The hon. Member for New Forest referred to the level of background radiation which can be attributed to coal-fired power stations, a point taken up by some of his hon. Friends. Clearly the level of background radiation varies from place to place in the United Kingdom. Some part of the background radiation can be attributed to residues from the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and elsewhere. I can assure the House that levels of emission from power stations are monitored carefully and are known to be well within established safety limits.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Can the Minister confirm or deny my statement to the effect that the level of radiation coming out of a coal-burning power station is 40 times greater around the power station than that coming from a nuclear power station?
  Mr. Eadie: I noted the hon. Gentleman's point. It can sound worse than it really is, and it requires some qualification. I expected the hon. Member to respond to the explanation which I made, and I shall ask the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to write to the hon. Member.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) quoted from the report of a recent address by Dr. Eklund, director general of the International Atomic Agency, about proliferation. I should like to quote a further passage from that address which puts nuclear safeguards in the right perspective. Dr. Eklund said:
  "This of course raises the next question as to how effective these safeguards are. Without going into details I would like to state that the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards provide a reasonable degree of assurance that the inspectorate is carrying out its NPT obligations.
  This degree of assurance is constantly being enhanced as we gain experience in this pioneering endeavour of applying international controls to a particularly sensitive area of the industries and research establishments of so many countries."
  Those remarks sum up well the way in which we should regard the steady improvement which we hope to see in the effectiveness of the safeguards.
  It has been drawn to my attention that I have been speaking for more than 26 minutes. I do not wish to take up more than the time that was agreed. I should like to write to many hon. Members—
  Mr. Abse: I trust that the Minister is not suggesting that the issues that I raised should not be publicly answered and that he should not address his mind to them. There is a sinister connection between the Brazilian contract and this country. This requires an answer. It must not be dodged by letter writing or by filling up the time when there is nearly another ten minutes left of the debate.
  Mr. Eadie: I have no objection to speaking for another 10 minutes. I have never dodged anything in my life. I was trying to accommodate the House. I have not been filling up time, and I have answered some important questions. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will withdraw his remark. I have carefully noted what he
  1136
  said. I hope that on reflection he will withdraw his remark.
  Mr. Abse: Let us deal with it.
  Mr. Eadie: I thought that my hon. Friend would take that attitude. He spoke at length about the various nuclear contracts that are under negotiation with Brazil. The United Kingdom is party to two of those contracts. The first is the contract between BNFL and Brazil for a "hex" conversion plant. That contract will be subject to the conclusion of a safeguards agreement which is satisfactory to this Government. The Secretary of State for Energy and the Foreign Secretary are aware of these negotiations with Brazil, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool that the contract will not go through unless the conditions on which we are insisting are fully met.
  The second contract is between Urenco and Brazil for low enrichment of uranium for Brazil's nuclear power programme. That contract also will be subject to safeguards, but, in addition, as the Foreign Secretary said during the debate on the Parker Report, the plutonium eventually derived from that enriched uranium will become subject to some form of internationally controlled storage.
  I said that I would try to conclude my speech within the time set. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. As hon. Members know, we support wholeheartedly the safeguards regime administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. These are the front line of defence against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We recognise that international safeguards cannot by themselves guarantee to prevent a country from acquiring nuclear weapons technology. But we believe that safeguards can be made to provide sufficient and timely warning of the diversion of nuclear materials from civil use to enable other countries to take action.
  By offering to submit United Kingdom civil facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency inspection, we are participating in a system which will, we believe, become progressively more effective in deterring other countries from developing nuclear weapons.
  As regards the Drax provision, I invite the House to support the confidence that

  1137
  the Government have shown in the future of two key British industries, namely, the coal industry and the power plant industry.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND ELECTRICITY (FINANCE) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise contributions by the Secretary of State to expenditure by the Central Electricity Generating Board in connection with the construction of the second stage of the Board's generating station at Drax, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums not exceeding £50 million to be applied as contributions towards expenses incurred by the Board in that connection.—[Mr. Tinn.]

  LONDON TRANSPORT STAFF (ASSAULTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I feel particularly grateful for the opportunity of being able to raise in the House tonight what I regard as an extremely important subject—the growing problem of assaults on London Transport bus crews and public transport personnel in the Greater London area. I think that not only the crews themselves but members of the public will also welcome the opportunity of this subject being debated in the House.
  It might seem unduly alarmist to raise this matter as a specific subject rather than just to deal with general matters concerning violence in modern society and law and order in general. Incidentally, I can certainly see the logic of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department attending the debate, and I thank her for coming to the House, rather
  1138
  than a Minister from the Department of Transport being present on the Front Bench.
  But I do not think that it is enough just to treat this matter as a general problem. There is a specific problem in connection with the growing number of violent indictments on public transport vehicles affecting bus crews, and in respect of Tube trains and other trains, and there are also those involving ticket staffs and station staffs. But the main problem certainly relates to the buses.
  If anyone accused me of being alarmist, I would deny that by saying that last year there were nearly 800 cases of common assault. There were 130 other offences similar to that. If one singles out just serious assaults, including grievous bodily harm, one finds that 237 incidents were reported in 1977, and those are only the reported incidents in the Greater London area on London Transport buses alone. They do not include incidents which presumably do not get reported, the minor incidents which could easily turn into violent incidents, and all the rest of it, and they do not include assaults that occur on other members of the public in public transport vehicles, but only on staff, mainly conductors and drivers.
  One-third of the assaults, according to London Transport—and I am grateful to London Transport for the figures that I have been given—occur after school hours. Therefore, this is an indication, as with a large number of violent incidents in London—and I say this with great regret and great reluctance—that once again we must consider the growing and specific problem of juvenile offenders, particularly in the big cities and especially, unfortunately, in London.
  There are no conclusions to be reached in geographical terms, other than that—it is equally with great regret that I have to say it—most of these incidents have taken place south of the river. I refrain deliberately from singling out specific areas in Greater London where these violent and horrible incidents have taken place on buses, but that seems to be the pattern that has developed.
  Lest there be any mistaken conclusion from other kinds of sociological factors and trends in all this sad and sorry picture, there are no racial conclusions to be drawn either. As much as there may be

  1139
  gangs of hooligans, of whatever race, operating in crowds, there are also incidents perpetrated by single assailants or by assailants going around in a group or in pairs, and they can be from all sorts of ethnic groups.
  But the incidents are now serious enough to cause grave anxiety at London Transport and particularly amongst the people who have to suffer them directly, the bus crews themselves. In respect of the Tubes, although this is much less of a problem, as we can well imagine, none the less the number of serious assaults last year, at 58, including station staff and ticket staff, is in itself sufficiently alarming for London Transport to be thinking hard about that as well. The total of common assaults was nearly 140. The increase in recent years has been about 10 per cent. per annum.
  I know that London Transport is thinking desperately and urgently about measures that can be taken. Before I get on to that aspect of the matter, I feel that it is my duty to mention one or two of the worst incidents. I am grateful to London Transport for providing me with the sad information in these accounts.
  There was the case on 3rd April this year at Ealing Broadway when a driver on a No. 83 bus received an emergency signal from the conductor—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Mr. Dykes: I was just describing some of the worst incidents which had been recorded recently. The driver on a No. 83 bus received an emergency signal from the conductor and went round to assist. Four youths, who had apparently been trying to steal a woman's bag, jumped off as the driver arrived. He was struck in the eye, breaking his glasses, and suffered bruising. Because of the incident he was unable to carry on driving. That driver subsequently collapsed and died in North-wick Park Hospital, which serves my constituency and the whole of the borough of Harrow. The cause of death was registered as coronary thrombosis. That driver
  1140
  came from Harrow. That was one of the worst of the recent incidents.
  On 16th April last year the driver of a No. 147 bus, which was stationary at Redbridge Lane at 11 o'clock at night, was approached by a 16-year-old boy and asked what time the bus was leaving. The driver told the defendant, and at that point the youth struck the driver about the head and chest and then kicked him several times. The driver suffered cuts to both legs, bleeding from the nose, bruising to both legs and the lower half of his back. The youth was caught and subsequently fined a princely total of £40.
  Another incident involved a 65-year-old woman conductor who was on duty at just before midday. A youth boarded her bus and entered the lower saloon. She asked him for his fare. He said that he had no money and would not pay anything. He was told that he would have to pay. He jumped off the bus, but then jumped on again, kicking the woman conductor several times on the leg, and ran off. He was not traced, but following this incident it is unlikely that the woman conductor will be able to continue working.
  Recently there has been one of the worst incidents in recent years, as a result of which a life sentence was imposed on an assailant of a bus driver and his conductor, who in a dreadful incident were both stabbed repeatedly. I have in my hand two photographs from two separate editions of the West London Observer showing quite clearly the stab wounds inflicted on Mr. John Heath, the heroic bus conductor who, with his colleague, the driver, suffered these dreadful injuries. Those two men find it difficult to carry on with their work. They are working at the moment, but one can imagine the effect of that incident upon them.
  If it is said that I am being alarmist, I reply that I am not. Am I singling out individual incidents and exaggerating them because this does not happen as much as some people think? The answer is in the negative. These incidents have increased enormously in recent years. London Transport is very worried about the situation and so are the bus crews.
  What can be done about this growing problem? I believe that all of us in the community of London should get together to consider these problems and various

  1141
  possibilities for action and put them together in some kind of package.
  There are no magic or easy answers. I am not suggesting that London Transport has been slow or dilatory in trying to find solutions, or in making suggestions to the police or the Home Office. Furthermore, I am in no way criticising the Government, and I am certainly not criticising the suffering bus crews who have to put up with these attacks. We must examine the background to and the causes of these dreadful incidents, the increase in their numbers and possible solutions.
  This problem is too complicated to merit superficial or glib solutions which are not real solutions but just rhetorical references to sloganised possibilities. There are certain strands which have developed recently which perhaps give us the clue to some of these crimes and to what can be done, if not to eliminate them—which would be expecting too much—at least to mitigate their effects and to reduce their incidence in future, if that can be done. This demands a strong lead and guidance from the Government. That is why I have raised the matter tonight.
  The evidence shows that many of these incidents are seemingly mindless. They often occur late at night. Many assailants have had too much to drink, which is in itself a difficult problem. It is easier to talk about it than to solve it. The problem is also often to do with fare-dodging or young assailants trying to pay the reduced fare even if they are over age. It is often to do with gangs going around together, waiting until the bus is empty of passengers late at night and then assaulting a conductor or conductress, often elderly, and the driver if he comes from the cab to try to assist the conductor or conductress.
  There have been fewer instances pro rata on one-man vehicles. That is probably understandable, in that there is a certain limited amount of physical protection for the operative there. Moreover, the passengers must complete the act of paying the fare on entering the vehicle, rather than paying the conductor.
  We must have enormous sympathy for conductors in London over the way in which they struggle and tussle with crowded buses and service the whole bus,
  1142
  particularly a two-deck bus, as is overwhelmingly the case. They have to keep an eye on all the passengers getting on and off, and make sure, if possible, that all the passengers pay their fare.
  It has recently been suggested that in order to stop fare-dodging the operatives should impose on-the-spot fines. I have serious doubts about that. In many ways it could make the matter worse. I think particularly of an elderly operative on a deserted route south of London trying to get six aggressive youths to pay a fare when they flatly refuse to do so late at night. The mind boggles.
  What can be done? I hope—this is not an old suggestion but is relevant to this modern situation—that magistrates will be more realistic in imposing stiffer fines and other sentences and that the authorities, including Home Office Ministers, will again consider the arguments for a short, sharp sentence. That is better than long-drawn-out prison sentence on an assailant who may indulge in a mindless act which he—and sometimes, regrettably, even she nowadays—regrets later for a long time.
  I turn to the physical equipment side. London Transport has already been installing two-way radios and shrill sirens with flashing lights that the bus driver can operate. That must be continued and the programme should be accelerated. I understand that it is not due to be completed until 1981, which seems a long way away in view of this emeregency.
  I pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police for their suggestions. They have been discussing the matter with the Government. The use of plain clothes officers, in particular, but also uniformed officers on occasion, can go a long way to reducing the number of incidents, with people being taken into custody by being arrested on the spot, even for a minor incident. There have been a number of experiments along those lines which have appeared to be extremely encouraging.
  I come to two specific suggestions that I make with deliberate emphasis, but with great care, because I do not want them to be misunderstood. The Government, London Transport and the Metropolitan Police should at least consider the possibility of using spray dye which cannot be removed and which can be administered by bus operatives on assailants. It would

  1143
  permit identification later, because it could not be removed from the face or hands of the assailants. It sounds drastic and dramatic. I put it forward only as a suggestion, but I should like it to be seriously considered. I must emphasise that such dye does no harm to the person on whom it is sprayed.
  I come to a more serious suggestion. Again, I do not want to be misunderstood. On such occasions, the Press naturally use phrases such as "tear gas" which can be misunderstood. But it is now possible to manufacture individual canisters which can be used on one assailant or perhaps two assailants to immobilise them for a few seconds while help is summoned. I know that bus crews will have great hesitation about such an idea. I merely say at this stage that it, too, should be considered.
  I also recommend that bus crews should consider self-defence lessons, on a voluntary basis. I do not wish to be misunderstood and I hope that the Minister will not think that I mean that bus crews should become instant judo experts. That would be hopelessly unrealistic. I mean the older operatives might possibly be given limited lessons in self-defence techniques which would help them in these critically difficult situations.
  None of these is a perfect solution. It is easy to think of situations, but they usually spring up without warning. Crews have to be on the alert. I raise this matter on a day when a number of garages and routes in London are immobilised because of unofficial action by various garages. That action is totally unconnected with this subject, although there have been stoppages of late services as a result of a fear among bus crews of violent incidents, which have become more regular in recent months.
  The industrial action being taken today has to do with the rescheduling of bus services. I regret that this action should be taking place when the bus crews can see that the House is trying to help them. Their action will be inflicting problems on the long-suffering public. Even when we are critical about certain aspects of London Transport services it should not be thought that we are not equally anxious to try to help the bus crews and the public to cope with these terrible incidents,
  1144
  only some of which I have related I could submit a case history of such incidents concerning attacks on bus drivers and conductors.
  I come now to the dilemma of the public in all this. Should the public stay out of the way if they see bus drivers and conductors being attacked? Should they have a go? What should they do? The natural advice we would give is for them to keep well away. I believe that the Metropolitan Police would say the same thing. I gather that the Tottenham depot is examining the idea of a perspex screen to protect the operatives of one-man buses. If all of these issues are tackled, the public will benefit. They will feel reassured in that the crews are being protected.
  I have put forward possibilities to be examined. This problem will continue and worsen unless drastic action is taken. I hope that matters will not just be left to London Transport but that all of us in London will feel that we are engaged in solving a disturbing and sad problem.
  10.13 p.m.
  Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for allowing me to reinforce the case he has made so effectively.
  This subject of attacks upon bus crews is a matter of some concern in my constituency since many of my constituents work at the Acton depot where London Transport maintains the Underground service. Many other constituents work at the Chiswick depot, which deals with the buses. This is an issue of some proper concern because, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there was a particularly tragic incident at the end of last year which was resolved on 7th April when a Mr. Allan Finney was gaoled for life for stabbing a bus conductor and driver in Acton last November.
  I quote from the current edition of London Transport News:
  "Both men were admitted to Hammersmith Hospital. Mr. Gilani"—
  —that is the driver—
  "had eight stab wounds and a scalp cut. He had been stabbed twice in the chest and in the arm, hand and leg. Some of Mr. Heath's wounds were eight inches deep, penetrating chest and abdomen."

  1145
  The prosecuting counsel, Mr. Jeffreys, said:
  "During an emergency operation his heart stopped but he was revived. Miraculously no major organ had been damaged. Mr. Heath also had face cuts, one of which partially severed his nose."
  That was a particularly worrying incident because Mr. Finney had previously been gaoled for life in 1968. He was released on licence by the Home Office three months before that incident.
  I quote again—this time from what defence counsel was reported to have said—
  "It was surprising, considering his mental background and his propensity for violence, that he had been let out on licence last September, without any form of psychiatric backup."
  I have written to the Home Office about that case to find out why Mr. Finney was released.
  Again in my constituency, there was another incident—my hon. Friend referred to this—when a bus driver died of a heart attack after being called to intervene in an incident involving four or five youths.
  As a result of the first incident, which took place at the end of last year, I wrote to the chairman of London Transport to voice my concern at the growing incidence of violence to London Transport staff. He replied on 1st February in these terms:
  "I believe it is quite intolerable that they"—
  that is, London Transport staff—
  "should be exposed to such pointless hooliganism and brutality while carrying out their duties."
  He went on to make some comments which should concern the Home Office directly:
  "The Chief Operating Manager (Buses) and the Commander of the British Transport Police (London Transport Area) are shortly to meet the Metropolitan Police to consider what further steps can be taken. If I then think that a further meeting with the Home Secretary is desirable, I shall not hesitate to approach him."
  I think that the stage may have been reached when the Home Secretary ought to take the initiative and have a chat with the chairman of London Transport in view of the growing public concern. I hope that, if they have a meeting, the Home Secretary—or the hon. Lady—can give every encouragement to London Transport in the measures which it is currently taking.
  1146
  I quote again from the same letter:
  "You will, of course, be aware of the various measures we have taken to give improved protection to our busmen, including close liaison with local police, the use of our radio cars, the fitting of flashing lights and klaxons to virtually the whole fleet, the equipment of more and more buses with radio and the experimental issue of whistles to staff in certain areas."
  The problems facing London Transport are problems common to transport operators in other cities, and I think that the Home Secretary may be in a position to encourage best practice from one city to another.
  I believe that there is a role here for passengers to help. My hon. Friend touched on this. In all too many incidents, passengers take the attitude that it is not really their concern and they are loth to get involved. I believe that a more positive attitude might be helpful in reducing incidents, especially if passengers can show, before an incident really develops, that the potential aggressor is in a minority and the passengers are on the side of the staff.
  I refer, finally, to an article which appeared in The Daily Telegraph last Friday, reporting some comments by Mr. Terry Allan, the transport union bus section divisional officer. He pointed out that

  "For the second successive year, the number of attacks totalled over 1,000. In the past six years busmen have been awarded nearly £500,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and in actions for damages."
  Mr. Allan pointed out that only the police suffer more assaults, and he went on to say that
  "the alarm system in bus cabs was used in only 25 per cent. of assault cases, often because the driver did not know the conductor was being attacked."
  I think that there is some scope for improving the system being introduced by London Transport to make sure that the driver knows what is going on. In many cases, of course, the driver is a man and the conductor is a woman, so it is essential that the driver is brought in at an early stage.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise the genuine public concern in London, and especially in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend in West London, where we have been singularly unfortunate, and will be able to offer some hope not only to London Transport staff

  1147
  but to passengers so that they are assured that the Home Office and London Transport are doing all they can to get on top of this increasingly serious problem.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): Although there have been several debates on the themes of law and order and crime prevention, it is some time since the extremely important and serious subject of assaults on public transport staff has been raised in the House, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for providing this opportunity, although, sadly, it was with reference to the recent death of a London bus driver.
  Some of the aspects to which I shall refer are the proper concern of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who, I am pleased to see, is here tonight.
  Before referring to the difficulties facing public transport personnel in the Greater London area, I shall make some general points bearing on the problem. First, the number of indictable offences of wounding and assault recorded by the police for the whole Metropolitan Police district in 1977 was 12,620, an increase of 6 per cent. over the previous year.
  Inevitably, and regrettably, transport workers are not immune from the effects of the incidence of this type of offence. Indeed, their work puts them at particular risk of being unwillingly involved in incidents which may lead to assault, and I agree that everything possible should be done to safeguard against that risk.
  Secondly, however hard we try, the risk of an unpleasant incident can never be ruled out. This is not simply a question of police manpower. Although the Metropolitan Police strength is less than desirable—the Government are doing everything they can to help to improve recruitment—it would never be possible for police action alone to eradicate personal assaults. There are things which can be and have been done by police operations to deal with particular local problems, and the Government have shown their determination to strengthen the police. But we must face the fact that no amount of effort, whatever the strength of the police, can guarantee the
  1148
  complete absence of this or any other form of crime.
  Thirdly, the powers available to the police are adequate, they consider, in respect of assault on public transport personnel taking place on buses, on the railway and in the Underground.
  Finally, the courts already have very considerable powers to deal with violent offenders, and some penalties will be increased substantially when the relevant sections of the Criminal Law Act 1977 come into force later this year. It is for the courts to decide, in the light of the particular circumstances, how they use these powers in an individual case.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East raised the question of bus crews being supplied with dye sprays or canisters of gas to deal with those who assault them. There is always the risk, I think he will agree, that the use of such devices will not only affect the hooligans but could also injure or affect innocent passengers who may be close by. Moreover, I suspect that it could provoke some assailants to an even more violent response. But I note that the hon. Gentleman asked for these measures to be considered as a possibility.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that the use of such sprays by the police was raised on an earlier occasion in the House, but then my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rejected the proposal on much the same grounds as I have just given. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has put this suggestion to London Transport, and no doubt it will be considered very carefully. Note has been taken of his suggestion by the Home Office, and it will obviously be noted by the police and by London Transport as well.
  With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the chairman of London Transport will be meeting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary following this debate. The idea was that the debate should take place first and then the meeting.
  I turn now to the specific problems facing bus crews. Regular consultation is maintained between the Metropolitan Police, the British Transport Police and the London Transport Executive, and information regarding reported incidents is exchanged by the two forces.
  In October 1974, as a further effort to co-ordinate police effort and to collate

  1149
  information, arrangements were made for Metropolitan Police inspectors to be appointed as liaison officers at every police station in the area in which an LTE bus garage was situated. Their function is to meet and liaise with the London Transport garage committees and to institute action by police to deal with problems which come to notice.
  In addition, reports of incidents on buses are sent to New Scotland Yard by the British Transport Police, and the reports are sent on to the liaison officers. Some incidents of violence fall into a pattern and can be dealt with by appropriate action.
  Incidents involving violence caused by drunken behaviour often fall within the above category and can be controlled when anticipated. The garage committee is quick to bring any recurring cases of violence to the notice of liaison officers, who arrange counter-measures by introducing additional foot patrols in the area, and also for extra mobile patrols to follow buses during the problem periods. The arrangements work well, but it is almost impossible to make contingency plans for isolated incidents, sometimes arising from passenger frustration caused by cancelled buses or delays.
  Although no central statistics regarding incidents against bus crews are maintained by the Metropolitan Police, the number of incidents notified by the British Transport Police since 1st January 1977 to the end of March 1978 are—common assaults 919, aggravated assaults 237, thefts from crews 44. In other words, over the last 15 months in the whole of the Metropolitan Police district there have been on average fewer than four assaults per week involving bus crews which would have been serious enough to justify criminal proceedings by the police.
  Some encouragement may be taken from the fact that common assaults for the first quarter of this year at 113 are lower than for any of the four preceding quarters and compare with 266 in the last quarter of last year. The figures for aggravated assaults show a similar picture, although to a less significant extent—a fall from 46 in the last quarter of last year to 43 in the first quarter of this year.
  As regards London Transport Underground, central arrangements are being employed on an experimental basis by co-
  1150
  operation between the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police to deal with anticipated crowd violence arising from travel to and from major sporting events. Following the wave of gang violence and robbery, mainly on the southern part of the Northern Line in 1974, special police squads were employed in the evenings and at weekends in an attempt to protect passengers. Special patrol groups have been used in co-operation with British Transport Police to cover routes on the Underground on which trouble is expected and these have proved highly effective when used.
  I understand that closed circuit television surveillance was provided at several Underground stations, proving most effective, and the Home Office research unit is measuring the impact of these installations on the incidence of robbery and theft offences during the first year of operation at four South London stations. Alarm devices of various types have been issued to stations for use by staff when violence threatens. Figures supplied by London Transport for the years 1976 and 1977 show that serious assaults on all staff on the Underground totalled 105 and 148 respectively, on average, approximately two and three per week.
  The picture given by the British Railways Board is somewhat similar to that of London Transport. Again action is taken to deal with predictable or likely occasions of violence, and British Railway Police provide police escorts on certain trains carrying football supporters and augment police at stations where trouble is likely to arise. This is done in liaison with the Metropolitan Police. High impact resistant window-screens have been fitted to trains and multiple units, and the board is consulting trade unions about additional protection at bridge parapets in high risk areas. In extreme cases police equipped with two-way radio have ridden beside the driver in an attempt to deal with notorious trouble spots.
  The British Transport Police do not keep statistics of assaults for the Greater London area, but in the South-East area I am informed that the figures for all assaults, including common assault, in the three years 1975, 1976 and 1977 were 131, 119, and 118 respectively, and of this latter figure it is estimated that 87 cases were in the GLC area.

  1151
  I hope that I have sufficiently illustrated that there is no complacency on the part of the Government or the transport authorities involved in seeking measures to prevent violent assaults. The problems of dealing with hooliganism and violent assaults are not unique to the transport industry, or indeed to this county. It is doubtful whether any solution lies ultimately in the powers of the courts or of
  1152
  the police, which can only be invoked after the event.
  Preventive techniques seem to offer a more hopeful line of approach and may help to focus—
  The Question having been proposed at 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 half-past Ten o'clock.

PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Chemists (Cosmetics Directive)
  Chemists (Cosmetics Directive)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Metrication
  Metrication
TRADE
  European Community Policies
  European Community Policies
  Japanese Motor Vehicles
  Japanese Motor Vehicles
  Chipboard
  Chipboard
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Oil Tankers (Pollution Hazards)
  Oil Tankers (Pollution Hazards)
  British Airports Authority
  British Airports Authority
  China
  China
  Minerals (Imports)
  Minerals (Imports)
  Helicopter Service (Heathrow—Gatwick)
  Helicopter Service (Heathrow—Gatwick)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Merchant Ships (Personnel Training and Certification)
  Merchant Ships (Personnel Training and Certification)
  British Airways (Purchasing Policy)
  British Airways (Purchasing Policy)
  Commonwealth Ministers (Meeting)
  Commonwealth Ministers (Meeting)
  Common Fund
  Common Fund
  Air Canada
  Air Canada
  Tissue Paper
  Tissue Paper
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Annie's Bar (Television)
  Annie's Bar (Television)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Advertising Agencies (Hospitality)
  Advertising Agencies (Hospitality)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Proceedings (Costs)
  Criminal Proceedings (Costs)
  Borstal Training
  Borstal Training
  Protection of Children Bill
  Protection of Children Bill
  Speeding Offences (Bow Street Magistrates' Court)
  Speeding Offences (Bow Street Magistrates' Court)
  Homicide
  Homicide
  Vehicle Excise Licences
  Vehicle Excise Licences
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Time Changes (United Kingdom-France)
  Time Changes (United Kingdom-France)
  Prisoners (Non-payment of Maintenance)
  Prisoners (Non-payment of Maintenance)
  Firemen (Working Hours)
  Firemen (Working Hours)
  Firearms (Control)
  Firearms (Control)
  Fireams (Licences)
  Fireams (Licences)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
DEFENCE
  Forces Personnel (Car Mileage Allowance)
  Forces Personnel (Car Mileage Allowance)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Service Families (Benefits)
  Service Families (Benefits)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Service Officers (Resignations)
  Service Officers (Resignations)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Defence Establishments (Social Functions)
  Defence Establishments (Social Functions)
  Service Men (Widow's Pensions)
  Service Men (Widow's Pensions)
  Pitcairn Island
  Pitcairn Island
  United States Air Force Bases
  United States Air Force Bases
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  New Zealand Lamb
  New Zealand Lamb
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Animals (Exports)
  Animals (Exports)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Personal Allowances and Personal Incomes
  Personal Allowances and Personal Incomes
  Prices and Earnings
  Prices and Earnings
  Occupational Pensions (National Insurance Contributions)
  Occupational Pensions (National Insurance Contributions)
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Pensions (Sheltered Workshop) Employees)
  Pensions (Sheltered Workshop) Employees)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Mobility Allowance (Blind Persons)
  Mobility Allowance (Blind Persons)
  Maintenance Awards
  Maintenance Awards
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Nursing (Briggs Committee)
  Nursing (Briggs Committee)
  Kirklees Area Health Authority
  Kirklees Area Health Authority
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Death Certificates
  Death Certificates
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Birth Certificates
  Birth Certificates
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Cystic Fibrosis
SCOTLAND
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Cost)
ENERGY
  Multi-storey Buildings (Sheffield)
  Multi-storey Buildings (Sheffield)
  Magnox Reactors
  Magnox Reactors
  Hydrocarbons (Prospect Drilling)
  Hydrocarbons (Prospect Drilling)
  Loch Indaal Sedimentary Basin
  Loch Indaal Sedimentary Basin
  United Kingdom Continental Shelf
  United Kingdom Continental Shelf
  British Petroleum (Refinery Capacity)
  British Petroleum (Refinery Capacity)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pupil Allocation
  Pupil Allocation
  School Attendance Orders
  School Attendance Orders
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  National Union of Students (Fees)
  National Union of Students (Fees)
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
INDUSTRY
  Postmarks
  Postmarks
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Steel Development
  Steel Development
  Postage Stamps
  Postage Stamps
  Postal Addresses
  Postal Addresses
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Manufacturing Companies (Grants)
  Manufacturing Companies (Grants)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  British Aerospace (Civil Aircraft Projects)
  British Aerospace (Civil Aircraft Projects)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Assets
  Personal Assets
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Building Allowances (Hotels)
  Building Allowances (Hotels)
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Exchange Rates
  Exchange Rates
  Retired Treasury Civil Servants
  Retired Treasury Civil Servants
  Halfpenny Coins
  Halfpenny Coins
  Royal Mint (Paper Orders)
  Royal Mint (Paper Orders)
  Overseas Remittances
  Overseas Remittances
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Paper and Board Industry
  Paper and Board Industry
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  War Loan Stock
  War Loan Stock
  Contingency Reserve
  Contingency Reserve
  Life Assurance (Married Women)
  Life Assurance (Married Women)
  Option Mortgages
  Option Mortgages
  Service Pensions
  Service Pensions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Passports
  Passports
  Lough Foyle (North-South Boundary Line)
  Lough Foyle (North-South Boundary Line)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
TRANSPORT
  Maple Cross
  Maple Cross
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  M25
  M25
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory
  M1 (Watford)
  M1 (Watford)
  Road Haulage Permits
  Road Haulage Permits
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Furze Platt Level Crossing (Maidenhead)
  Furze Platt Level Crossing (Maidenhead)
  M20 and A20 (Accidents)
  M20 and A20 (Accidents)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Housing (Costs)
  Local Authority Housing (Costs)
  Local Plans
  Local Plans
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Bureaux de Change
  Bureaux de Change
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Operation Eyesore
  Operation Eyesore
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment
  Local Authority Expenditure (Gloucestershire)
  Local Authority Expenditure (Gloucestershire)
  Litter
  Litter
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Como Street, Romford (Development)
  Como Street, Romford (Development)
  Local Councillors (Attendance Allowance)
  Local Councillors (Attendance Allowance)
EMPLOYMENT
  Computer Manufacture
  Computer Manufacture
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Garners Steak Houses
  Garners Steak Houses
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  LEGAL SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  LEGAL SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (PRESS COMMUNICATION)
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (PRESS COMMUNICATION)
WALES
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  BUREAUX DE CHANGE
  BUREAUX DE CHANGE
  CIVIL SERVICE PAY RESEARCH UNIT
  CIVIL SERVICE PAY RESEARCH UNIT
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Control of Pollution Act
  Control of Pollution Act
  Terrorist Offences (Statistics)
  Terrorist Offences (Statistics)
  Under-Fives
  Under-Fives
  Leisure Centres (Licensing)
  Leisure Centres (Licensing)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)

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

FISHING QUOTAS
Lord KENNET: 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 have studied the new Commission proposals for a fishery régime set out in COM(78)39 and in what respects, if any, given the latest reasonably satisfactory European Community suggestions for the repartition of quotas, the proposals still fail to meet the needs of the various parts of the British fishing industry; and whether they will make a Statement.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the proposals set out in Document COM(78)39 concern the operation of fishing plans and restrictions on access to fishing grounds in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Member States. My noble friend refers to the quota proposals as being "reasonably satisfactory". They are indeed a considerable improvement on earlier Commission proposals, which were quite unacceptable. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, however, they need further improvement. The Commission's proposals on conservation are also unsatisfactory, and their proposals on access preferences fail to meet the Government's essential requirements.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that full and helpful Answer? Will he confirm that the Council of Ministers' Meeting on Fisheries held this morning has already ended because the Commission thought that further discussion of their present proposals would not be useful and they would prefer to pursue the matter bilaterally with Member States for the moment? If he can confirm this, will he say whether this
1432
is good news or bad news, and whether it is leading us closer to an agreement or further away?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I can confirm that the meeting finished at 12.30 p.m. today. With regard to its details and what was concluded, I think that I must ask my noble friend to await any possible Statement that may be made by my right honourable friend in another place which will, of course, be repeated in this House if your Lordships so wish.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I ask why the new quotas are not satisfactory?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in the original Question my noble friend Lord Kennet referred to these latest quota proposals as "reasonably satisfactory". The Government have stated that these proposals form a basis for negotiation, but adjustments will be needed before they are satisfactory. For example, when the proposed 1978 allocations are compared to Member States' average catches from 1973 to 1976, the United Kingdom bears the heaviesteconomic loss—half of the total Community loss of demersal fish such as cod and haddock. Our total allocation of fish is made to look reasonable—I think this may have taken in my noble friend Lord Kennet—by the inclusion of large quantities of lower value pelagic fish: for example, 100,000 tons of hitherto unexploited horse mackerel.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Lord withdraw any suggestion that I may have been taken in by a horse mackerel? I accept that I have never heard of it before. In fact I had not noticed this, but the proposals were not so far from being reasonable.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I accept at once of course that my noble friend was not taken in by a horse mackerel. On the other hand, he may not have got further than the totals, and it is always wise to look at the species involved as well.

ZAMBIA: AID
2.40 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg

1433
leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the initiative in proposing to Western Governments joint aid to Zambia in view of the severe economic difficulties of that country.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development met the Zambian Finance Minister last week and discussed with him how we can help Zambia. The IMF has recently held discussions with the Zambian authorities about the measures required to help resolve Zambia's immediate problems. The Zambian Government have also asked the World Bank to convene a consultative group to discuss their longer-term needs. Her Majesty's Government warmly support these moves and propose to make substantial aid available to Zambia.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in very much welcoming that reply, may I ask the noble Baroness this: Would she agree that, because of the fidelity of Zambia to the internationally imposed sanctions against Rhodesia, that country probably suffered more from sanctions than Rhodiesia did itself? Does the noble Baroness remember that a United Nations survey at the end of 1976 said that Zambia's loss had amounted to the enormous sum of 600 million dollars?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think that the House recognises the great loyalty and fidelity of Zambia to the United Nations resolution. I was not aware of that particular sum, but I am now.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness this question: While of course recognising the difficulty that the Zambian Government are in, which is very largely due to the copper price (which if otherwise would probably solve most of their problems), may I ask whether the Answer of the noble Baroness means that the very large sum of money which I understand the IMF have now
1434
lent the Zambian Government is not considered adequate?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think the agreement has not actually been signed, though I know it has been discussed. One of the problems, and one of the matters that we hope the World Bank Consultative Group will tackle, is that there is almost certain to be a fairly substantial residual gap between the IMF credit to Zambia and their remaining needs for help. It is at that point that we hope to help with the consultative group.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, to revert to the reference by the noble Lord to copper prices, is it not the case that the reduced price for copper has helped our own balance of payments immensely in this country? is it not the case that 60 per cent. of the copper from Zambia comes to this country and the lower cost of imports has assisted this nation very considerably?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I would not be able to say whether it has helped "immensely". Of course, we pay for copper at the prevailing world prices, but we hope to assist Zambia by giving substantial aid of a different kind which will help to increase the productive capacity of her economy, help with her balance of payments, and therefore help with the pipe-line of debts and repayments which we all know exists.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: MAY BUSINESS
2.42 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, a Statement is being made today in another place about Business to be taken during May in the EEC Council of Ministers. With the leave of the House, I will, as usual, arrange for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during May. The monthly written forecast was deposited on Thursday, 20th April.

1435
"At present six meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for May. Foreign Ministers will meet on the 2nd, Finance Ministers on the 22nd, Agriculture Ministers on the 22nd and 23rd, Research Ministers on the 29th, Environment Ministers on the 30th, and Energy Ministers on the 30th.
"Foreign Ministers are expected to discuss the Commission's general survey of the implications of enlargement, regional policy, problems in the steel sector, footwear imports, GATT multilateral trade negotiations, relations with Australia and the form of company accounts.
"Finance Ministers are expected to resume their discussion on the economic situation and to discuss the co-ordination of national economic policies, Community lending facilities, the life insurance directive and the sixth directive on value added tax.
Agriculture Ministers are expected to discuss support for Mediterranean agriculture, rules governing producer groups and the market organisation for mutton and lamb. In addition it may be necessary to continue discussion of the future of the milk marketing boards, and also CAP prices and other related issues to the extent that these are not resolved in the Council this week. An additional Council Meeting may be arranged in early May for this purpose.
"Research Ministers are expected to review the guidelines for Community Research and Development projects and to discuss the establishment of the Joint European Torus project.
"Environment Ministers are expected to discuss the measures against sea pollution following the 'Amoco Cadiz' disaster, disposal of waste at sea, lead content of petrol, atmospheric pollution by sulphur compounds and chlorofluorocarbons (which are, of course, gases commonly used in aerosol sprays), the implications for the Community of the United States Toxic Substances Act, water quality for freshwater fish and bird conservation.
"Energy Ministers are expected to resume their discussion of Energy Policy objectives for 1985, refining problems, assistance to the coal industry and projects demonstrating energy saving. They are also expected to discuss joint hydrocarbon exploration projects, demonstration projects of alternative energy sources, policy for fast breeder reactors, and the reprocessing and the disposal of radioactive wastes".

BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I announce, for the convenience of the House, that the House will not sit on Monday next, 1st May—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: but we are going to sit on Friday. Monday is the new May Day holiday.
1436
May I also announce that dinner will be available tonight and tomorrow.

SCOTLAND BILL
2.45 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): 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.]
The Lord CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): May I draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that as well as the Fourth Marshalled List of Amendments, there is another supplementary list of Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
Schedule 4 [Statutory Powers exercisable with concurrence or subject to consent or approval of a Minister of the Crown]:
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not Moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be the fourth Schedule to the Bill?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Perhaps, for the sake of good order, I should say to your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Colville asked the Government two highly technical and complex questions, which he explained to me on the telephone some time after duties on Friday night. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has been good enough to answer them, at least on paper. The answers are long and not altogether easy to follow when one has just been given a piece of paper. In the circumstances, it is something which I know my noble friend will wish to consider at his leisure when he is able to do so. For my part, I cannot see any point in having a debate on this Schedule at this point of the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): Perhaps I might just thank the noble Earl for what

1437
he has said. One of the questions related to Schedule 5 and one to Schedule 4. I shall be happy to write to the noble Viscount and give him the explanations that I have given on paper to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Enactments conferring powers exercisable concurrently]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 5 shall be the fifth Schedule to the Bill?
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to make some observations on this Schedule. I shall be suggesting that this Schedule is not only lacking in precision but that it may give rise to problems of constitutional significance. The Schedule covers provisions in Acts of Parliament of very different kinds. The word "concurrently" does not appear in Clause 22(3) to which the Schedule is related. What that subsection says is this:
"Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this Act, any power under the enactments listed in Schedule 5 to this Act may be exercised both by the Secretary of State and by a Scottish Secretary.".
I take it that the words:
"Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this Act"
appear in order to qualify Clause 21(1) which says this:
"Where, by or under any Act passed before this Act, any power to make, confirm or approve orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate legislation is conferred on a Minister of the Crown, then, to the extent that—

(a) the power is exercisable as regards Scotland; and

(b) it is so exercisable exclusively with respect to a devolved matter;

it shall be exercisable by a Scottish Secretary.".
We are therefore dealing with powers which, but for Clause 22, would normally have been exercised by a Scottish Secretary but which, under subsection (3), are to be exercised by the Secretary of State also. Rather more obscurely, it seems to exclude matters in the enactments listed in subsection (5) which could not be dealt with by a Scottish Secretary, except as an agent of the Secretary of State.
1438
I would point out that we are here considering executive powers of Ministers, and powers not within the legislative competence of the Assembly, except to the extent that either Legislature might amend. But, of course, the Ministers concerned—that is, the Secretary of State and a Scottish Secretary—are accountable to their respective Legislatures for the exercise of the powers. Surely, it may give rise to problems if the same powers, in the same fields of Government, are to be exercised separately, without any provision in the Bill for one to get the consent of the other or for them even to consult each other.
I would remind noble Lords that the rest of subsection (1) deals with just those points. That states:
"Where an enactment conferring a power on a Minister of the Crown makes provision for the exercise of the power with the concurrence or subject to the consent or approval of, or after consultation with, any other Minister of the Crown, that provision shall not apply to the exercise of the power … by a Scottish Secretary unless either—
a) the enactment is listed in Schedule 4 …"—
which we have just passed—
"or
the power relates to the borrowing of money outside the United Kingdom or in a currency other than sterling".
If a Scottish Secretary exercises his powers in a particular case, he can be questioned about it in the Assembly. But, equally, the Secretary of State can be questioned about it in Parliament, because it is a matter for which he apparently has responsibility under subsection (3) of Clause 22, under an enactment conferring a power, and vice versa.
Part I of Schedule 10 sets out the 26 groups of matters which are to be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and within the power of the Scottish Executive. These are the devolved matters. Part II sets out the matters which are excluded from the groups, even though they appear to fall within them. Part III refers to certain enactments relating to the groups of devolved matters, and specifies which of those enactments referred to are included and which are excluded from these groups, or which powers or matters covered by the enactments are included or excluded, as the case may be. All that is in

1439
Schedule 10. That is complicated enough, but at least an attempt has been made to define which Legislature and which Executive is concerned— Westminster or Edinburgh.
But if an individual or an organisation wants one of these powers in Schedule 5 to be exercised, to whom is he to go? Will he know, unless ministerial responsibility for action is clearly fixed? If the Members of Parliament, or for that matter the Members of the Assembly, want something done under these concurrent powers, what happens if Parliament wants one step to be taken and the Assembly wants quite different action to be taken in the same matter? Surely, it would be possible to avoid this kind of confusion by precise provisions in the Bill.
At the end of our proceedings on Clause 22, I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that the words,
"both by the Secretary of State and by a Scottish Secretary"
could mean them acting together or each acting separately. What I am suggesting here is that it is not really proper to refer, as seems to be done in these various Acts that are referred to in Schedule 5, to matters which can be done only by the Secretary of State, side by side with matters that can be done by a Scottish Secretary, without sorting them out. I had the impression from the noble and learned Lord, when last we were dealing with Clause 22, that there were some matters that would be dealt with by the Secretary of State and some which would be dealt with by a Scottish Secretary, but which could also be dealt with by the Secretary of State because of overriding powers and so on. This seems a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. I have been through these enactments very carefully and I can point to some of the difficulties that may arise. But if the noble and learned Lord wishes to deal first with the matter in principle, then I shall be very willing to listen to him and see whether it is necessary to weary your Lordships with details about the enactments that are referred to.
In passing, may I ask what exactly is the technical definition of an "enactment"? Is it an Act of Parliament,
1440
is it a provision in an Act of Parliament or is it both, because difficulties can also arise on that score? It may be as well if I give one example which is likely to cause most difficulty. That is the Local Employment Act 1972, and in that we have Section 7 which is self-explanatory. I ought to refer to that section to show the kind of difficulty that can arise.
The Local Employment Act has since been very much amended. It is the Act which determined development areas and intermediate areas and, having described the powers related thereto, which have almost all been amended, we come to Section 7 which has not been amended and states:
"Where … adequate provision has not been made for the needs of any development area or intermediate area in respect of a basic service for which the department is responsible, and it is expedient with a view to contributing to the development of industry in that area that the service should be improved, he may with the consent of the Treasury make grants or loans towards the cost of improving it to such persons and in such manner as appear to him appropriate.".
Then it defines what is meant in this section by a "basic service":
"… basic service' means the provision of facilities for transport (whether by road, rail, water or air) or of power, lighting, heating, water, or sewerage, and sewage disposal facilities, or any other service .·on which the development of the area in question, and in particular of industrial undertakings therein, depends."
Finally, it states:
"The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any other powers of a Minister of the Crown to make grants or loans."
I think your Lordships will see that some of these matters are exclusively within the power of a Minister of the Crown, including the Secretary of State, to make grants or loans, and there are others which are related to local authority responsibilities, some of which, again, are under the Secretary of State for Scotland and some of which are under a Scottish Secretary. This seems to me a very odd way indeed of legislating, and it is difficult to see how this section will be implemented in the case of those services which affect Scotland. I think that that is a sufficient example to give.
2.59 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Without specific notice of these matters, I shall do my best

1441
to answer the noble Lord. Let me begin by making it plain that, in the main, powers—that is, executive powers—are wholly devolved or wholly reserved. But the enactments which your Lordships will find listed in Schedule 5 contain special features, which make it necessary that they should be available for use by both the Secretary of State and a Scottish Secretary, to enable them to carry out their respective functions. So by means of Clause 22 and Schedule 5 the powers contained in the enactments listed there can be exercised either by a Minister of the Crown or by a Scottish Secretary. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent them, if they so desire, from joining together in a joint exercise and acting concurrently in that sense.
On a previous occasion I gave an example and, perhaps, I might repeat it now. A Scottish Secretary will need access, for example, to Section 75(1)(b) and Section 75(3)(f) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949, so that he can authorise expenditure on certain aspects of criminal research as part of his responsibilities regarding crime. But the Secretary of State, who remains responsible for the police and for some crimes—for example, drugs offences—may also wish to carry out research. Accordingly, both the Scottish Secretary and the Secretary of State have access to the powers contained in this Act in order to allow them to authorise the necessary research.
To answer the specific point raised about the meaning of "enactment", in this context "enactment" means the particular provision, not the whole Act. So far as the Local Employment Act 1972 is concerned, as the noble Lord has suggested, this provision enables the Government to make grants or loans towards the provision of basic infrastructure services required for the development of industry in development and intermediate areas. After devolution, the Government will remain responsible for the development of industry and also for certain infrastructure services—for example, gas and electricity. Therefore, it is right that the Government should have full access to the powers under Section 7. But the Scottish Executive will have responsibility for other infrastructure services—for example, sewers and roads—and they will need access to the powers under Section 7 in respect of these
1442
services. The powers under Section 7 are therefore entered in Schedule 5 as being exercisable concurrently.
It will not be possible for the Scottish Executive to make grants or loans in respect of services which are reserved and thus to interfere with the Government's responsibilities. This is ensured by a limitation which the noble Lord will see by looking at Entry No. 3 in Group D of Schedule 11. He will find on page 68 of the Bill that there is a further reference in lines 30 to 32 to Section 7 of the Local Employment Act 1972, which the noble Lord may not have taken into account in considering this matter. Therefore "concurrently" applies only, in effect, to devolved infrastructure services. Normally such powers will in practice be exercised by the Scottish Executive, and the Secretary of State will have no reason to interfere; but the Secretary of State must retain a concurrent power to make payments because, as I have indicated, of the Government's wider responsibility for the development of industry.
Again it becomes a matter of looking at the particular enactments. I do not want to go through them all in detail; they are listed in Schedule 5. However, if noble Lords consider the explanation I have offered, I think they will find that there is nothing here to lead to any constitutional anomaly. The powers are dealt with in this way because it is expedient and sensible that they should be so dealt with, and I think that the noble Lord's fears are misplaced.
3.4 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I have listened' to the noble Lord's explanation with great care, but at the end of the day there must be somebody whose authority will override that of everybody else. Although the noble and learned Lord may well believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of the Assembly will work in harmony, there is every chance that they may do nothing of the kind. They may belong to different Parties. There may be an Assembly in Scotland which supports strongly the present Socialist Government while there may be a Government for the whole of the United Kingdom which is not a Socialist Government. Who, then, has the authority? Is it for the Secretary of State to say to the Secretary of the

1443
Assembly, "I do not agree with what the Assembly is doing and therefore this cannot happen"? Admittedly, this cannot happen in the case of a devolved subject, but it can happen in the case of a Schedule 5 subject, several of which could be highly controversial. For example, there may be considerable complications over the Agriculture Act 1947. There would certainly he complications over Section 18 of the Community Land Act 1975. That Act is exceedingly controversial.
What the noble and learned Lord, whose explanation I tried to follow, does not seem to be able to explain is this. If at the end of the day the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Assembly belong to different Parties and hold different views, who will have the final authority? Will the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of the Assembly have the final authority?
Lord McCLUSKEY: First, in relation to agriculture, if the noble Baroness will look at the section of the Agriculture Act which was referred to she will find that Section 78(1) reads:
"Where it appears to the Minister expedient so to do for the purpose of obtaining statistical information relating to agriculture, he may …"
do certain things. That is all that we are speaking about in this Schedule. If the Secretary of State wishes to have statistical information in relation to his responsibilities for agriculture, he can employ this section to obtain it. If the Scottish Secretary who has responsibility for agricultural land wishes to obtain this statistical information, he can obtain it; so the powers are available to both. It may be that it would be very convenient that they should both collect the information at the same time, in which event they would act together, but either can act separately. The principle is that the Scottish Secretary deals with devolved matters while the Secretary of State deals with non-devolved matters.
To turn to the question which the noble Baroness said I could not answer but which I shall now answer, when it comes to devolved matters the policy contained in the Bill is that the Scottish Secretary will deal with devolved matters. If the Government in London do not
1444
like it, simply because of policy differences, that is too bad. They will just have to let matters go. The whole point is that we can have a Labour or a Conservative Administration in Scotland and a Labour or a Conservative Administration at Westminster. In relation to devolved matters, the policy will be to hold back and to allow the Scots to do what they choose. But if at the end of the day it comes to a question of what the Scottish Secretary proposes to do having an effect of the kind contemplated by Clause 36, then the Secretary of State, usually the Secretary of State for Scotland, of course. will have the power to employ the override powers which are conferred by the terms of that clause.
I do not want to anticipate any debate upon Clause 36, but:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State

(a) that any action proposed to he taken by or on behalf of a Scottish Secretary would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly, or

(b) that any reserved matter would or might be affected directly or indirectly by any action capable of being so taken;

then, if it appears to him desirable in the public interest to use his powers under this subsection, he may direct that the proposed action shall not be taken or, as the case may be, that the action capable of being taken shall be taken".
That is rather a mouthful from the Bill, but in substance it comes to this: provided that the test in Clause 36 can be passed, then the Secretary of State at Westminster may choose to override the action taken by the Scottish Secretary. So at the end of the day, provided that test is passed, the power remains at Westminster; but in relation to a purely devolved matter the whole policy of the Bill is that the Scottish Secretary must be allowed to go his own way. If the Secretary of State does not like it, he has to apply this self-denying ordinance and say,"We devolved control of these matters to the Scottish Executive and we must allow them to get on with it". Surely the Committee will accept that that is the answer, within the Bill and the context of this scheme of devolution, to the question which I have been asked.
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: May I thank my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for raising the question of these two Schedules. I find that they are most difficult to under-

1445
stand. My first question is whether or not it would be possible to redraft these two Schedules and make them into one Schedule. Both Schedules deal rather obscurely with the word "concurrently". If the Scottish Secretary deals with devolved matters and the Secretary of State with non-devolved matters, they are not acting concurrently; they are dealing with different spheres of activity, and I do not see why that should not be brought out more clearly. The noble and learned Lord went on to speak about the development of industry. But suppose a trading estate is formed, and the Scottish Secretary has to produce the drains and the Secretary of State for Scotland has to produce the industry; it postulates the possibility of delay which seems to me to he an unreasonably complicated sphere.
I was once concerned with developing trading estates and it is a difficult job without those complications. I wonder whether or not we can put these two Schedules into a slightly more understandable form. For instance, the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act is devolved; why then should the Secretary of State have to deal with it? I do not want to debate it, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord in due course could try to make this a little simpler so that people can understand roughly what is intended.
I do not particularly want to hark back to Schedule 4, but there is the important matter of the National Health Service terms and conditions of service. It is not easy to understand, butI believe this is a matter for the Secretary of State, although apparently the Scottish Secretary can do things with his consent. In other words, he has a partial responsibility for terms and conditions of service. This is important because people want to know who are their effective employers. I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord would try to simplify these issues, because if we find it difficult I am certain that the Assembly will find it difficult, too. Would it not be possible for it to be done in a slightly more coherent and straightforward way?
Lord DRUMALBYN: Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to follow on before the noble and learned Lord replies. The point I was looking at was not so much how the Executive exercised its powers
1446
—although that is important; I was looking at the Parliamentary and Assembly aspects of this and the effect on the ordinary citizen. Taking the Parliamentary aspect alone, it seems that under this Questions can be asked on these matters equally in Parliament and in the Assembly. Motions can he moved in both places, certainly so far as the devolved matters are concerned. I do not see that this makes real sense.
If one looks at Clause 22 as a whole, this is a very neat piece of drafting, but I think it is really "over-neat". An attempt has been made to compress it into too small a space and I suspect that it will cause a lot of difficulties. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 22, to which this section is linked, deal with consultation, consent and—"consent or approval of, or after consultation with -with concurrence. This is what the word "concurrently" really means. One cannot use a word in different senses in the same paragraph. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to talk about the agricultural statistics, and there are also the salmon and freshwater fishery statistics involved in the Schedule. Surely the sensible thing to do would be to have, within the devolved sphere, these matters dealt with with the consent of the Secretary of State, thus putting subsection (3) into line with subsections (1) and (2). That is a much more sensible way of dealing with it rather than to leave concurrent powers in the constitutional sense instead of in the sense used in Clause 22.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said, this is worth looking at again. There are many points in it which could be questioned. One of the points that I am sure my noble friend Lord Selkirk will question is the passage dealing with historic buildings and ancient monuments. In that particular sphere, this Schedule excludes from the powers, as I understand it, of the Scottish Executive, the right to get money from the National Land Fund. I believe my noble friend has tabled an Amendment to take ancient monuments and historic buildings and the land that goes with them and land of natural beauty, and so forth, right out of Part I of the groups in Schedule 10. But if the Scottish Executive is to be given powers for the acquisition and maintenance of historic buildings and land, why on earth should this particular

1447
provision be taken out of this Schedule which allows for the National Land Fund to be used toreimburse the Scottish Secretary for acquisitions of this kind? That particular point is rather apart from the general line of argument, but I thought it right to alert the Committee in advance.
The main point is that, when we are setting up a separate Assembly with its own powers, everyeffort should be made to distinguish those powers and their exercise from the exercise of other powers in Scotland by the Secretary of State. I do not think that has been done here. The Government have exercised great ingenuity in separating out the powers. When they came to this issue they threw their hands in the air and said,"We cannot do it; we shall just have to put it in subsection (3)". I do not think it is good enough and I think the Government should exercise their ingenuity a little further.
3.18 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The Committee will have noticed that we have now strayed into Schedule 4 while discussing Schedule 5. I do not complain about that but it does require me to say something about Schedule 4. That Schedule lists certain ministerial powers which are to be devolved subject to a requirement for ministerial consent. The powers relate mainly to public sector pay and pensions. They are provisions affecting statutory undertakers operating for purposes which are not devolved, including provisions relating to compulsory purchase orders and also provisions relating to compulsory purchase orders on land held by local authorities for purposes which are not devolved.
That is what Schedule 4 is about and it is rather a different matter from Schedule 5, which is concerned with powers to which both the Scottish Secretary and the Secretary of State are to have access for the purposes of the particular provisions. One can test it, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, sought to do, by reference to the particular Statutes. I have referred to the one he mentioned and I will now turn to the Scottish Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, Sections 4 to 6. These sections contain the functions relating to the pay
1448
ment of grants for the repair and maintenance of buildings. Section 5 concerns the acquisition of buildings by the Government and their subsequent management, and Section 6 relates to the payment of grants to local authorities and the National Trust for the acquisition of buildings.
As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has noticed, ancient monuments and historic buildings are devolved matters by virtue of Group 19 of Part I of Schedule 10. Payments for the acquisition of buildings will therefore normally be the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but the Executive will be financed purely by the block fund and, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, foresaw, will have no access to the National Land Fund. Section 7 of the appropriate Act which concerns payment from this fund is specifically reserved on page 55 in Part III of Schedule 10.
This fund is intended for use throughout Great Britain and it would be wrong that payments could not be made from it for the purpose of the purchase of buildings in Scotland. Accordingly, by putting the matter into Schedule 5—concurrent powers in relation to Sections 4 and 6—we now find that the Secretary of State has the necessary statutory authority to make grants and to acquire property in Scotland with money from the fund. So although the fund is not devolved the Secretary of State can make grants to acquire the property with money from the fund. If he did in fact acquire a building under Section 5 he would require to transfer that building to the Scottish Executive by virtue of Clause 67. So he would not be involved in the management of historic buildings in Scotland; that is a matter for the Executive under the Schedule 10 entry.
In my submission, concurrency in this sense—that is to say, both the Executive Secretary and the Secretary of State having access to the same powers—should not lead to any confusion or conflict. The powers under Sections 6, 5 and 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 are essential powers to grant or to purchase, and there is no question, therefore, of the two Secretaries trying to use the same powers to different ends. So I think when one comes to look at the detail of the particular enactment

1449
referred to in Schedule 5, or for that matter in Schedule 4, one will find that these problems do not arise, and that it is perfectly proper to keep Schedule 5 apart from Schedule 4 as they are concerned with different things.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could explain this. Do the words"powers exercisable concurrently"mean that the Scottish Secretary has direct access to the Land Fund? That seems to be the meaning which comes from the word"concurrently".
Lord McCLUSKEY: Can the noble Earl remind me which line he is dealing with?
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am talking about the heading to Schedule 5, which reads,"Enactments conferring powers exercisable concurrently". I understand that the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, Sections 4 to 6, refer to the Land Fund. That means the Scottish Secretary has direct access to the Land Fund. I did not think that was what the noble and learned Lord said; he said the Secretary of State has access and not the Scottish Secretary.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I was trying to indicate that it is the Secretary of State who is given power by Schedule 5, under the sections of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, to make the necessary grants and acquire property, not the Scottish Secretary.
The Earl of SELKIRK: What does the word"concurrently"mean then?
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is really right about that. The line says the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, Sections 4 to 6, and those are the powers that he was reading out, which include acquisition. What this means in effect is that the Secretary of State can say to the Scottish Secretary: "You want to buy that particular property. If you do, I am afraid I cannot make any payment to you from the National Land Fund", because it is Section 7 of this Act which refers to the National Land Fund, and that is not one of the powers exercisable concurrently.
1450
So I think that when we come to Schedule 10 my noble friend may have something to say about this.
The noble and learned Lord still cannot grasp the difficulty that if the Bill is framed in this way we shall have Questions and Motions about the same subjects in the Commons, and here for that matter, as well as in the Assembly. I should have thought it would be possible to devolve subjects to make certain that that was not so. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will look at that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I grasp perfectly well what the noble Lord is suggesting, but he must understand that Schedule 10, or any of the other Schedules, demonstrates the point clearly that, where you devolve certain matters and not others, owing to the complexity of legislation and the complexity of society, there are many overlaps—or to use the word that the Civil Service constantly pushes on to us, interfaces—between the devolved matters and the non-devolved matters. It is because of these interfaces or overlaps that one has got this rather complicated drawing of the boundaries.
Of course, where there are interfaces or overlaps there are going to be situations in which Questions may be perfectly competently asked of the Scottish Secretary and similar Questions asked of the Secretary of State. Where they both have access to the same powers, if they both choose to use them, of course one may get Questions both in Scotland and at Westminster. That is one of the necessary consequences of devolution of this kind. That is an essential part of the scheme and one cannot change it. I do not think the drafting needs to be looked at again, because if one looks at the particular Statutes one finds the answers; if noble Lords look at my answer earlier on in relation to the National Land Fund, Section 7, and compare that with the Schedule 5 entry relating to historic buildings, I think noble Lords will find a satisfactory answer there.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I conclude by saying that I did not mean to imply that this is a matter of drafting; it is a matter of substance.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Crown interests and public records]:
3.27 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 12, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 3.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am not quite clear whether the noble Laid thinks there is any merit in this Amendment, and, if so, perhaps he would describe it to us, or whether he is just waiting to see what I have to say.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: That is the point. I am waiting to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say about the Amendment I am suggesting.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should have thought it was normal for the noble Lord to explain it, but if he wants the answer without asking the question I will endeavour to give it to him. First of all, in view of the failure of the noble Lord to explain what this Amendment is about, perhaps it would be a courtesy to the Committee if I were to do so. We are concerned here with Clause 23 of the Bill, which is one of the clauses about standing orders. It is the clause that says:
"The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for securing that a Bill proposing to make any such provision as is mentioned in Schedule 6 to this Act does so expressly and not merely by implication …".
Schedule 6 is a Schedule listing a number of provisions of Assembly Bills requiring the Crown's consent, and they are provisions which, generally speaking, affect the Crown either in its private capacity or in its non-private capacity. Accordingly the scheme of Clause 23 is to make it mandatory upon the Assembly to include in its standing orders that any legislation affecting these matters does so expressly and not merely by implication. The purpose of the Amendment, as I understand it, and in the absence of any explanation from the noble Lord, is to delete the first few words so that such a provision is contained not in the standing orders of the Assembly but the Bill itself requires the provision to go in. I see the noble
1452
Lord is nodding; I think that signifies agreement.
The intention is perfectly clear here. It is to ensure that no Assembly Bill binds the Crown unless with the express consent of the Crown, and that consent has been signified. Essentially, therefore, this repeats the provision which obtains in Parliament, but we think it desirable to go a little further because there is a rule—or perhaps something less than a rule in Scots Law; certain dicta suggest that the rule in Scotland is slightly different from the rule obtaining in England, and accordingly it is desirable to make the matter expressed.
So what we really want is that where the Assembly Bill is to bind the Crown it should say, plainly and unambiguously, that its provisions or some of them are to bind the Crown, and the reader of the appropriate Act will simply look in the index for a Crown application clause. The Bill provides that it will be done by standing orders. The Amendment, I believe, in the absence of any explanation, would impose a duty on the Bill itself, which is an extraordinary legislative provision. The Amendment would cause the clause to read as follows:
"A Bill proposing to make any such provision as is mentioned in Schedule 6 shall do so expressly".
How you impose a duty upon a Bill is a mystery to us, and in the absence of any explanation from the noble Lord, it remains a mystery. I think I have said enough to signify that the scheme in the Bill is a sensible one and I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I detected a certain irony in the emphasis if not in the words used by the noble and learned Lord. May I say it is because the Bill is so complex; it is because one does not really understand. In fact I do not think the noble and learned Lord himself understands quite a bit of what the Bill is supposed to mean. It has been indicated—and I have indicated it on many occasions—that there is no question of wanting to push matters to a vote, to go on fighting decisions in clearing up the Bill at this Committee stage; that one wants to reserve the right to do just that if, on examination, it is found to be necessary when we get to Report stage.

1453
I therefore thought it would be rather useful to try a procedure whereby we had the explanation first as to what words mean which would perhaps save a great deal of time.
Now that I have tried this way, I shall certainly read what the noble and learned Lord has said, and then at Report stage, with both the complex words in the Bill plus the perhaps equally complex explanation which the noble and learned Lord has given, I may be able to arrive at a decision as to whether or not we ought to vote on the matter. It may well be that this is an occasion where it ought to be expressly set out. It would not be the first time we have set a precedent on this. It would be rather interesting to see whether this new procedure which I wanted to put into operation is going to save us time and make this a better Bill, or whether we ought to revert to the old procedure of everybody saying something quite different and, at the end of the mish-mash, neither the Government Front Bench nor we who are asking the questions really knowing what it is all about.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I lapse into irony, but usually while someone is moving an Amendment it enables the Minister to find his place in the papers and then he can give an explanation. It is not for me to instruct the Committee in its duty, but if the noble Lord, Lord HarmarNicholls, would like to do that again, I am sure we should very much appreciate it that he should make matters shorter, perhaps taking just one sentence to say, "I have put down this Amendment only in order to allow the Government to explain the position". That should be long enough.
Lord LEATHERLAND: There was one remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which ought not to pass without comment. He said that he did not understand the Bill. We can all appreciate that; obviously he does not. Then he went on to say that my noble and learned friend who is in charge of this Bill did not understand the Bill. From my observation I found that my noble and learned friend has a most masterly control of this Bill and all the arguments for and against it; and he has
1454
the complete confidence at least of those on this side of the Committee in the way he is handling this measure.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It would not be the first time that a skilful Minister, and one with charm and ability, has been able to get through something that ought never to have got through, which is complex and not understood by the people. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 315 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Provisions in Assembly Bills requiring Crown's consent]:
3.39 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 46, line 18, leave out from ("Crown") to ("or") in line 19.
The noble Earl said: I do not suppose that the noble and learned Lord has too many pages to turn over from consideration of the last clause to this Schedule. I hope his fingers will move rapidly because there is a point of great substance in what I am going to say. In passing, I hope it is not out of order. I see what the Government are trying to do with Clause 23: that is, considering the other various proposals which there are in the Bill for fettering the discretion of the Scottish Assembly—a slightly novel way in doing it—by imposing on the Assembly a restriction on its powers by virtue of its standing orders. I can see the point in doing it, but I should have thought that it could have been encompassed more neatly either in Schedule 10 or possibly in one of the other substantive clauses, such as Clause 19. Nevertheless, this is the way they have chosen to do it.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 6, one of the paragraphs to which I refer, reads, in effect, that one of the bunches of desirable pieces of legislation the Scottish Assembly might wish to pass is—
"Any provision imposing duties on, or on officers or servants of, a Minister of the Crown …".
Then we come to these words, the subject of the Amendment—
"on members of the armed forces of the Crown …"

1455
I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord a two-fold question: In what circumstances is the Scottish Assembly going to put or impose any duty on any member of the Armed Forces of the Crown? I thought to myself that such duties would be something which would be retained, certainly by Her Majesty as part of the Royal Prorogative, if not by the central Government at Westminster. Why is it contemplated that any duties should be put on members of the Armed Forces unless it is something to do with things like flood relief or clearing snowdrifts? Secondly, why is it that this rather, shall I say, blunt way of fettering the Assembly is chosen? I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps for the convenience of the Committee I could take these two questions in reverse order because the second question put to me raised the general significance of Schedule 6, and I can come to the question of the Armed Forces afterwards. As we have seen, the Bill confers on the Assembly a wide legislative competence over devolved matters. One has to ask the question: Can the Assembly, by passing legislation, bind the Crown? The practical answer is that the Assembly ought to be able to bind the Crown, otherwise there would be a crippling derogation from devolution.
It is normal for a Statute to contain a provision binding the Crown, but it must do so expressly. One example is that hospital land is Crown land, and because the devolved Assembly and Executive have responsibility in relation to health they must be able to pass legislation in regard to hospital land. So Clause 23 affords a safeguard to make sure that this is done expressly and with consent. The Bill must state expressly that it binds the Crown, and the Bill must not pass unless the Crown's consent has been signified. That is where Schedule 6 comes into the picture. It describes, for the purpose of the Bill, what is meant by"the Crown". This we thought was preferable to leaving existing rules of law to operate. As we can see from the Schedule itself, this refers specifically to the Crown in its private capacity, to Crown property in all its various forms, to the rule of law known commonly, if perhaps inaccurately, as Crown privilege and the Crown servants
1456
and all others who are paid by the central United Kingdom funds.
Paragraph 4, to which the noble Earl has referred, spells out in rather more detail what is meant by Crown service. The list includes members of the Armed Forces of the Crown. That does not mean—and I want to emphasise this—that the Assembly can legislate about the Armed Forces. All it means is that when the Assembly legislates within its legislative competence it may need to make some provision which affects members of the Armed Forces, and provided the Crown consent is obtained there is no reason why it should not do so.
The example which I would offer the noble Earl—and it is much less dramatic than flood relief—is that members of the Armed Forces occupy residential property in the United Kingdom and, one would expect, will continue to do so after devolution, and will do so in Scotland. The nature of their tenure, surprisingly perhaps, throws up quite a number of problems and gives rise to a remarkable amount of small litigation. There is no reason why property legislation passed by the Assembly should pass by members of the Forces. It is that kind of limited matter which we had in mind in including them in paragraph 4 of Schedule 6. I hope that that will persuade the Committee that it is a limited matter. Even with that limitation, Crown consent is required and has to be signified. I take this as a probing Amendment. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Earl.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: May I ask a question for information? There is at least one private army in Scotland—that is, the army recruited, maintained and commanded by my noble friend the Duke of Athol]. Am I to understand from the explanation which the noble and learned Lord has given, that it will be within the power of the Assembly to order my noble friend the Duke to move his forces to the border with England and thereby constitute a threat to this realm south of the Border?
Lord LEATHERLAND: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has read the Bill. This does not talk about the noble Duke's private army. It talks about members of the Armed Forces of

1457
the Crown. We all know what that means. It does not mean the Duke's private army.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: It is the noble Lord himsel who has not correctly interpreted the Bill. The Schedule which we are discussing imposed a fetter on the Assembly with regard to the Armed Forces of the Crown. The fact that it is silent as to the noble Duke's army leads me to suppose that no fetter is placed upon the Assembly with regard to the noble Duke's army.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that the answer to this point is twofold. First, I accept what my noble friend Lord Leatherland said. The Schedule is concerned with the Armed Forces of the Crown. Whether or not the Assembly can seize control of the private army of the Duke of Atholl depends upon whether they can get it under one of the groups in Schedule 10, Part I. My own reading of the matter, off the cuff, is that they would get it in under Group 18, the development of tourism.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: Paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 says:"Any provision imposing duties". When one is in the Armed Forces of the Crown, a duty is something that one is ordered to do. I cannot quite relate what the noble and learned Lord said on the subject of domestic property to the question of duties. It seems to me that, when he says"duties", he is suggesting that the Assembly could perhaps order the Armed Forces out on riot control.
Lord McCLUSKEY: What I had in mind, in offering the explanation that I offered, was that there might be some provision about the tenancy of a dwelling under which a duty upon the departing tenant might he perfectly competent. If the departing tenant happened to be a member of the Armed Forces, then a duty would be imposed upon a member of the Armed Forces. That was the kind of thing that I had in mind. But legislation in the health field could also have an implication for military hospitals.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I ask the noble Lord one question about that? There are some barracks in the county of Lanarkshire which were built during the war and which are no longer used as barracks. I think that
1458
they are let, but I am not sure to whom —certainly not to soldiers. The barracks, presumably, belong to the Army as landlords, but they are now no longer used for the Armed Forces. What happens to property of that kind? It cannot be the only property in Scotland under those circumstances as, obviously, during the war many barracks were built. What happens then? Is that a shared responsibility? Is it something which belongs to, and is administered by, the Army, or is it a United Kingdom responsibility, or does it fall to be administered by the Assembly?
I should like to return to the point that we have all been trying to make to the noble Lord—although I agree that he is nobly struggling to show us all how simple, clear, straightforward, ordinary and easy to understand all these matters are I dare say that we on this side of the Committee are all very stupid. I do not know whether we are or not. Clearly it is not easy to disentangle what is, in fact, a kind of jigsaw puzzle and try to make some kind of picture which will make sense when the jigsaw pieces are all put together.
I think that is unlikely. The noble Lord thinks that it is quite likely. Perhaps he is right. I do not know. However, I ha ve been listening with great care to all that has been, said. It seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for what my noble friend Lord Mansfield has been trying to say to the noble and learned Lord. If the Government would look at these extremely complicated, so-called co-operative efforts which will have to be made to make this Bill work, and would try to put them together in some more simple form, so that they could be understood, it would be greatly to the advantage of those who will administer this Bill, as well as to the advantage of those who are trying to understand it and who will come within its jurisdiction if it ever becomes law. I think that the complications are still very great.
3.46 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I may just say to the noble Baroness first, that if she will look on page 50 of the Bill she will find in line 8, Group 25, that one of the devolved matters is heritable property. If she looks at Group 6 on page 48, she will find that another matter is the

1459
improvement of derelict land. She will also find elsewhere that planning is a devolved matter. Plainly, therefore, it would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, under one or other of these matters, to make a provision which might have an effect on property vested in a Minister of the Crown—for example, the Ministry of Defence. Of course there is no devolution of defence matters, but a provision made under one or other of these matters might well have an effect upon such property.
The scheme of Schedule 6 is that if, within the area of devolved competence, the Assembly seeks to legislate, and the provision would affect such property, then that provision requires the express consent of the Crown, and it must also expressly make it clear that it does apply to the Crown. I hope that is the explanation for which the noble Baroness asked.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think that my noble friend Lady Elliot is on to a point in terms of this Bill eventually being understood. As to the explanation that the noble Lord has just given, I can understand that there must be Crown approval on matters to do with planning and land and matters which are identifiable as such. But when we include the words which my noble friend wants to exclude relating to members of the Armed Forces of the Crown—then it does bring it into a different category as regards understanding. I well understand that, inadvertently, in using their devolved powers, they may infringe what could be Crown Land or Crown properties. But when we bring it to the actual persons of the members of the Armed Forces, I must confess that that is not so clearly understood. I imagine that it will cause some problems to the people who have to interpret this, either in the courts or on the various committees advising the Assembly. I do not think that it can be put out, by merely quoting the clear examples that the noble Lord gave, that we remove the complexity with these words remaining as they are.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The only alternative to trying to define what was meant by "the Crown", as we have sought to do in Schedule 6, was to leave it to the existing
1460
law. That, I suspect, would be even more difficult for the practitioner. If we merely put in a provision saying that any provision in the Assembly Bill affecting the Crown requires consent, then a practitioner faced with a problem has to ask himself, "What is the Crown?" He must look through all the law books to find out what is embraced by that somewhat nebulous term. What we have sought to do is to define the Crown for the purposes of this provision. Schedule 6, therefore, enables him to have one place and one place alone, where he may look for the answer. I should have thought that the practitioner would welcome that, rather than leaving the matter vague.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I am sorry to come back on this point, but this is an old problem that arises not only as regards this Bill. If, when we set out to define what, in this case, "the Crown"means, we inadvertently leave out some matters that would come under the heading of "the Crown", it will eventually make it extremely difficult for the matter to be interpreted. It may be better, in terms of getting the provision applied properly, to leave it to the courts, if we have not attempted to define what, in this case, "the Crown" means.
I remember, for example, that, when I held a very junior office, the civil servants wanted to alter the regulations as regards the use of Trafalgar Square. I am merely putting this forward as an example. The civil servants felt that it would be helpful if, instead of having a general statement on the plaque in Trafalgar Square saying that damage was unlawful, and would be treated as an offence and taken up in the courts, it would be better to outline those matters that were offensive. I remember that, on that occasion, they gave a whole list. For example, if someone plucked the flowers from Trafalgar Square he would be committing an offensive act; if he made a mark on the stonework he would be committing such an act; the same would be the case if he interrupted the flow of water, and so on. However, if we attempt to define everything that someone can do, for instance, to Trafalgar Square, but we leave out something which could be equally damaging, it will be extremely difficult to impose a penalty for damaging

1461
Trafalgar Square in that particular way. I maintain that precisely the same argument applies following the explanation of the noble and learned Lord. If we set out to define all that "the Crown" means, it will be an almost impossible task and we may well leave out something that we want to deal with and, as a consequence, we shall make it much more complex.
Lord SHINWELL: I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Leatherland that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench has exercised great skill in dealing with the erudite, intricate and difficult provisions of this measure. As I understand it, the purpose of the Schedules, enactments and the various provisions contained in the Bill is to define, on the one hand—I am putting this in my characteristic simple fashion—what the Scottish Assembly, when it is created, will he empowered to undertake and, on the other hand, what it will not have the power to undertake. That, I hope, has been as clearly expressed as possible—almost on a par with my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench.
I can understand civil servants being competent to undertake the tasks involved. I can understand the Secretary of State being competent, or attempting to be competent, to undertake the tasks involved. However, I am thinking more of the Member of Parliament—no, I must correct myself at once and say "Member of the Assembly"—because, as I understand it, though I am open to correction, this is not to be a Parliament as we understand the meaning of that term. I see that I am getting the assent of my noble friend the previous Leader of the House, Lord Shepherd, so I am on the right lines.
I am concerned about the ordinary Member of the Assembly. A mass of schedules with provisions and enactments of various kinds which go back many years will be presented before him. How is he to determine his function? Is he to be completely and utterly in the hands of the civil servants who are employed for the purpose of defining the various provisions contained in the Bill? I have asked those questions and I am wondering whether my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench—I cannot expect him to undertake this task at once, but he may provide an answer even
1462
if it is not completely satisfactory—can prevail on the Government to present a part of the Bill or perhaps a White Paper or an explanatory brochure which would enable the Members of the Assembly to understand what it is all about.
I must confess that, despite very long and intensive experience of Parliamentary procedure, I am quite incapable of understanding it myself. If I cannot understand it with my vast experience—I do not want to make a song and dance about that, because it was just fortuitous—how can we expect the new Members of the Assembly elected by these constituencies to make themselves responsible for fully appraising the Government's intention as to what are to be the functions of the Assembly?
I have been listening to this debate, although I may not have appeared to be doing so because I must confess—and I do not want this to be quoted in public too much—that part of it has had a soporific effect on me. I have had the utmost difficulty in keeping myself awake. As I have said, I do not want too much said outside about this, otherwise my reputation will be blasted for ever and ever Amen! However, that is how it seems to me. I should like some clarification not only so that we know what we are talking about and providing but so that we know what those poor potential Members of the Scottish Assembly will be confronted with. I hope that I am not asking too much of my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. Having done so, I shall come to my inevitable conclusion—I shall sit down!
Lord BURTON: I am even more confused since the Minister has spoken. Paragraph 3 deals with parts of the Crown Estate. Schedule 6 is headed:
"Provisions in Assembly Bills requiring Crown's cosent.".
Might not the Crown be put in an extremely invidious position particularly as regards the lands or fishings it holds if it had to approve Assembly legislation which was contrary to its own interests?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I presume that the answer is that it would not do so. The whole point of the provision is that, if the Assembly, which has no competence to legislate about the Crown in general,

1463
enacts or seeks to enact in a Bill something which is within its legislative competence and that provision has an effect upon property vested in a Minister of the Crown, then it requires Crown consent and the Minister will say. "No, you do not get this consent and therefore the provision cannot go forward in the Bill ". That is the plain effect of Clause 23 and Schedule 6. I do not think that it will be seen, perhaps on a second time round, to be so difficult as my noble friend Lord Shinwell disarmingly claims it will be. However, if he would like a brochure on the matter, then I invite him to apply to the First Secretary after the Assembly has been established.
Lord GRAY: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can give us any other example as regards how Schedule 6, paragraph 4, might come into play. I believe I am right in saying that he instanced housing and suggested that it might be a question of legislation imposing an obligation upon someone to do something. However, as I read it—and, I think, as other noble Lords have read it—it appears that there is a question of imposing an active duty on someone to do something.
I should like to raise a second point. Surely, as the noble and learned Lord goes so very much wider than "members of the Armed Forces" and in fact appears to encompass virtually every civil servant, is there not a risk—and I refer to the example given by the noble and learned Lord of housing legislation that people might escape from the net here? Every time housing legislation is passed by the Assembly do we have to identify whether or not it affects even one individual civil servant?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should have thought that the wording was fairly plain. It might impose duties on certain persons. Another example, simply in order to illustrate the point, is that it is quite common for legislation to be passed which imposes duties upon spouses in respect of payments to their separated spouses. If the husband is a member of the Armed Forces and a duty is imposed upon him, that is the kind of matter which would require consent. I am thinking in particular of attachment of earnings, as we
1464
would call it; in other words, some attempt to impound the earnings. The exact word escapes me for the moment and I know that I shall not be forgiven for this by my Scottish colleagues; in fact, to arrest earnings in Scotland might impose duties upon the Armed Forces.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord to return to paragraph 3 where my noble friend raised a point. The noble and learned Lord's explanation left me with a worry. He explained very easily that the Assembly would not have power compulsorily to purchase, for example, part of Crown lands without the Crown's consent. But if, almost inadvertently, it tried compulsorily to acquire an area of land that happened to contain part of Crown land, and the Crown had to give its consent; and if for its own reasons the Crown did not give its consent, in the kind of atmosphere which may have been built up is there not a risk of bringing the Assembly into conflict with the Crown? —so that it could be said that the Crown was putting its separate interests before the general interests of the area, as the Assembly saw them. From the noble and learned Lord's explanation one can just see the possibility that these problems could build up into something much bigger than we could anticipate.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The mechanics of dealing with the matter will be found in Clause 17. The possibility of conflict is a matter upon which noble Lords will make their own judgment. If the Assembly proposed to legislate and the legislation contained a provision which might have an effect of the kind covered by Schedule 6, one would expect consent to be sought. If consent were to be withheld, then the provision would not be enacted in that form. I suppose that that could lead to some kind of conflict, but that is no different from the present situation where the consent of the Crown has to be sought where legislation affects the Crown; the Crown signifies its consent through a Minister. I cannot imagine that the possibility of conflict would be any greater in this context than exists at the present time.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I must say that I am rather mystified by this discussion.

1465
I should have thought that Ministers of the Crown are subject to the ordinary law of whatever land they are in and that, similarly, whether members of the Armed Forces are in uniform or not, they also are subject to the ordinary law. From what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, it would seem that almost every Act which could possibly impose duties on any of these people in their ordinary capacity as citizens must have consent. Surely that cannot be what the paragraph means. It must mean the Minister of the Crown as such, or members of the Armed Forces of the Crown as such; otherwise it seems to me to be entirely otiose.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I have offered the explanations that I am able to offer at the present time. No doubt we shall look at this debate to see whether or not I should say anything further.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: So far I have followed the debate on this matter with great interest and with quite a lot of understanding. In view of the explanations afforded it appears that the obtuseness, or the pretended obtuseness, of some noble Lords might even be real. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said that he thought the simple Members of the Assembly would require a brochure to explain exactly how they could proceed and how they could not. That may well be so to start with. However, the noble Lord was a Member of the other place for many years and I am perfectly certain that during that time he increased enormously his knowledge of what he could do and what could be done in Parliament. Certainly, when most Members of another place first enter Parliament they have an idea of what they want to do, but in many cases very little idea of how they should do it. They gather experience as they go along from the more experienced Members of their Party, certainly from those experienced in law in their Party.
Although the complexities are great—and they must be greater in a devolved Parliament—I do not see why the provisions that we have had should not cover the eventualities, given that there is some goodwill. Of course, if there is no goodwill, it would be a paradise. Up to now the explanations of the duties of the Armed Forces appear to be quite reason-
1466
able. I await with interest further debate on this.
Lord SHINWELL: Surely the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in reply to my remarks are very much in the nature of a non sequitur. He referred to those in another place being so competent and said that after a while they have some idea of what it is all about, and that not long after they enter Parliament they are fully equipped. But has he considered how often we, in this Assembly, have to amend the provisions of their Bills passed by huge majorities or in some fashion, and send them back? This Bill is an example. Therefore, they cannot be as competent in matters of procedure or in defining what an enactment really means—what is behind it all—as he makes out. It is very difficult indeed. I should like to see a form of autonomy for the Scottish people which is not complete independence but which gives them more say in matters affecting the United Kingdom than apparently has been the case, in their opinion, in the past. Nevertheless it seems to me that any number of difficulties will arise when the Bill is passed, if it does pass.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: When my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and I discussed this proposed Amendment before we tabled it, I do not think we ever contemplated that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, would once more be able to reduce it to a matter of goodwill. It just shows that one can do almost everything if one tries hard enough. Still less did we think—and I do not suppose that the sponsors, still less the draftsman of the Bill ever thought—that Schedule 6 might possibly be held to appertain to the Atholl Highlanders.
But, in fact, the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone was less frivolous than might at first bluff appear because the army in which I have the honour to serve —that is to say, the Atholl Highlanders—has the same sort of delightful topsy-turvy inconsistency as parts of this Bill. For instance, I, who never rose beyond a second-lieutenant in the Scots Guards during my National Service, am now a captain, whereas a previous major-general in Her Majesty's Forces is still only

1467
a private and unlikely to rise beyond that rank. However, that is something that is sensible only to my noble kinsmen.
I asked a short and, I thought, quite logical question: what does this Schedule contemplate would be the duties which would be imposed on members of the Armed Forces of the Crown? It is a perfectly simple question and it was one which I thought would be delivered of a simple and fairly short answer. In fact we have been regaled with a great deal about housing, and, finally, to my intense surprise, attachment orders in divorce proceedings. I really do not think that it is contemplated imposing on the Scottish Assembly a standing order that, whenever it passes a measure which could possibly affect a citizen who happens to be in the Armed Forces, such as the attachment of their earnings if their marriage runs into difficulties, the procedure in Clause 23 of this Bill has solemnly to be gone through ending up with the blessing of the Secretary of State. I simply do not believe it, but I suppose I must be corrected on this.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will confer with those advising him to see whether his instructions in this matter are what they appear to be. It may be that we could have a word on the subject later, or he could write to me. It has been an interesting debate, but I have absolutely no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.11 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 46, line 24, leave out ("at the coming into operation of this paragraph").
The noble Earl said: I scarcely dare to move this Amendment. In the same Schedule, paragraph 6 this time, the same slightly obscure provisions relate,
"… to the care and preservation of, or access to, records in the custody of the Keeper of the Records of Scotland ",
and then the words which are complained of in the Amendment,
"at the coming into operation of this paragraph, except court records and private records".
I have two questions, and I hope again that they might be short ones for the noble and learned Lord. That paragraph
1468
seems to imply that, whereas the provision will relate to what is in the custody of the Keeper at the coming into operation of the paragraph, after that—that is, after the paragraph comes into operation—there shall be no such duty. Arising from that, what is the nature of these records which are contemplated in the Schedule, and why has this particular provision been expressed in the way that it has? I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think it is necessary to look at certain other provisions in order to answer that adequately. In relation to pre-devolution court and private records, and all post-devolution records relating to devolved matters, the Bill provides for full legislative and executive devolution. That can be seen not here but in Group 24 in Part I of Schedule 10. That group has a bearing on Amendment No. 358 which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may he moving. Secondly, in relation to pre-devolution records other than the court and private records in the custody of the Scottish Record Office, the Bill provides that the Government have a control over legislative action by the Assembly (that is, paragraph 6 of Schedule 6), and over executive action by the Scottish Executive (that is, paragraph 1 of Schedule 16 on page 79).
In relation to post-devolution records related to Scottish matters which are not devolved, these can, under the Bill, be consigned with appropriate safeguards to the Scottish Record Office under an agency arrangement of the kind provided for by Clause 32. In general, therefore, the Government have been concerned, in making these arrangements, to ensure that the Scottish Record Office will continue to he the national archive and the national repository for all important public and private records related to Scotland.
The Amendment seems to us to place an undesirable and unnecessary restraint on that aim. The Bill provides that the Assembly will be required to seek Crown consent to Bills affecting pre-devolution records. This Amendment extends this requirement to post-devolution records related to devolved matters. The Government believe that this is unnecessary and indeed contrary to the whole approach of devolution, representing, as it appears to do, an untrusting

1469
attitude towards the Scottish Administration. The Assembly ought to be free to decide what is to happen to their own post-devolution records.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Should it not read "the coming into operation of this Act"? Is it contemplated that this paragraph will come into operation at some other time than when this Act in fact comes into operation?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think I am right in saying that different parts of the Act may come into force at different times.
The Earl of SELKIRK: It is contemplated that the Act may come into force at different times?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The possibility is contemplated that it might come into force at a different time for some reason that one cannot foresee. We are simply making provision for the possibility.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Is the noble and learned Lord saying that consent would need to be sought on records post the coming into operation of this paragraph of the Bill? He said that that is covered in Clause 32 under the agency arrangement.
Lord McCLUSKEY: No, what I intended to say was that agency arrangements can be made under Clause 32 so that post-devolution records relating to Scottish matters which are not devolved can be consigned.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Under Clause 32 arrangements may be made. There is no suggestion that an agency arrangement will be made to achieve what the noble and learned Lord said. Therefore, it means that they have to go through another phase before they can put into operation a decision which is considered to be a worthy one?
Lord McCLUSKEY: It would be quite inappropriate to legislate that arrangements shall be made. One has to specify what shall be done. I think it is correct to legislate, as Clause 32 proposes, that arrangements may be made. Again one envisages that it will be the desire of all
1470
that the Scottish records will be kept in the Scottish Record Office. Therefore, arrangements will be made, and Clause 32 allows the arrangements to be made.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble and learned Lord has at any rate satisfied me that there is merit in this paragraph. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.18 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 358:
Page 46, line 25, at end insert—
"(7) Any provision relating to the care and preservation of, or access to the records of any body whose functions are matters which are partly but not wholly within the legislative competence of the Assembly in so far as those records relate to matters which are not within the legislative competence of the Assembly".
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which would have been intricate but for the explanations which the noble and learned Lord has already given. The point is quite a short one. As he has said, the records of devolved matters will be w ithin the control of the Scottish Assemble. That means that they can pretty well do what they like with them. He went on to say that—and this is as from the date when the Assembly comes into operation—agency arrangements can be made for the custody, because in paragraph 6 we were talking about the custody and preservation of the records.
This still leaves open the question of what happens or, more importantly, what could happen to the records of bodies which are outside the scope, or partially outside the scope, of the devolved matters. By the Bill's terms, certain local authority functions will be outside the Assembly's legislative competence, and that will also be true of other agencies wholly or mainly relating to Scotland. For example, the Assembly will have only partial competence in respect of the Scottish Development Agency and none, as I understand it, in respect of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
For this reason, the Assembly would be unable to legislate in respect of Scottish local authority records or those of any Scottish agency or body not entirely subject to the Assembly's legislative competence; local authorities will have some functions within the competence of the

1471
Scottish Assembly and there will be some on which it will rely, so to speak, on the Secretary of State. I understand that these records are likely to be kept by the Keeper in Scotland. All we are talking about is whether the Assembly should have power to legislate about that kind of record without the consent of the Crown. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am not certain whether I have followed the point, but, if I have, the answer may be found in Group 24 and at the top of page 50. What we are talking about here is the legislative competence of the Assembly, and the legislative competence is defined principally in relation to the devolved matters which are set forth in Schedule 10, Part I. Group 24 relating to public records reads:
"Records of the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Executive and the courts and of the body created by or under any Scottish Assembly Act or whose functions are matters which are wholly within the legislative competence of the Assembly".
It is the word, "wholly" on which I fasten. The legislative competence in respect of public records in Group 24 is confined to bodies whose functions are matters wholly within the Assembly's compete nce. In other words, the records of bodies whose functions are partially within the competence of the Assembly are reserved and the Assembly has no legislative competence over them. In relation to how such records will be dealt with, that becomes a matter of discussion between those responsible—the Government who are responsible for the records, or whoever may be, and those who keep the records in Scotland—so appropriate arrangements can be made that are mutually satisfactory.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I understand the noble and learned Lord to be saying that there would not in any case be any chance of the Scottish Assembly legislating on matters which are not wholly within its competence so far as the keeping of records is concerned, and therefore the question of consent would not arise. Is that right?
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is exactly right.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Preservation of order]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: On an earlier Amendment I could not help but find myself in agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Leatherland and Lord Shinwell, when they admired the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, had been dealing with this complicated Bill. We admire it as well; he certainly appears to have a remarkable understanding of the Bill and therefore is probably at a greater advantage over some of us. The way in which he has succeeded in moving from one subject to another has been most impressive.
Accordingly, I would not wish to disadvantage him by not explaining to him in detail what this Amendment is about, and it might he convenient if we discussed at the same time Amendment No. 113. Clause 24 refers to the preservation of order in the Assembly and the standing orders in relation to the preservation of order, but it says only that the standing orders of the Assembly "may" include provision for the preserving of order. I think that the preservation of order in such an Assembly is a fundamental objective; it should be obligatory on the standing orders and not just voluntary.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I might intervene at this stage to tell the noble Earl that he has already convinced me; I shall accept both of these Amendments.
Earl FERRERS: That is an object lesson to my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will find it possible to accept some of my noble friend's Amendments. I am delighted with the Minister's acceptance and I hope it bodes well for the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("including") and insert ("and may include").
The noble Earl said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.26 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 12, line 11, at end insert—
("Provided that such provision shall only take effect if a resolution is passed on a division, and the members voting in favour of it number not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Assembly (including any whose seat is vacant).")
The noble Earl said: As this Amendment is on an associated subject, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept it, too. If not, I have no great hopes for this Amendment. However, the Bill makes provisions for the standing orders to allow for Members to be excluded from the Assembly. Of course, to exclude a Member from the Assembly is a dramatic thing to do because it is really to disfranchise a number of constituents. In any event, the person concerned must have done something fairly bad if he is to be, as it were, chucked out of the Assembly.
We must be careful to ensure that a majority Party should not use its influence to throw out Members of a minority Party. Therefore at the beginning they should not, assuming there were a majority of the Assembly belonging to some way-out Party, so adjust the standing orders to enable it to be easy for Members to be excluded from the deliberations. I seek by the Amendment not to say that two-thirds must vote for a persons to be excluded before he is excluded but that two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly should vote for the rule which says in what circumstances a Member may be excluded; it is to make certain that a fundamental course of action such as the exclusion of an Assemblyman should have a large percentage of acceptance by the Assembly.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wish at the outset to acknowledge the kind words which the noble Earl used in addressing himself to the last two Amendments. In relation to this Amendment, I am indebted to him for making it clear precisely what
1474
he has in mind because the wording of the Amendment is somewhat ambiguous. Accepting that what he has in mind is that the standing orders must be approved by two-thirds of all Members of the Assembly, then we think it is possible to envisage circumstances in which such a majority could not be secured for an adequate set of provisions if various groups of Members—not necessarily united in why they are opposed to particular provisions but united in opposing provisions—objected to certain, albeit different, features. The outcome could be that, for quite some time, the Assembly would be denied sufficient provision for the sensible conduct of its proceedings.
Apart from that technical, but perhaps real difficulty, I would suggest that, as a matter of principle, it is not desirable and acceptable to impose such voting tests on the Assembly in relation to a matter as internal to the Assembly as this. Such voting requirements, or voting tests, have played no part in the development of Parliament itself, and they have no precedent of which I am aware in any other democratically elected body in the United Kingdom. Such an imposed test would, therefore, in our view, be offensive to the Assembly, and cannot really be justified. We believe that the Assembly should be left free to determine its own means of approving standing orders. It is seen that the Assembly will be a responsible elected legislature, and we do not think that any other approach can properly be adopted in relation to such a body. Therefore, for those reasons, I would invite the noble Earl to consider whether he wishes to press the Amendment.
The Earl of PERTH: Before any other noble Lord speaks, I should like to ask a question for clarification. Does the provision, as moved, relate only to the exclusion or a Member, or does it relate also to the standing orders?
Earl FERRERS: I should like to answer that point, and I should be grateful for the opportunity to do so, because I thought that that was what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, had got wrong. In fact, the proposal was supposed to refer only to the exclusion of Members of the Assembly, and not to all the standing orders. I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord

1475
that, if the standing orders are to be devised by the Assembly, they should be acceptable to the Assembly. The noble and learned Lord said that the trouble was that if the figure of two-thirds—in other words, my Amendment—were accepted it might be difficult to get an adequate majority for that. There, I thought that he was making the point which I had in mind. It is that if over 50 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly agree that the standing orders relating to the discharge of an Assembly Member should be such—but only just over 50 per cent. agree, rather than 66 per cent. as I have suggested—a majority Party could unduly use its influence against some minority Parties.
One would have thought that, if the standing orders which permit the chucking out are to be so reasonable, it ought to be possible to get a 66 per cent. majority. If it is possible to get a bare 50 per cent., that would imply that a number of other people—very nearly 50 per cent.—would not agree with the proposals. Therefore, they would not be agreeing with the proposals by which they could be chucked out of the Assembly and their constituents therefore disfranchised. That was the point I had in mind. I readily admit that it is not a point of great substance, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would like to think about it again, or give a revised considered answer.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to make a quick comment on a matter of drafting. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord had his brief drawn up —if it was drawn up—before he accepted the earlier Amendment to substitute the words "and may include". In that case, the phrase "such provision" would undoubtedly have related to the first provision. But once the Amendment has been made, surely, on ordinary construction, the phrase "such provision" would refer to the second provision. In other words, it seems that, as now drafted (the Amendment having been accepted) the provision would relate only to the exclusion of a Member.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should like to support my noble friend on that point. I think that the accepting of the previous two Amendments should have
1476
altered the brief which the noble and learned Lord is using as a guideline. Even taking into account his explanation, it could be that one would be helping the Assembly by being a little more specific on this important point. The noble and learned Lord said that perhaps the Assembly would find it insulting—or he used words to that effect—if such an instruction were included in the Bill, but I wonder whether the Assembly would. He said that no other Assembly he knows of is in this position. He referred to the other place, and I suppose he also had in mind certain authorities which are presided over by a Mayor.
However, they have precedents on which to work. They have reached a position in which they know how they can exclude members, and in some cases this is based upon centuries of experience. But here we are concerned with a new Assembly, with no tradition to guide it as to how it ought to draw the line or how it should safeguard the freedoms of individuals in order to avoid their being excluded. The Assembly is new, it will be treading new ground—ground which, as I have said many times, will be very dangerous and possibly filled with dynamite, so it could be that we have a special responsibility to be a little more specific than we otherwise would. The Assembly has no tradition or precedents on which to work, so we may be doing it a good turn if we lay down a little more rigidly how people can be excluded. To exclude a vote on a vital issue could mean much more than excluding a Member.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I hope that I am not wrong on this, but I do not think that the acceptance of the Amendment makes any difference in relation to whether or not the standing orders will include provisions for excluding a Member from such proceedings. As drafted, the Bill says, in effect, that the standing orders may include provision for excluding a Member. With the earlier Amendments it provides that the standing orders,
"shall include provision for preserving order…and may include provision for excluding a member …".
So I do not think that there is any difference in relation to the excluding of Members. However, be that as it may—
Lord DRUMALBYN: The noble and learned Lord has not quite got my point.

1477
I entirely agree here with what my noble friend said. I understood that he was really concerned about the exclusion of a Member. All I am saying is that I think the change in the drafting makes that purpose valid, although it may not have been valid, and may have applied to the standing orders as well, if the change had not been made.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am sorry if I misunderstood the presentation of the matter by the noble Earl at the beginning. I should like to turn to what I now understand him to have in mind. The purpose of this Amendment would be to ensure that two-thirds of all the Members of the Assembly must vote for the exclusion of a Member who has been judged to have contravened standing orders to a degree that could justify his exclusion on grounds of order—
Earl FERRERS: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord again? I realise that 1 have not made myself at all clear, and I am sorry. This proposal does not do what the noble and learned Lord suggests, which is that, where it is suggested that a Member be excluded, then two-thirds of a majority shall vote. The Amendment is designed to secure that, upon the standing order which depicts how a Member shall be excluded, that vote shall have the concurrence of two-thirds of those voting. In other words, the standing order which depicts on what terms a Member shall be excluded should have more than a 50 per cent. acceptance.
Perhaps I may help the noble and learned Lord a little further on this while he considers the answer. The point is the very one that he made earlier: if it is diffcult to get a two-thirds majority, and only a 50 per cent. majority can he obtained, then the chances are that many people—very nearly 50 per cent.—would not be agreeing with the way in which a Member should be excluded. That is why we hope the Government will see their way to including this Amendment.
The Earl of PERTH: May I please again ask for clarification? As I read the Amendment, it is now said that Members voting in favour must be two-thirds of the total membership of the Assembly. I can
1478
imagine a situation when, for one reason or another, quite a number of Members are absent from the Assembly. In those circumstances, would it mean that a Member could not be excluded? If we are to insist upon two-thirds of the total of the Assembly, that would make it very difficult to ensure that law and order is kept.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The provision reads to me as though it referred to the actual act of exclusion of a Member who had misbehaved.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: If it is intended to refer to the acceptance of the standing orders, then I think that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has perhaps confirmed the need for this. I should have thought that, if there was one occasion upon which Members of any Assembly ought to be expected to turn up, it would be when they would be setting out the rules by which they would have to live ever after. I think that, when they are laying down the standing orders, whatever they are going to be —whether they are going to leave the power to exclude to the chairman, to a special committee or to a general vote—one would be entitled to expect a sufficient number of Members to be there to be able to say two-thirds or whatever percentage it was wanted to put in to identify it. Afterwards, if it referred to the exclusion of a Member, then the noble Earl's comment would be justified, because you could not guarantee that the individual who ought to be excluded would "kick over the traces" while there was a full house, so to speak. So if this means that they must have two-thirds in order to get the standing orders agreed, then I think that that is very helpful; but if it means two-thirds in order to get a Member excluded, then there may not be very many people in the Assembly, and that ought not to be accepted. We therefore ought to have clarified what it means. If it means the standing orders, then it will have my vote in support: if it means the exclusion of a Member, it will not. It is as simple as that to my mind.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Surely it is not as complicated as all that. The circumstances in which this Amendment would arise would be when the Assembly, presumably at an early stage of its life,

1479
is considering its standing orders and wishes to consider certain courses of conduct which would lead to the expulsion of a Member. That, the Amendment says, would need a two-thirds majority of the total number of Members of the Assembly in order to make it what I might call an offence. My noble friend behind me says that that is right, and I think it is. It seems to me that that is an eminently sensible provision to write into the Bill. It does not mean that if somebody starts misbehaving—of course, it would be on the Back-Benches and a "Yahoo-ish" Member—it needs two-thirds of the Assembly to get him out. What it means is that when these things are considered early on in the Assembly's life they should be given the proper consideration.
Lord BURTON: If, as the noble and learned Lord has said, the Assembly is to be a responsible body, then surely, if anything is to be devolved, the formation of this sort of standing order is something which ought to be devolved on to the Assembly. Surely we should let them form their own resolutions on this.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I entirely agree with that. Indeed, I thought I had said so. Perhaps, when I was talking about this, I used the quite general term "the maintenance of order", but, accepting that what is proposed here, as now explained, is that a provision in the standing orders providing for the exclusion of a Member must get a two-thirds majority before it can appear in the standing orders, then I think the general answer that I offered, and which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has given, applies. One has no real precedent for this in relation to an elected and responsible body, and it would, I think, be offensive to such a body to require them to have such a majority. I do not think I can say any more about it than that, other than perhaps to say that if what is contemplated is that there will be such an abuse of standing orders and of power within the Assembly that people who should not be excluded are in fact being excluded for political reasons, then one would have thought that the political checks upon that would be quite draconian, and any Party which so abused its majority in the Assembly as to prevent others from legitimately taking part would suffer very heavily at the polls.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I make a suggestion on this? I think there is a difficulty about the use of the word "excluding", because very often this happens in two stages. At the first stage, you may name a Member, to use the procedure of another place, the Member will then withdraw and he is excluded from those actual proceedings but not from "such proceedings", which is a much broader term continuing over quite a period, perhaps. Then there is a second stage in which he may be suspended altogether. I am bound to say that I see these two meanings of immediate withdrawal from the Chamber in the case of a failure to maintain order and then further action afterwards, possibly in connection with order or general conduct, for the suspension of a Member. I should have thought that if we were going to have any provision at all for this, both these cases should be covered. This is not relating only to the Amendment. I think that, in the standing orders, any provision such as we are talking about for expulsion or suspension over a period of time should have a substantial majority. I think my noble friend is quite right here; it is a very important matter. But this is quite a different matter, and I am just saying that I think the word "excluding" ought perhaps to be reconsidered in the Bill as it now stands.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether I might say this. This was one of the matters which was debated in another place, and certainly the judgment of the Government—and I think they were not alone in this—was that some such provision was necessary in the Bill because it may be that, if there was no such provision, a person who was excluded from proceedings might have a remedy in the courts, and say that there was no power to exclude him. So there has to be some such provision. The way the Bill envisages this being done is to say, "There must be such a provision; here it is, but the details we leave to the Assembly." The detail that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has in mind, distinguishing between the particular proceedings and all proceedings, and so on, is surely a matter that one would envisage leaving to the standing orders of the Assembly, as Lord Burton also envisaged.
The Earl of SELKIRK: There is just one point, I think, Of course, the word "excluding" is a different word from "suspending". I do not think the other place can exclude a Member permanently from sitting there, subject to certain crimes having been committed, possibly. Suspending him is a different matter. There is a very famous story about John Wilkes, when the House tried to exclude a Member and it was absolutely futile. I would have thought that the noble and learned Lord might consider the word "suspending" instead.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think there is a little more to it than the noble and learned Lord seems to be accepting. It is a new Assembly and it is in a field where there is this grave risk of controversy, because those for or against the whole idea are very evenly divided. On the question of either "excluding "or "suspending" a Member from a duty to which he has been elected, I would have thought that we ought to write it in. We have made it quite clear now—the Amendment has been accepted—that the standing orders must include provisions for doing this; and I would not have thought there was the same ground for thinking that they would feel insulted about it when one remembers that the other place have already written in (and we have accepted it) a referendum requiring 40 per cent. of the electors. There is a kind of precedent there, if you like, for Parliament giving a clear indication of the sort of thing they want in terms of percentages. They think that before this Bill ,when it is an Act, is accepted, it must have a 40 per cent. referendum support. I am saying, on a lower level, that before you give anybody the power to exclude or suspend an elected Member there ought to be a standing order which has had at least two-thirds of the Assembly's vote to say that that power ought to be given to whoever has to put into operation the actual exclusion or suspension.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: I am a little worried. May I ask a question of the noble Lord, about what happens if in fact the two-thirds majority is not obtained? Does that mean that there will be no standing orders concerning this particular question of expulsion, and so on?
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful, first, to my noble friend Lord Mansfield for having put succinctly, in one shot and in about 15 seconds, what it took me about three attempts to explain, and he put it perfectly correctly and perfectly clearly. It is that, before any standing order is passed in which it is portrayed how a Member should be excluded, then that standing order should have a vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly. I would have thought that this was desirable. My noble friend Lord Selkirk referred to the differences between excluding a Member and suspending a Member, and one does get into a very great deal of difficulty, as we have seen in the recent past from what has happened sometimes in another place. This is difficult, and the only purpose of this Amendment is to say that, where they have these standing orders, let us make quite certain that they really have the full backing of the Assembly.
My noble friend Lord Burton said, "Leave it to the Assembly to decide". Of course we are leaving it to the Assembly to decide. My Amendment would not alter that. The Assembly should decide exactly how this should be done. All that we are suggesting is that there should be a two-thirds majority. If my noble friend, Lord Linlithgow asks, what happens if it does not? The answer is that the Assembly must provide such a standing order as would get a two-thirds approval.
I come back to the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made at the beginning. At the end of his last reply he said that he thought that his initial reply stood. His initial reply was that it may be difficult to get two-thirds approval whereas it may be possible to get a 50 per cent. approval. If one could visualise a situation where one gets 51 Members of an Assembly agreeing to a principle as to how a person should be disenfranchised and 40 not agreeing, then I should have thought that was sailing close to the wind. Would the noble and learned Lord be prepared to look at this question again and consider the remarks that have been made to see whether he considers that this is a reasonable suggestion?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I can make it clear that we arc satisfied with the provision in the Bill. It is not I alone who

1483
have given reasons for that. To answer directly the question asked by the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, if you could not get a two-thirds majority of the kind envisaged by the Amendment you could not have a provision in the standing orders for excluding a Member. The answer which the noble Earl has put forward, that you must then write a provision that will command a two-thirds majority support, is only a partial answer. It presupposes that there will be a two-thirds majority for some particular provision. It may be that one could go for a long time before it would be possible to have a provision excluding a Member from participation in the proceedings.
I should like to make a general point in defence of the position. You cannot constantly approach the Assembly as a nursemaid approaches a child. The Assembly must be given an opportunity to demonstrate its responsibility. If we give it a walking frame of this kind, it will never learn to walk on its own two feet.
Lord SHEPHERD: May I add a word or two here? I have had some experience of Constitutions. The proposal that we are now discussing is based, first, on a trust that the Assembly will behave responsibly and, secondly, that the Scots are sufficiently advanced in constitutional procedure as to be able to make this work. In terms of Colonies —and I have had some experience—I know of no colonial Constitution providing for an elected Parliament which provides that there is a need to have a two-thirds majority for either standing orders or a change in them. It has always been recognised that in Parliaments of the Colonies when they have moved to independence that the standing orders should be those that the Assembly or the Parliament itself so wished, and based on a simple majority, exactly as in another place.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, were persuasive in their arguments. I will consider what has been said, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 24, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
4.55 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: May I ask the noble and learned Lord some questions about not just Clause 24 but about this part of the Bill which is headed: Standing orders—particular provisions. In Clauses Nos. 24, 26 and 28 the word "may "is used whereas in Clauses Nos. 23, 25 and 27 the word "shall "is used. In this particular clause it did say: "The standing orders may include provision ..". It now says: "shall include provision …". I would ask the noble and learned Lord what is the difference between "may" and "shall". I do not expect a fourth-form answer. I realise there is a difference in so far as one is mandatory and one permissive. Where the standing orders say that they "may" include these provisions, does it mean that they may include these provisions but that they need not include them? Or does it mean that the standing orders may include these provisions and may not include any additional provisions?—because one wonders what will happen if the standing orders do not include provisions which the Bill actually specifies.
If the Bill specifies certain provisions, presumably one infers that the provisions are so important that they should be put into the standing orders. If they are so important as to require mentioning in the Bill, should not they be equally so important as to need mandatory requirements that they should be in the standing orders? What I want to know is whether, where the word "may "is used, it means that the standing orders may include provisions'but need not; whether it means that the particular provisions to which it refers are the only ones which may be included, or whether others may be included also.
Lord McCLUSKEY: There is nothing in the Bill to stop the Assembly from making standing orders on matters which are not specifically touched upon in any of the particular clauses. "May" means "may but need not" in this context. It does not mean that if there is no contemplation within the Bill of a particular order of a particular kind the Assembly has no competence to make such a standing order. I think we have been over this before when discussing Clause 7. What

1485
one sees here can be divided into two parts. There are mandatory standing orders as required by Clauses 7(1), 23, 25 and 27 for essential matters; they make explicit what is imperative, what must be done. Then there are permissive standing orders required by Clauses 24, 26 and 28. To put it colloquially, what the Bill does is to give the Assembly a nudge and to say that it would be sensible to have provisions of this kind. What the Bill does not do is to say, "If you think of something else that you would like to put in your standing orders, you cannot have it".
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting it in such easy language. I thought it probably meant that where the word "may" was used it was to jog the draftsman's mind as to the kind of things that ought to be included. As I understand it from the noble and learned Lord, they can include those things but they need not; but they can also include a lot of things not mentioned in the Bill. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
5 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 345:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
Stages of Bills
(".The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision—

(a) for general debate on a Bill with an opportunity for members to vote on its general principles;

(b) for the consideration of, and an opportunity for members to vote on, the details of a Bill; and

(c) for a final stage at which a Bill can be passed or rejected.").

The noble Earl said: This Amendment seeks in general terms to suggest that the standing orders of the Assembly should include the broad types of methods by which Bills should be processed through the Assembly. I should have thought it was fairly desirable that Parliament ougnt to know what kind of methods should be undertaken by the Assembly. How a Bill is dealt with is of supreme importance. In the Houses of Parliament we have a system whereby you debate the general concept of a Bill at Second Reading, and then have the ability to go through it line
1486
by line on Committee stage, and again on Report, and again you discuss the whole Bill as amended. Clearly, on the way in which standing orders of either this House or the other place are drawn up, depend how the Bills are considered and also the outcome. I should have thought that it would be desirable for us to suggest that some kind of regimen should be adopted by the new Assembly.
Having said that, this Amendment does not say that there will be exactly the same types of processes as we have in Parliament, but it just gives the general lines upon which the Assembly ought to draw up its standing orders. In the White Paper, Our Changing Democracy, the Government indicated exactly what they had in mind. It said:
"Either the Executive or individual Assembly Members will be able to introduce Bills".
Then it went on to say:
"The Act will lay down in broad terms various stages for the handling of legislation by the Assembly. There will be:

a. a general debate on each Bill, with an opportunity for Members to vote on its general principles;

b. consideration of, and an opportunity for Members to vote on and amend, the details of the Bill;

c. a final stage at which the Bill can be passed or rejected but not amended.

Further elaboration of the procedure will be left to the Assembly's own Standing Orders".
That is in the Government's White Paper. that same principle appeared in the Scotland and Wales Bill. For some curious reason, it does not appear in this Bill. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord what has happened to make the Government change their mind from what they thought was the right thing to do in the White Paper and what they thought was the right thing to do in the Scotland and Wales Bill. What is now different? Do the Government anticipate some different provisions being made to what they had thought of previously? Is it not desirable that Parliament should indicate the type of lines upon which the Assembly should conduct its affairs? I beg to move.
5.3 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I may respectfully say so, the noble Earl is perfectly right to ask this. As he said, the authors of this clause are the Government themselves, because this was the clause contained in the Scotland and Wales Bill,

1487
with a few words slightly different. The position really is that, having reconsidered the matter in the light of criticisms made, both at the time of the publication of the original White Paper in November 1975—the one which contains paragraph 54 which the noble Earl quoted—and in the light of criticisms made in the debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Government came to the view that this was a kind of "apron strings" provision once again; that we were seeking to tell the Assembly how they ought to conduct their business when that was a matter properly for them.
The Government do not have any doubt that the Assembly, when they come to consider their procedures on this kind of matter, will wish to draw upon Parliamentary experience in devising those procedures and in devising the necessary safeguards. As the noble Earl recognised —and he was not seeking to say otherwise —there is no compelling reason to tie them to Westminster procedures. There may be very good reasons for departing from them. I have in mind particularly that there is no second Chamber in relation to the Scottish Assembly—that is one point—and therefore one might have to have different provisions to take account of that. Secondly, we have the kind of procedure here which causes a Bill to die at the end of a Session. They may want to have different provisions about something of that kind.
Obviously, they will have to look afresh at these matters. I do not doubt that they will look carefully at Parliamentary experience. One supposes that they will adopt this kind of structure which we regard as an essential structure. It is a matter for them and, unless we are once again to be nursemaiding them, I think that the Government's second thoughts on this matter are rather better than their first thoughts, as expressed in the Scotland and Wales Bill.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: What bothers me about the noble and learned Lord's replies to all these clauses is the phrase about the apron strings and nannying it through. He gave the clue to the need to do a bit of nannying—if that is the right word—when he said that the Assembly will not have a second Chamber.
1488
The other place, with all its resources and guidance, has—thank heavens!—a Second Chamber which can help do the thinking and undertake some revising for them. The noble and learned Lord has said that the Assembly will not have a second Chamber. In the absence of that, I would have thought it was not tieing apron strings to suggest the general line upon which they ought to pursue their powers that we are giving them under this Bill.
I notice, in terms of leaving the Assembly to do everything, that we apparently have no problem. Clause 25(2), we say that, if anybody takes part in any proceedings in contravention of any provision of the standing orders, they are liable to a summary conviction and a fine not exceeding £500. If we can be specific enough to tell them how much they are going to be fined if they infringe standing orders, I would not have thought that it was tieing apron strings to give some guidance, based upon the experience of the two Houses of Parliament, on these various clauses.
It might be good for the other place and your Lordships' Chamber if, with the atmosphere that has developed over the past 40 years, there was greater guidance as to what we can and cannot do, instead of leaving it to the uncertainties of precedents, and so on. I would not argue at this moment as to whether or not the particular clause my noble friend wants to reinsert is the right one. but I hope that the noble and learned Lord is not always going to say that we must not do our duty, in the light of our experience as a Chamber, because somebody who is not yet elected and an Assembly which is not yet formed might find it slightly offensive that we had given them the advantage of our experience. I do not think that that is a good answer. We want a stronger answer before we refrain from giving the benefit of an experience which is very real in trying to run, not totally similar Assembly one which is not dissimilar, although it has extra powers.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Like my noble friend, I am a little puzzled about the changes of mind which the Government have had between the White Paper, the Scotland and Wales Bill and this Bill. The noble and learned Lord tells us that they have had conversations, objections

1489
and so forth. This may well be so. As my noble friend has said, we have some responsibility for taking action to help these people when they start—as I hope they will—a successful Assembly operation. I do not have this terrible feeling about nannies' apron strings because a great many of the best people in the country have had the advantage of some tough old nannies to look after them.
The other matter which is relevant in these terms is that we are setting up an Assembly which will have an election. At the end of the election a person will be nominated as its Chief Secretary, First Secretary, or whatever the title is. The Assembly will then have to sit themselves down in circumstances often, I have no doubt, of considerable tension and confusion in order to decide what their legislative programme for the year is going to be, how they are going to conduct themselves, who the new Ministers are going to be, and many other problems.
If we also face them with a complete carte blanche, saying, "We do not mind how you run your affairs; we do not care what the rules and regulations are, you make them all up yourselves", I should have thought that the first six months of that Assembly are going to be involved in almost continual wrangling as to what the standing orders should be. My noble friend Lord Ferrers, when he moved this Amendment, specifically said he did not want to tie the Scottish Assembly to exactly the same procedures as ours. I agree with this. Surely in its very simple terms this Amendment, saying that there should be a consideration of principle, that there should be a consideration of a Bill in detail and, finally, a third stage whether or not one voted against it, is almost bound .to be accepted by any Assembly that one can imagine unless we suddenly become a Maoist dictatorship which is, on the face of it, unlikely.
Therefore I would have thought that what the noble and learned Lord the Minister feels sometimes about "nanny's apron strings" may well be a considerable help in solving many of the arguments that might take place in the early days of the Assembly. I hope the Government will look at the matter from this angle. It is not meant to be obstructive in the least and it is not an attempt to tie up
1490
the Assembly in any way. I want to see the Assembly working well, and I should like to make its path as simple as possible.
5.10 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: I find myself in some difficulty. I rather sympathise, first, with my noble and learned friend, in that one does not want to put into this Bill—I use the words which he used—a sort of "apron strings "approach, because I expect these will be people who are not only qualified but who also have a general democratic approach. I have a great deal of sympathy also with what noble Lords opposite have said: that there needs to be some assurance in the Bill that the standing orders would ensure that any proposal which is made should be more widely known throughout Scotland before it is passed by the Assembly. At the moment I am not certain —I did try to get quickly a piece of information about this—but it seems to me at the present moment that it would be possible for the Assembly to publish a Bill on Wednesday night and to pass it on Thursday.
If that is so, I should have thought that we in Parliament ought to have some general provisions put in to ensure that legislation is reasonably well known throughout Scotland and that there are opportunities for discussion. I have no doubt at all that the Assembly and the Executive will do this in fact. But I must say to my noble and learned friend that it is not necessary to be quite so specific here, spelling it out in schoolboy language, but there should be the sort of provision introduced that would ensure that legislation is fairly well known throughout Scotland and that there is a reasonable period, except perhaps in cases of emergency, for a Bill to go through a proper and understandable process.
My feeling is that perhaps the noble Earl's Amendment is a little too school-boyish, with its "apron string" approach, but I would ask my noble and learned friend to consider this again and to say whether or not he would agree with me that it would be quite wrong to let this Bill go through, certainly at this stage, if one knew that a Bill could be published on Thursday in the Assembly and be passed on Friday. In my view, that would be quite wrong.
5.13 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am inclined to agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said. As my noble friend explained in moving this Amendment, which is a probing Amendment, these were the words which the Government themselves had previously espoused. Therefore one naturally wanted to find out why they had been dropped out. The Government have clearly changed their minds and the noble and learned Lord has explained this to us. But the Government seem to have moved from one extreme to another because in the White Paper Our Changing Democracy, which was followed of course by other White Papers, they spelled out in some detail how they expected an Assembly of the kind envisaged in this Bill to operate.
They have now gone to the other extreme, of apparently putting in nothing at all. I think that is going too far, because it could lead to the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. There is certainly an argument for not stipulating that an Assembly should follow the procedures at Westminster. There is also an argument for not stipulating that it should not follow any detailed procedures, thus leaving a good deal of flexibility to the Assembly. But where there are major departures from the White Paper, and even from the last Bill—the Scotland and Wales Bill, as it was called—clearly we must get an explanation from the Government as to why they have changed their minds. The explanation given by the noble and learned Lord was the first one that came to our minds, that they had decided to give a great deal of discretion to the Assembly. But as I say, they have gone from one extreme to the other.
At other times during our debates, Government spokesmen refer us to the White Papers and say: "It is in the Bill because that is what we said we were going to do". So at times we really do need to register the points where they are trying to follow in a Bill, in which, as the noble and learned Law Lords have said, there are some of the most complex clauses they have ever met in their lives. In a Bill of that nature it is important for us to try to discover at what points the Government are attempting to implement passages from their previous White Papers and at what points, as illustrated in the
1492
present case, they have departed completely from their previous idea.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his previous intervention, spoke of his experience in helping to formulate Constitutions, and I assume that he was referring to his time as a Minister at the Colonial Office. Indeed, I remember him in that appointment and on various occasions went to see him before going to visit colonies abroad. However, I am sure the noble Lord will agree straight away that some of those Constitutions, particularly in Africa, have not notably remained in the form which was intended. Moreover, they have not been handled very responsibly. That is not his fault: not for a moment would I suggest that. It has nothing to do with those who were helping to formulate Constitutions. It was other events, and local events which took place in the African countries concerned, which have led to Government dictatorships or to other forms of misgovernment.
I am not suggesting that the same kind of thing could happen in Scotland, but I think that when we are considering this Bill, whether on the point we are now discussing or on other points, we must realise that we are not constructing a framework within which we can expect reasonable people to be working. Of course we hope that everyone in the new Assembly will be reasonable and will be wanting to make the Assembly work; but we also know there are some people who do not want the Assembly to work, if it is set up. We know that there are some people who will be Members of the Assembly who will not want it to work. Therefore, it is important that, as far as possible, we should aim at clarity and should try to to fix the limits where boundaries have to be drawn as to be visible to all who inquire.
We need look no further than MPs of the Scottish National Party. They may hastily and merrily help to establish an Assembly, if this Bill is passed. They will not mind if there is a happy-go- lucky, flimsy framework in this Bill, because they do not want an Assembly to be stable or lasting. There are bound to be some members of the Scottish National Party, on the present showing, in the new Assembly—indeed, they could

1493
at times be the majority group—and I would draw attention to the statements they have made in discussing this Bill in another place. Of course, I am not going to quote, but I will paraphrase and summarise and I will give the Hansard reference, which is column 1806 of I 1 th January. A member of that Party, said that he did not look upon the Assembly as anything but a staging-post on the way to full Scottish control of all the functions of government. So one must recognise that there are likely to be a number of persons in a new Assembly who are not interested in its continuing to work. They may help to set it up, but they will then try to do everything they can to stretch whatever powers have been given to agitate for more powers to make the thing not work.
Every time the Government, and this Committee, are discussing giving discretion to the Assembly and to providing for more flexibility for it—all things which are admirable in themselves—and when we are framing guidelines that may be vague, again to give the Assembly latitude, or when we are considering how the Secretary of State for Scotland and the new Scottish Executives are to relate to each other, we must remember those words. We must remember the statements that have been made by members of the Party who are likely to be represented in this body, and who, once it has been set up and has got going, will be determined to make sure that it does not work properly, because that is not their aim. They do not want it to be a lasting or stable body. So I hope that the Government will bear that in mind.
I recognise that, to repeat the words already used, this is a probing Amendment to see why the Government have changed their minds. But I, for my part, agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, that something is needed to make sure that an irresponsible group who do not want the Assembly to work, and who simply want to throw sand into the machinery, cannot use the complete absence of any kind of provision in this Bill as a way to wreck the working of the Assembly.
The Earl of SELKIRK: May I say one word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I know of one country
1494
which produces a Finance Bill before lunch, and it is law before dark.
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: While I do not want to be a spokesman for the Scottish National Party, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would not want to mislead this Committee. It is my belief—and I may be wrong about this—that while certain members of the Scottish National Party may have made various extreme statements, there is on the record a resolution of the last Party conference of the Scottish National Party that, anyhow at this stage, they are anxious to make this Assembly work.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for mentioning those important words "at this stage". But at a Party conference three or four years ago, when this matter arose, the Party spokesmen said that they did not want devolution, they were against devolution and they stood for independence and nothing else. That is what was then adopted.
The Earl of PERTH: I repeat that I do not want to get into the position of arguing in favour of the Scottish National Party, but I think that the latest Party conference showed that, at the present time, they want to act responsibly. But that does not mean to say—and I am sure that the words were not "at this stage"—that if, later on, they had a majority they would not want to change. I believe that we should bear that in mind.
After listening to the debate, it seems to me that there is force in having some indication of the way in which a Bill should be treated. I think that the Amendment is a little mandatory as it stands, and perhaps the movers of it will recognise that, in the sense that it is a probing Amendment. But I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider that there should be something inserted, if only to the effect that in making their standing orders they should consider (a), (b) and (c) as listed here, or something to that effect, because I feel, with others, that giving them the benefit of our experience may be useful. My only other point is that I know that what I am saying does not meet the point raised

1495
by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, or the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that if this were followed it could all be done in a day. That shows the difficulty that one is up against when trying to lay down specifically what should be the standing orders.
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Perhaps it is worth while to remind the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the last Election Manifesto of the Scottish National Party included the purpose "to achieve separation from the United Kingdom". It is all very fine saying that a more responsible mood has supervened in the meantime. One knows of various Parties that adjust their presentations to the whims of the political climate. I do not wish to be nasty about the Opposition, because at present I want to try to be nice to them. But there are Parties which dress themselves up according to the situation, and I think that the SNP is one. My noble friend Lord Campbell has done us a service by drawing attention to what has been said in the Commons by separatist MPs. They are separatists and call themselves separatists, so why waste time calling them the SNP? They have said things which amount to a determination to use the Scottish Convention as a basis for wrecking the unity of this country.
Of course, we all hope—and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, knows that we all hope—that the balance in the Convention, if it eventually meets, will be a responsible one. But we all know very well that, at the present moment, the three main Parties are level-pegging in Scotland, so that it is anybody's guess who will have a majority. Nobody knows. It may be a see-saw and it may be that the balance being led by responsible people in all Parties will do no disservice to the Union. But it could go the other way, and we are being untrue to our duty to our country and, it may be, not very faithful to our host, the Sovereign, if we do not lend our very best endeavours to scrutinising this matter and this danger with the very greatest care.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas was right when he foresaw the period of the first six months of the new Convention being simply a wrangle on procedure and, if they are given carte
1496
blanche and given nothing to go by, that is exactly what will happen. This is not a constituent Assembly, as was pointed out the other night. This is an Assembly set up by Parliament, and to give it the powers of a constituent Assembly is to muddle its functions. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and others the real danger is that there might be a Party in charge, or a group in charge, in that Convention which will decide to publish a Bill one day and pass it through the next. That could happen, and if we pretend that it could not we are mad. The very fact that it could happen should put us on our guard.
It is therefore interesting that the Government have gone back on the thoughts expressed in their own White Paper about the kind of procedures that might be adopted. The best thing we have heard this afternoon—and, as always, I want to say this as nicely as possible—is that the Government can have second thoughts. So far, during the first five nights on this Bill, the Government have said that they could not have second thoughts. Anyhow, we are now told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that they have had second thoughts on this matter. If they can have second thoughts, they are on the way to a conversion. Perhaps they will have third thoughts. I implore them to take seriously the danger which lies before us and which it is irresponsible to ignore.
5.27 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I wonder whether I may ask him a question, perhaps in the form of throwing out a lifebelt to him; and if the Committee will take a third speech from the Front Bench I shall be obliged. I should like to refer the noble and learned Lord back to Clause 7(1) which states:
"…the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders".
I wonder what is contemplated in that subsection. Is it within the contemplation of the Secretary of State, or of the learned and noble Lord's colleagues, at the moment that something is to he published by way of a procedure which it will then be for the Assembly to observe, until it has made up its mind what it wants to do?

1497
Otherwise, my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas has a very strong point.
I am afraid that I do not take what I might call the extreme view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that once this Bill is on the Statute Book all will be sweetness and light in Scotland. We Scots are a fractious and contentious race. In my own region, the identity of the regional convener had eventually to be decided by not one but two throws of the cards, which shows how unwilling and, sometimes unable we are to compromise. Equally, I do not necessarily see that the Nationalists or any other body, will behave so badly that the entire Assembly will be wrecked before it can do anything, because they arc determined that it shall have no sensible standing orders.
In the same way as nature abhors a vacuum, something will have to be done, otherwise how is the new body to set about making its procedures? Every colonial Legislature is given something upon which to hang its hat. Surely it is right and proper that this Assembly should also be given something by way of bare bones. I reject the apron string argument. If it is to be a body which can control its own destiny, as it obviously is, and if it does not like what it is given to start with, it can always change it; but if it is not given something it may be in real difficulty.
When I looked at my noble friend's Amendment I was not very taken with it, because I am not sure that I am very taken with Westminster procedure. After my two years or so in the European Parliament it seems to me that there are a number of things that we could do to improve our procedures, which would certainly make for better, quicker and shorter debates and at the same time allow a legislative body such as the Assembly to get expertise on its side at a far earlier stage than we do at Westminster. That is something which I should have thought would commend itself—and I hope that it will—to the Assembly if it takes place in due course.
I believe that this is something about which the Government ought to think again. If the Bill goes through, at the moment there is nothing, saving Clause 7, for the Assembly to do in the first few days and months of its existence except to try to work out how it is going to regulate its procedures. Without a wise man, or a series of wise men to help it,
1498
I must say that I foresee difficulties in the future.
5.33 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: There are two separate points for ine to deal with: first, whether or not the Bill should contain either a mandatory provision of this kind, or guidance, and, secondly, whether there should he restrictions of a kind not envisaged either by the Amendment itself or by the Bill, to stop a Bill passing in 24 hours without due consideration by the public.
To turn to the first point, I had it in mind to refer to Clause 7(1). The noble Earl, I having shot one of his foxes last week, decided to shoot mine. I was indeed going to refer to Clause 7(1), because what is contemplated is that the Secretary of State will produce standing orders for the Assembly so that it comes to birth with the possibility at once of functioning in an orderly fashion. If what is wanted is guidance as to procedures, then such guidance will be contained in such directions as are permitted under Clause 7(1). In relation to whether we should have second thoughts, we have had second thoughts and the question is whether we should have third thoughts. The Government consider that if the guidance which is desired and which is desiderated is given by directions of the kind which I have just been describing, that is quite sufficient.
In relation to the other matter, there is nothing in the Bill or, indeed, in the proposed new clause, to prevent the Assembly from introducing and completing a Bill within a period of 24 hours, any more than there is anything to prevent that happening in this Parliament. If one considers that the Assembly may have to face emergencies, one must allow it that possibility. I do not think that I can give noble Lords examples of many situations in which the Assembly might be faced with an emergency, but under Group 7 and Group 8 in Schedule 10 it has legislative control over pollution and erosion and flooding.
These are matters of a kind which might require emergency legislation in particular circumstances. If the Assembly had to legislate for an emergency, it might need to do so in a very short space of time. Once we concede that possibility,

1499
we run into the next difficulty, or I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would run into this difficulty: how in this Bill do we define an emergency? In other words, what kind of provision do we write into the Scotland Bill which says: "For an emergency you can go through your procedures in 24 hours, otherwise it has to take three weeks, three months", or whatever period my noble friend has in mind. I believe that the difficulty then derives from defining an emergency.
Again I have to come back to the Government's judgment. After publishing the White Paper and the Scotland and Wales Bill, and after having reconsidered the matter in the light of what was said, the Government's judgment—I do not pretend that it is a black and white matter now is that the Bill as it stands is sufficient and that the Assembly should determine its own procedure.
5.36 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I wonder whether noble Lords ought to accept that answer. It may help the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, if we give him rather more than the benefit of advice and debate and push this Amendment to a Division. I know that the general idea —and it is sound—is that noble Lords should use the Committee stage of the Bill for probing and finding out roughly what is in the Government's mind and that a considered decision should be reached later as to whether or not we should use the power of our vote to be more effective than our arguments have been. The idea is sound and generally I accept it. However, in the light of the reply which the noble and learned Lord had to give—it was not a personal point; it is quite clear that the Government have made a decision that we do not think is the right one—I wonder whether, by leaving it just at our words in debate, we shall be doing sufficient on this occasion. I believe that the arguments which have been adduced within the last hour have been so well based and so sound that we have a duty to put extra emphasis on the point that we want to make.
We ought to face up to the fact that we have to legislate on the basis that the people who will be in charge of the Assembly will not be reasonable people.
1500
I agree absolutely with the noble and learned Lord that if the Assembly contains reasonable people who, objectively and impartially, genuinely want to make things work, we can adopt one approach; but we are hiding our heads in the sand if we do not recognise that the people who are likely to have a great deal of power in that Assembly do not intend to make it work easily because it would injure their long term desires. I am paraphrasing again, but mention has been made of what various members of the Scottish National Party have said. One of the members of that Party said that the SNP want this Bill to be so bad that it will fail in order that from its failures they can then produce as an alternative the rather extreme things that they want. I do not believe that we are doing our duty if we ignore that possibility, in the light of all that has happened.
The reason why I attach specific importance to this Amendment—not that I am tied to its words—is that if the framework under which the Assembly is to operate is not capable of providing certain safeguards, then it is our fault. I believe that the first thoughts of the Government about wanting something like this were right. The noble and learned Lord said that the arguments that were produced when the White Paper was published caused them to change their minds. I have no vivid recollection of any arguments that were so strong as that. I can understand that there may be arguments which one could use in order to persuade the Government to alter words and make it a little more acceptable by using different phrases.
The general idea of setting up a framework is a real one. The point made to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is also very real. We have had experience of trying to build in extra safeguards when we have been giving power to various colonies which have gained their independence. Those safeguards have not lasted for very long because the overriding desire of the people in charge was to ignore the framework that was provided. It made it that much more difficult for them when the framework was there.
I am addressing myself now more to my noble friends on the Front Bench than to anybody else My noble friends have won this argument; there is no doubt about that. Because of the importance

1501
of that argument, may not this be one occasion during the Committee stage when we ought to say to the Government—I am not referring to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who is doing a great job with flair and charm, but he is working on instructions; that is what Ministers have to do rather more in this place than in the other—that on this important matter of setting up a framework we feel rather more deeply than merely to use words in debate and, if the noble and learned Lord's reply is not acceptable, ought we not to think about pushing the matter to a vote so that at the Report stage the Government then have the responsibility of providing an alternative in words that might be found to be acceptable?
5.40 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will resist the blandishments and suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. We are discussing a complex matter and this is not the occasion for a Division upon a very narrow point. I said that I had a great deal of sympathy with noble Lords opposite. I have to say quite frankly to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that some of my sympathy slightly evaporated, to say the least, when he referred to the Scottish Nationalists and what their attitude may be in the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, must know that if that is the determination of the Scottish Nationalists there is nothing in this Bill in terms of standing orders which will prevent it.
I should like my noble and learned friend to look again at the point I raised about the passage of legislation within 24 hours. He said, quite rightly, that in an emergency Parliament can pass legislation through two Houses in a short period of time. But it has got to put aside its Standing Orders in order to do it, and this is some control over the way in which legislation is passed. I wish to make a special plea in regard to this and now I am not even saying whether it is 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours, but my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey has greater knowledge than mine. However, mine is sufficient to know that communication in Scotland is difficult. True there is radio and television, but the circulation of newspapers is a little
1502
slower. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend whether he will undertake to look at what has been said, without any commitment whatsoever. I hope then that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite would not take too much notice of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said because he is absolutely right in saying that no piece of paper, no Constitution, no Parliamentary Acts can or will deter the Scottish people from separatism if they should be bent upon it. I hope that is common ground to us all and we need not accuse each other of putting our heads in the sand on that issue.
However, there is one point to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, drew attention, which I think is perhaps more relevant than is generally considered; that is, his point about radio and television. Let us say that the Bill eventually has certain procedures written into it which have the general effect of delaying a sudden action by the Scottish Assembly, save in the case of emergency. If the effect of that is to delay and if an emergency arises, the Assembly will have no difficulty in carrying public opinion with it, but if there are no checks in the sense of procedural delays then they can do something and the media cannot do anything afterwards to stop it. At the end of the day, we in this House can do very little about the other place. What we know and have seen is that by securing a debate on a particular matter we can get the media interested, the public interested, and that in turn exerts pressure.
Surely what we are interested in here is not paper checks in themselves, because they are worthless; we want to provide such means in the procedures of the Convention that, should the Scottish Convention prove to be governed by what is in effect a dictatorship, there will be something for the media to hold on to when the Scottish Convention are trying to ride roughshod over them. They will be able to appeal to the Scottish people who, in the end, will decide. It is in order to enable that to happen that we are expressing our concern.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps I may bring one point to the notice of the noble and learned Lord. I think he called in aid Clause 7(1) as grounds for not needing to take the sort of action which my noble friend has proposed and which he is being pressed to consider. It seems to me that that subsection says first, "The Secretary of State may", rather than, "The Secretary of State will"; therefore one cannot be sure that what is required will happen.
Lord McCLUSKEY: It is the intention of the present Government that directions resembling Standing Orders will be available when the Assembly comes into being.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: It has been implied by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that I am postulating an Assembly which will be a sloppy "love-in" in which goodness and light will overcome all troubles. I must deny this suggestion, because already your Lordships have written in one enormous safeguard to this Bill; namely, the provision for proportional representation which will without doubt contain the evil man against whom we are trying to legislate. At this stage I think that is the most important thing that this House has done. I see all sorts of checks and balances in the provision of powers by the Secretary of State which can override the actions which are envisaged repeatedly by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Therefore I think we can rest content on the fact that we have taken the exact23 measures in this House to make the Bill work; that is, to provide a system of proportional representation, so that it will reflect the wishes of the Scottish people. What has been said correctly by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is that, if the Scottish people want to separate from us, nothing can stop them. Therefore I think your Lordships should rest content and ensure that the PR provision stays in the Bill when the time comes.
Lord LEATHERLAND: This has been a wide-ranging debate, from separation to proportional representation, neither of which matters appears to fall within the scope of the clause we are discussing. Having said that, I must say it has also been an important debate. It has been useful. One of the most useful points was made by my noble friend Lord
1504
Shepherd, when he said that there ought to be some provision in the Bill which would prevent the Scottish Assembly from rushing a Bill through all its stages in 24 hours. That is a vital consideration.
So let us turn to the Amendment. Viewed from that point of view, the Amendment is completely useless. It says, under three headings, that first there shall be a general debate on the Bill. Then it says that there shall be a debate and vote on the details of the Bill. Then it says that there shall be the final stages of the Bill. But it does not say that there shall be an interval of any kind between those three stages. Therefore those three stages could be taken in half an hour. There could be the Second Reading, immediately followed by the Committee stage and immediately followed by the final stages. Therefore, if by this Amendment there is an attempt to bring order and proper consideration into the legislation that comes before the Assembly, this is a completely useless Amendment and I suggest that those people who have backed the Amendment should withdraw it, go away and come back another day with an Amendment which goes into more precise details.
5.49 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: If the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, had attended Scottish debates as often as I have he would realise that the concept of getting the Second Reading, let alone the Committee stage and Third Reading through in half an hour really makes one's mind boggle. We may have many great attributes in Scotland but shortage of wind in that sense is not one of them.
I was pleased to hear from the noble and learned Lord in an intervention that the Government had in fact decided that the Secretary of State would produce some draft procedure before the Assembly met. Would it be too much to ask that, if that is the intention, then, at some stage before the Bill is passed, we should have some idea what form his draft procedure would take? I think this would be not only useful to your Lordships but also it is very important that this type of document should be given some publicity before an Assembly is actually elected. It is very likely that a vast proportion of the Assembly, if not all, will not have been

1505
in any legislative Assembly in their lives, and therefore they will need to have some guidance as to how they are to behave when they get there. This is not to encourage longer debate but perhaps to get the noble and learned Lord to come a little bit further, before we get to later stages of the Bill, towards seeing how this draft procedure is to be announced.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I make two remarks. The first is that, as I understand it, the purpose of this Amendment is really to bring the Assembly within the Parliamentary traditions of this country. That is the first thing, and that seems to me a commendable thing to do. We in our Parliamentary tradition sometimes have to act in an emergency, and it may well be that we have to compress the procedure. That brings me to the second point I want to make, that it is very difficult to conceive of an emergency which would affect devolved matters only, and therefore the probability is that legislation for an emergency would be United Kingdom legislation. Therefore, I rather doubt whether traditions requiring any special time for passage of a Bill should necessarily be written into the standing orders. It seems to me that my noble friend's Amendment brings the whole ambit of the Assembly into the Parliamentary tradition of this country, and to that extent I would think the Government would welcome it.
Lord BALERNO: While this debate has been going on I have been turning over in my mind the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, raised; that is, that proportional representation would be the sure safeguard. I entirely agree with him on that point. But where I have misgivings is as to the likelihood of proportional representation being in the Act as it is finally passed. The odds are that it is not going to be left in the Bill by another place. Therefore, we really have to have some kind of safeguard. If my noble friends on the Front Bench press their Amendment, I should like to feel that there was a safeguard, that standing orders could be suspended by a vote of two-thirds or so of the Assembly. I think that would meet the point of the emergency, which could be a very real one. I do not like to disagree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, but I can conceive of emergencies arising which are of no interest to the English whatever,
1506
and it would be a great pity for the Assembly not to be able to act.
Earl FERRERS: I think no one who has listened to this debate could have failed to be impressed by the concern and the apprehension which have emanated from all parts of the House as to the present state of the Bill in relation to this particular provision. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who said that we have to realise that we shall be dealing with qualified and democratic people. We may well be; it is our hope that we will be, but there is nothing to say that we will be. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale said that, after all, people are responsible. We hope that they will be, but our great problem is what happens if they are not. I would think that, far from being nursemaids, Parliament has the right to try to guide the new Assembly. It has the right, and indeed I would think the obligation, to try to guide in some respects the way in which it is going to carry out its affairs.
After all, we are giving very substantial powers. The Acts which the Assembly passes are going to be equivalent to Acts of Parliament; these are huge powers. Yet we are saying, "The way you deal with these Acts, the way you process your business is to be entirely for you, and we, Parliament, are not going to have anything to do with it." I would have thought that that leaves a huge gaping hole. What happens if you get one Party in supremacy? It is perfectly possible. It may be undesirable, but it could well happen. That one Party. if it had a majority of votes, would in fact have total control over the standing orders. It could arrange the standing orders the way that it wanted; then they would vote on the standing orders, and because that Party had a majority those standing orders would become the accepted standing orders of the Assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked quite rightly what would happen if it was possible to publish a Bill on Thursday and pass it on Friday? Clearly that is not meant to be done. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who said that is all right, we set aside standing orders when that is done in Parliament. But the point is that you have got the standing orders to set aside. Here you have not got the standing orders. What happens

1507
if the standing orders on which the Assembly decides should indicate that Bills should not have the equivalent of Committee stage or Report stage; they could be presented, debated, and either accepted or rejected, not amended? There is nothing to say that that could not be in the standing orders, if you had a Party with a majority which wanted to use its power and its influence.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy quite rightly directed your Lordships' attention to the influence and power of the Scottish National Party. What happens if that Party gets a majority and is able to control and design the standing orders and then to vote on them, when they have acknowledged themselves as wishing to see the break-up of the unity of the United Kingdom? Is anyone going to say that we should believe that they would construct the standing orders to enable that not to happen? I am bound to say I was alarmed when the noble Lord. Lord Mackie of Benshie, and I think Lord Shepherd, said "After all, if the Scottish Nationalists do get in and if they really do want to break up the United Kingdom, there is nothing you can do about it". That is what the whole Bill is about, and that is the great fear that many of us have.
Lord SHEPHERD: What I said was that the standing orders would not prevent it. I said that if the Scottish Nationalists wished not to work the Assembly correctly, or if they were, as Lord Campbell of Croy said, inevitably going towards independence, it is not the standing orders in themselves that would prevent it.
Earl FERRERS: That may be so, but if you have no standing orders at all it will certainly assist them to do it. This is the very point that is of much concern to many of us; the fact that if you do set up an Assembly like this that is a possibility, and the fact that it is a possibility was not denied by anyone.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: If you do not set up the Assembly, it will be a probability.
Earl FERRERS: I certainly accept that there is a problem: all of us accept that there is a problem. The only question
1508
is how best to contain it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that the Government have looked at this again and believe they have got the right answer. I feel a certain amount of sympathy for him because one is on a hiding to nothing if the Government insist in the first instance that they are right and then everyone says they have been totally inflexible, whereas if they change their mind everyone says they are being inconsistent. Our great problem is to encourage the Government to change their mind when we think they ought to change it and not to change it on those things we think should remain unchanged.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider this again. I think he said, in referring to Clause 7(1), that my noble friend Lord Mansfield had "shot his fox" and that he felt a tinge of sorrow about that. I think he might have shot his fox, but the noble and learned Lord unleashed a whole host of cubs out of the same earth. Clause 7(1) reads:
"The procedure of the Assembly shall be regulated by standing orders of the Assembly; but the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders".
The noble and learned Lord shakes his head.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am shaking my head because we have been through all this before.
Earl FERRERS: I do not think we have, because in fact the Secretary of State can make regulations indicating the way the Assembly shall conduct itself and therefore the Secretary of State presumably has in mind those indications as to the way he expects the Assembly to run itself. The way that those first procedures are drawn up is going to depend very much on the way in which the standing orders will he implemented later on. It would be interesting if the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to say what ideas the Secretary of State has in mind. After all, if he is going to produce these when the Assembly is set up, he must be fairly concerned at the moment to know what those regulations should be. It would he interesting if the noble and learned Lord could tell us whether they expect that these regulations which the Secretary of State is to make are to be

1509
of the Westminster type, with Second Reading and Committee and Report stages. Will there be that type of thing?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should like to make this clear. The Government's thinking as to what the standing orders of the Assembly should sensibly be has not changed either since the White Paper or since the Scotland and Wales Bill. All that has changed is that we do not see the need to write in a mandatory provision saying "you shall do this" but plainly, the Government's thinking about the form of standing orders or the initial directions is no different from what has been disclosed in the White Paper.
Earl FERRERS: That is one step further forward and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that. Obviously, I do not claim that this Amendment is perfect or necessarily the best Amendment. Some noble Lords have suggested that this is something which we should write into the Bill. I think something ought to be written into the Bill and I just asked the noble and learned Lord as he has heard the arguments which have been put forwa..d, whether he will he kind enough to think about this before the next stage of the Bill. It is something about which considerable concern has been expressed and think I would be sensing the views of the Committee aright if I were to say that on the whole your Lordships consider it would he wrong to let this Bill go through without any provision whatsoever relating to the way the Assembly should conduct its business. Even if the Amendment which I have proposed is not the correct one, will the noble Lord—and I am sure he has a magnanimous attitude because the Government have changed their mind once before—consider it again before the next stage?—because it is clear that something should be put into this Bill. The main objection is to try to get the best thing.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Will the noble and learned Lord also give us some assurance that before we go much further with the Bill we can be told what directions the Secretary of State has in mind under Clause 7?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I have said all that is necessary on that matter and I do
1510
not want to take up the time of the Committee. The Government's thinking is perfectly plain in the White Paper and in the Scotland and Wales Bill. At the time of the Scotland and Wales Bill we were constantly, and rightly, called upon to simplify and shorten the Bill and to take out unnecessary material. We have done that and now we are being criticised for taking it out.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: When he says it is unnecessary to answer something, the noble and learned Lord is falling back into a form which we had hoped he was getting out of.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I did not say that it was unnecessary to answer anything at all. I said it was unnecessary to include in the Bill unnecessary provisions.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I thought the noble and learned Lord said that it was unnecessary to go over again what had been said before. He has been asked by my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas and myself whether he will give some indication, during the passage of the Bill, of the directions which the Secretary of State means to give. He has said that the Government's thinking has nor changed from that given in the White Paper.
The White Paper does not tell us what directions the Secretary of State is going to give. Presumably, he already has his directions in draft. Do not let us imagine that the Government are so muddled that they do not know what directions they are going to give. They must know. He has been asked if, sooner or later. he will disclose the line of these directions, and that is all we are asking. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not fall back on this device of saying that it is unnecessary to ask this or that. if he does that, he will get more and more resistence, as I am sure he realises.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Does not the noble Lord realise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. has been subjected to a considerable amount of repetition? He has said at least three times that the Government's thinking has not changed since the White Paper. I should have thought that that was enough. We are going to spend

1511
nights and nights on this Bill unless we get on and do not repeat every question five times.
Earl FERRERS: I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord would have indicated that he would consider the expression of concern that was made this evening. I still hope that he will, because I cannot help thinking that, had we had the Scotland and Wales Bill and had a Member of your Lordships' House put down an Amendment to delete that which we are seeking to put in, the noble and learned Lord would have said that, for this, that and the other reason, it was absolutely essential to have this in—very persuasive it would have been. The noble and learned Lord would have said that the Government had made up their mind that it was absolutely correct that this should he in. We congratulate the Government on changing their mind but we think they have gone a little hit too far, and, if the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to consider this before the next stage, I for one shall be grateful. I can give him an assurance we certainly will try and consider it before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think this has ceased to be only my noble friend's Amendment and has become the Amendment of the House. The House has spent a lot of time on it and has produced arguments to justify the Amendment or something very much like it. I would hope that, before permission is given for it to be withdrawn, we might consider that here is a fundamental question which on the surface can look tizzy; underneath, however, unless the framework specifying how the Assembly can proceed is the right framework, then all sorts of wrong things can happen. I am very new to your Lordships' House, but I do not think that good arguments ought to be wasted. If the noble and learned Lord could give any indication at all that he was likely to look at the argument which is being pursued, I should have said, "Yes, carry on with the procedure that we have adopted. If we are going to have any voting, we shall do it at the Report stage". But he has not given that indication. It is not his fault. He has clear instructions as to how far he
1512
can go on this important matter. He has not gone far enough. Whatever they may do later in another place or at Report stage, I believe that, on the strength of the argument which has been adduced, we ought to put this to the vote and I hope that your Lordships will win it. For that reason, I would suggest that we do not accept withdrawal of the Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: Before the question is put, I would say to my noble friend that I realise he feels strongly about this but that there have been certain suggestions from various pars of the House that the Amendment, as it is constructed, is not as good as it could be. My intention was to withdraw the Amendment in order to try to see if we could meet the objection which the noble and learned Lord had made, in order to put down a better Amendment at Report Stage.
I indicated to my noble friend, and indeed to your Lordships, that we would not let the matter lie. Of course, it is entirely up to the Committee whether it permits the Amendment to be withdrawn. If the Amendment is withdrawn, it would be our determination, and that of the Government, I hope, to ensure that a better form of words was found at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Members' pecuniary interests.]:
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 12, line 13, after ("with") insert ("direct or indirect").
The noble Earl said: This clause deals with the declaration of pecuniary interest. I must say that, having gone so far as putting in this clause, it just does not go far enough. The clause says:
"The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for securing that members with pecuniary interests, as defined by the standing orders, in any matter disclose them …".
As that stands, it means one thing and one thing only. It means a direct pecuniary interest. A direct pecuniary interest is not enough for someone holding the privileged position of authority which anyone holds in Parliament. It is quite clear that the advantage from an indirect pecuniary interest—such as planning permission up to the edge of

1513
somebody's property, or the 101 occasions of this sort—is simply not good enough.
One of the problems in public life is that standards do not often rise. The tendency is almost always for them to decline. I vividly remember in one country in South-East Asia a senior Cabinet Minister saying to me, "How do you get rid of corruption?" That is a difficult question to answer. Frankly, whatever I may have said, I certainly did not give him a clear cut answer. There is only one way, and that is to stop it starting. There is no other way of doing it.
This Bill, having gone as far as it does, is making the mistake of stopping at the really important part, where it should continue. Therefore I am pressing very strongly that this phrase should be included, unless the matter is stopped at this stage. This is no insult to the people who may be taking part. Every Assembly does not like to set standards, because they say that their Members are honest and would not think for a moment of doing wrong. Experience has shown that the real danger comes when certain practices become accepted, when they become the normal practice of proceeding to do things. Then the standards are picked up by the new people as they come on, and low standards are difficult to eradicate. Set the standard high now and the whole thing may take a different line.
It is no good talking at this stage about apron strings. It is rather like taking a child into the middle of Hyde Park and letting the strings go. That is roughly what this clause is doing. The Government are taking it so far and stopping it. I must commend very strongly that the words "direct and indirect pecuniary interest" should be included. If that is not done, we shall miss the opportunity of setting standards that will certainly be in the interests of the Assembly for all time. I beg to move.
6.14 p.m.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I should very much like to support my noble friend on this point. I think it is a great pity that the word "pecuniary" is in at all. I feel that the Assemblymen—if that is the right term for them—should declare any interests that they may have when they are speaking
1514
on a relevant subject in the Assembly. I remember well that when we discussed the section of the Land Commission legislation which affected charities, everyone in this House was most careful to declare, when they spoke, with which charities they were connected and in what way. I am personally convinced that that was right.
So far as I can see at the moment, as this clause stands, unless we have, as my noble friend said, a direct pecuniary interest, we need not declare any interest at all. If one were a trustee of a minor through whose land the Edinburgh by-pass was to go, one would not have to say so when one spoke vehemently either in favour or against the project. In just the same way, if one were the chairman of a large charity one would not have to say which charity one was connected with, which was affected by legislation going through the Assembly. I think that that is a great pity. I hope that the Government will put in some words to make it perfectly clear that any interest, and not only pecuniary interest, should be declared when the matter is being discussed in the Assembly.
The Earl of PERTH: I should also like to support the Amendment. It seems to me, the Government having drawn attention to this matter, that we must go through with it altogether and not just stop at the words "pecuniary interest". If the Government had not mentioned it at all in the Bill then perhaps we could have left it. However, once it is mentioned in the Bill, then, if we do not take account of the Amendment raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, there comes a time when this may be debated and the standing orders would include the provision. They will say: "We do not have to put in 'indirect' as it was debated in the House of Lords and not accepted." I think that we are in a position when the Amendment put down should be in the Bill, perhaps in some slightly different form. However, the general principle of it is right.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I support the Amendment. I am sure, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, that we must lay down the criteria at the beginning, and make perfectly clear what is involved and whether one's interest is direct or indirect. It does not seem to me that it can be divided. If you have an

1515
interest in which you are personally involved, whether that is a direct or an indirect interest, you must say so. It has now been accepted, certainly in the House of Commons, and I think it has been accepted here, that we do not make speeches if we are involved in something. without disclosing what our involvement is. It need not be pecuniary. It may just be that one is interested in a particular matter. It will be excellent to include this straight away in the Bill so that any form of embarrassment to people is done away with, because there it is, clearly in black and white, how people are involved. I am sure that this would be a sensible and a good thing to do. People will understand and support it.
6.18 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: I support the spirit of the noble Earl's Amendment. This is very difficult to implement in a Bill of this kind. Where shall we stop with an indirect pecuniary interest? A share in a unit trust may cover a whole range of interests, possibly even unknown to the shareholder. If someone really wants to cheat he is not going to declare his direct or indirect interest. He will never do so, anyway, until he is found out.
As much as I should like to support the noble Earl in the spirit of what he is trying to achieve in this Amendment, I feel that to put the word "indirect" in the Bill will almost create an infringement of the liberties of the individual, as all the time one will want to know whether one has left anything out. That is covered by the very vague and general terms "indirect" and "pecuniary". I hope that the noble Earl will consider this. I cannot give him any advice on how to improve standards in public life. This is a matter that has defeated every Government in every country. Much as I should like to hope so, I do not think that the inclusion of the words "direct or indirect "will be an improvement. And so I am afraid that I cannot go along with his amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: When I say "infringement of human liberty "I mean that one can speak as long as one declares one's interest, which is the normal practice of this House. I do not think that that inhibits anybody in your Lordships' House from speaking.
Lord WILSON of LANGS1DE: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that if you have a determined cheat you may not stop him by Act of Parliament. Surely we should be concerned to make things as difficult as possible for him. I think that there is everything to he said in favour of the noble Earl's Amendment and nothing to be said against it. I hope that the Government will accept it, or something very like it, and perhaps add, as has been suggested, something even more stringent. There is no doubt at all that laxity in a similar provision in the application and enforcement of the Local Government (Scotland) legislation is at the root of a certain amount of such corruption as we have in public life in Scotland. I hope that the House will support the spirit and the letter of the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to make one comment. I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said and with his motives in moving the Amendment. However, if we were to put "direct or indirect" interests into the Bill, would we not have to define what is meant by that? As it stands, it would read:
"direct or indirect pecuniary interests, as defined by the standing orders".
So we would then be leaving the Assembly itself to define what was a direct interest and what was an indirect interest. I think that we must go the whole hog, one way or the other. We should either leave it to the Assembly to define in their standing orders what is meant by "pecuniary interests", or we should do it ourselves. I think that on this occasion my noble friend has not gone far enough. He would have to define what was meant by "direct or indirect pecuniary interests "if he wanted this to stick, and leave out the words:
"as defined by the standing orders".
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in his effort to start with the highest possible standards. However, I also want to support my noble friend in pointing out the extreme difficulties, because if we use a simple phrase like "direct or indirect "people might quite unwittingly forget or not know about a unit trust, as my noble friend said, as a share holding. Then we go on to pick out the penalties which at

1517
present include a fine not exceeding £500; and there is an Amendment down to insert:
"or to a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months or both".
Therefore, this needs to be defined. Although we certainly support the spirit of starting with the highest possible standards, I think that the phrase itself contains dangers. I think that the noble Earl should think about it.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: As the noble Earl said when moving the Amendment, it would ensure that the Assembly would provide in its standing orders that Members with direct or indirect pecuniary interests in the matter under consideration should disclose them. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the two noble Lords on the Liberal Benches have said, it is not clear how wide a definition of "pecuniary interests" is intended. Would a Member, for example, be expected to disclose that his spouse was a teacher, if teachers' salaries were being discussed? We can go very wide on this matter or very narrow. We think that the Bill contains the essential provision that the pecuniary interests are to be disclosed and it provides a penalty for non-compliance. The Bill does not specify the scope of the pecuniary interest to be disclosed—that, and other details relating to how the disclosure should be recorded, are left to the Assembly itself to determine.
The additional words that are suggested provide no clear guide as to how the pecuniary interests should be defined, and it is not easy to see what they would achieve. An alternative approach to that adopted in the Bill would have been to define in detail the pecuniary interests that require disclosure. But that we feel is neither necessary nor defensible. Having placed the Assembly under a general duty, then it is reasonable for us to stop there. It is entirely reasonable to assume that the Assembly will have regard to public opinion on this matter and that it will accordingly make suitable provision to ensure that, whenever there is a risk of a Member's pecuniary interests affecting the discharge of his responsibilities as a Member of the Assembly, then he will disclose them.
1518
The need to provide for direct and indirect pecuniary interests is already recognised by Section 39(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. But, of course, the Assembly when drawing up its standing orders will be aware of this and will take account of it. I sympathise with what the noble Earl has tried to do. In all my years in local government before I came to this House I was meticulous and tried to ensure that my colleagues were meticulous in always declaring their interests, whether pecuniary or otherwise. I would hope that that might become standard practice. Having laid the duty on the Assembly, it is for the Assembly to work out the details.
The Duke of ATHOLL: Would the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, not agree that by putting this clause in the Bill attention is drawn to the fact that people should declare their interests—I think that that is right—but they should declare only their "pecuniary interests"? That is what worries me. I should like to know whether the noble Baroness would regard the two examples that I have given of a trustee or being on the governing body of a charity as being "pecuniary interests" within the meaning of this clause.
Baroness STEDMAN: That is rather difficult to answer off-the-cuff. I personally would have regarded them as such, and if I were in that position would have declared them. However, I should like to take advice on that and write to the noble Duke.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I always enjoy getting the sympathy of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, but it has a limitation in these matters. However, I must say "Thank you". I think that the noble Lords on the Liberal Bench are totally wrong. We have lived under this rule in this House for goodness knows how many centuries, and it really has not presented us with any difficulty whatever.
I should like to give a personal example. I voted against the Burmah Oil Bill which was introduced by a Conservative Government and which I disliked. Someone found out that I was a trustee holding a share in the Burmah company—I am terribly sorry, there we are. Nobody ran me in for that and there was no

1519
trouble. You make a declaration and thereafter you can say what you like. With respect, I say that if your wife is a teacher, then say so. Why not? What is the objection? It does not cut you out of anything. It is essentially a question for each man's conscience. However, when we get as far as unit trusts I think that we are going just a trifle too far; we have no idea what may be in a unit trust today or tomorrow, and in any case it is so obscure as not to be of interest.
The Bill does not go far enough. The noble Duke, the Duke of Athol!, has given an absolutely clear-cut reason. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I see no reason why we should not have both direct and indirect interests and then have them defined by standing orders. We are spreading the net wider for standing orders to do that. Most of us noticed what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside said. He spoke with peculiar authority, in view of the recent offices he has held, as to what happens at this level. Many of us can give examples from one place or another as regards what has happened in this sphere. The standards are not high enough, and that is why I want to make them higher. I tell the noble Baroness that 1 shall not stop here. I shall not press the matter to a Division tonight, but we must set a higher standard. I should prefer to do it with her agreement. If she could possibly try to set a higher standard 1 should be very happy to comply as far as I could. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 346.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I shall not move Amendment No. 346 as I prefer to hear what my noble friend Lord Mansfield has to say.
[Amendment No. 346 not moved.]
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 12, line 21, at end insert ("or to a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six monghs or both.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 115 tabled in the name
1520
of my noble friend and myself. As a background to the Amendment may I say how heartily I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Selkirk had to say. It follows from what he said and the manner in which I think we should approach the setting up of this Assembly that, not only should it have high standards, but if there is anything which occurs which derogates from the high standards which one hopes the Assembly sets itself, then there must be written into the Bill something which, in effect, is a more condign punishment than anything that occurs in subsection (2).
Having said that, of course it would be perfectly open for the Government to say: "No, we shall not enter, we shall not trespass into this arena at all. We shall leave it to the Assembly to make such standing orders as it considers fit, and if a Member of the Assembly contravenes this or fails to declare his pecuniary interest either directly or indirectly then we shall leave it to the Assembly to make what provision it likes."
That is one way of doing it. But the Government have seen fit to go much further than that. In a way, we come back to the apron-string argument again. I do not know whether the noble Baroness was in her place when we went through whether the Assembly should be subject to apron strings and, if there were to be such strings, how tight and thick they should be. But at any rate the Government have included that on summary conviction the person who contravenes that is, the "cheat" of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw —is liable to a fine not exceeding £500.
Then what do we do with him? He pays his £500 or whatever it is that he is fined. But unless and until the Assembly produces some kind of standing order, he goes back to his place. To me that seems to be totally wrong. If we, in this Committee are to legislate for the Assembly, then we should go the whole hog. There are long precedents for this, most recently in the Local Government (Scotland) Act which itself derives from Section 80(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1972. In effect, that provides that where somebody is imprisoned for a term of three months or more without the option of paying a fine, he shall be disqualified from sitting or being a member of that particular local government.
I turn to the effect of this Amendment, and here one has to go back to Clause 8(l)(d). If this Amendment were written into the Bill and a court came to the conclusion that the behaviour of the Member of the Assembly had been sufficiently gross, then, of course, it could sentence him to a period of imprisonment. If it was for a period of three months or more, the effect would be that Clause 8(1)(d) would take effect and he could be removed. It seems to me that this is something on which the Committee has to make up its mind. It is either going to make sensible provision for the dishonesty of a Member in not disclosing his interest, or else it should not attempt to legislate at all and leave it to the Assembly to make its own rules and regulations according to its standing orders.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: As co-author of this Amendment, I should like to add one point to what my noble friend has said. In a way I would suggest to the Committee that as it stands the Bill is already an apron-string. I want to explain to the noble Baroness in what way I justify that. As my noble friend has said, if, in the Bill, we lay down a maximum criminal penalty, that in itself indicates that Parliament has considered the matter and has decided on the maximum penalty. I know that it happens to be the same as the local government penalty, but I do not think that that matters one way or the other.
Therefore, we have said to the Assembly that, as we in Parliament have decided that this shall be the maximum penalty and that that maximum does not reach the tariff which brings about disqualification, by the same token no standing order ought to be able to lay down a more severe penalty for a failure to disclose a pecuniary interest than Parliament has imposed. Therefore, we shall throw doubt upon the vires of standing orders (possibly it goes as far as that) if they should happen to think—and I believe that they should certainly have the option of doing that if they wish—that they would throw out a Member of the Assembly who continues grossly to misbehave himself in this respect.
I should hate to do anything in the Bill which prevents the Assembly making that kind of standing order because we have passed this form of judgment and inhibited
1522
them. It may not go to vires; it may be an argument abcut the desirability of doing it because it would ride contrary to the intention of Parliament. That is why this should be dealt with either one way or the other, but not left halfway in between.
Lord TANLAW: I wonder whether the noble Viscount can help me. Is the offender, so to speak, getting a punishment for life if he is disqualified from attending the Assembly and, therefore, from standing for re-election at some future election? Suppose someone behaves badly in the Chamber to such a degree that the Assemblymen are forced to exclude him for his behaviour; if the penalty in the noble Viscount's Amendment is included in the Bill, it means that the so-called offender, even if he mends his ways, is disqualified for life from standing for the Assembly. Could the noble Viscount clarify that?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That cannot be so, because under Clause 8(l)(d) the conviction lasts only five years. After the five years have lapsed from the conviction, he can stand again. I think that that is plenty of time for contrition and signs of penitence.
Lord TANLAW: Is the noble Viscount then saying that the so-called offender gets six months' imprisonment and disqualification from the Assembly for five years?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Yes, as the Bill at present stands that could be imposed by a court if the court thought it was bad enough. At the moment so far as pecuniary interests are concerned, but in no other respect, we are saying to the Assembly "No, you cannot disqualify him because Parliament has said that no crime in relation to pecuniary interests is so bad that it is worth disqualification". In that respect, and in that respect alone, the Bill as it stands prevents the standing orders from throwing him out.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I find myself entirely convinced by my noble friend's argument. This is a case where, as I think he said, we have to go the whole hog one way or the other. My first instinct was to leave this within the powers of the Assembly itself to censure and, if necessary, to take further disiplinary action. Experience seems to be that if there is censure in

1523
this matter, in another place people resign. I thought that this would be the appropriate way of dealing with this, bearing in mind the enormous graduation in which the actual offence can take place according to the various circumstances. I would not dissent from what my noble friend said about the need to add disqualification if that view is not taken; but I do not think that the clause can stand as it is now.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I, too, would venture to support this Amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it. It is a pity that they did not accept the last Amendment. I had some difficulty in understanding the view that those who offend against provisions of this kind and have offended while holding public office, as a Member of the Assembly or otherwise, should be treated with anything but the full vigour of the law. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in relation to the last Amendment, unless we make that quite clear at the beginning, things will go wrong. I have no doubt at all that this is an area—and I make no apology for repeating this—in which much damage has been done to the standard of public life in Scotland by a lack of strict attention to provisions of this kind. I support the Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: In the Commons when this Bill was being discussed the Government were under pressure from two directions to change the provision in the Bill relating to criminal sanction. Mr. Andrew Bennett moved Amendments providing for a register of pecuniary interest and doubling the fine to £1,000. That can be found in Hansard, Volume 940 at column 1221. The Liberals also put down an Amendment seeking to remove the criminal sanction altogether, but the debate was curtailed and the Amendment was not discussed.
The question of imprisonment was only raised at that time indirectly when it was pointed out in the debate that the Salmon Commission had recommended that the penalty for local government councillors who fail to disclose pecuniary interest should include up to two years' imprisonment. The Government have given careful consideration to the level of the fine to be imposed under Clause 25.
1524
The case between a fine of £500 and £1,000, which is the maximum on the scale for summary offences, was very finely balanced. But the £1,000 was rejected, because it seemed disproportionately high in relation to the local government fine, which is now £200.
We are sympathetic to the motives behind what noble Lords have said today, but we are aware that the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life recommended that the penalty for failure to disclose pecuniary interests by local government councillors should be a maximum of £400 or six months' imprisonment for summary conviction, and an unlimited fine or two years' imprisonment for conviction on indictment. The Government at this stage are in some difficulty because they are now considering all the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and this consideration will take into account the creation of the two newly-elected bodies exercising the functions of central Government. Therefore, we did not think it was right to introduce a penalty involving imprisonment before the Government have made up their mind about the recommendations relating to the same offence in local government.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I fully understand the noble Baroness's difficulty when she has been given that to read out. She cannot possibly answer the debate. Would the Government be prepared to do this? If they cannot make up their mind on Salmon in time to put it in this Bill (if they finally think fit to do so) could they not introduce at least a proviso in this clause which specifically, since it is dealing with standing orders, says to the Scottish Assembly that, notwithstanding this provision as to a fine, standing orders may, if the Assembly so think fit, include further penalties, or suspensions, or disqualifications, or whatever it may be?
The noble Baroness has not begun to meet the point that I made, and I suspect that it has never previously occurred to the Government that such a point existed. I believe it to be a good point. Surely the noble Baroness, instead of just talking about Salmon—and I know that she had to do that—could also talk about the points raised in this debate.
Baroness STEDMAN: I thank the noble Viscount. So far as I know this is not a point which has been considered. If it will help him and the Committee in any way, I shall take it back and have a look at it.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: In view of the noble Baroness's gracious assurance, I shall withdraw the Amendment for tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Committees]:
6.43 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 347:
Page 12, line 22, leave out from beginning to C' committees") in line 23 and insert ("The Assembly shall appoint").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 348, and it is one which I would commend to the Committee because it is one that has not been discussed. The noble and learned Lord will recognise it as having been included in the Scotland and Wales Bill originally. I believe that it was not discussed then. The noble and learned Lord also said earlier that he wanted to leave this kind of matter to the Assembly, but that he had in mind all the things they had in their White Paper originally. If one refers to Our Changing Democracy on page 16, paragraph 76, it says:
"The Government believe it to be important for the success of the Assembly that all its Members should take a constructive part in the work devolved to the Scottish administration. The Assembly will therefore have a highly-developed system of committees to advise the Executive and investigate what it is doing.".
Then it goes on to describe what is to be done, which is followed very much in the provisions here. These are additional to the kind of provision that we were discussing earlier as to the way in which a Bill should be handled once it came to the House. The general concept is that there should be a Committee corresponding to each function of Scottish Secretaries and that, before any major matter of policy is decided, or before a major Bill comes before the Assembly, the question should be examined by a Committee.
Briefly, what Amendment No. 348 proposes is that there should be a Committee to:
"examine the exercise by Scottish Secretaries of powers with respect to matters to which the functions of the committee extend".
Then the next subsection deals with Bills. It is there intended to secure:
"that no Bill is introduced in the Assembly.. except after consultation with the committee…".
Then you come to Instruments. It is here intended that on
"any instrument of a general character"
the Scottish Secretary should consult a committee about it with respect to the matters to be dealt with in the Instrument.
Then subsection (5) says that the Committee
"shall determine whether the special attention of the Assembly should be drawn to the instrument or proposed instrument on such ground"
as set out in the Amendment. Subsection (6) goes on to say that:
"No Committee…shall include a Scottish Secretary or an assistant to a Scottish Secretary."
This is a desirable provision, although I do not think that it was originally in the Scotland and Wales Bill It makes an exception in favour of the law officers, who would be of great assistance to the committee. Then there is a general exception where emergency legislation is required and where,
"a Scottish Secretary certifies that the public interest requires the introduction of a Bill or the making of an instrument without the consultation required …".
These would seem to be sensible provisions They follow much more closely the procedure in dealing with legislation in the French Assembly than what we have here; but I understand that people are getting accustomed to this kind of thing in the European Assembly as well because the provision is quite common in European countries as a whole It would seem that it would give the Members of the Assembly a great deal more day-to-day control of the Executive
It has to be remembered that there will be many more Members of the Assembly according to the Government's plans proportionately than there are Members of Parliament Therefore, there would be the manpower, the necessary number of Members, to be able to fulfil these functions. It is generally suggested that it would not be desirable for Members to

1527
belong to more than one committee because it is found, certainly in the French Assembly, that this becomes a very exacting and onerous job to carry out.
As this has not been considered at all, it seems to be desirable that we should at least take notice of it in this House, and I am anxious to know the opinions of Members of the House. Whether it should be included in the Bill is another matter, because this would depend on the extent to which we are going to lay down in this House how the Assembly conducts its affairs. I think I can safely leave the matter here at this stage, because I know that the Government adhere to their previous view that this would be a good innovation. I hope that we shall be able to further it in the course of the Bill, even though we do not have to spell it out quite as precisely and as extensively as this Amendment does. I beg to move.
6.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): There is a good deal of interest in the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and at the outset I would say I accept that the Government emphasis has departed from the position which the Government adopted in paragraph l6 of the White Paper. I do not think there is any doubt about that. The Government's mind has been changed at this point because of the criticism made in the other place when the committee structure contained in the White Paper was severely criticised. For that reason, the Government position has moved from an earlier stage.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I did not quite catch whether the noble Lord said that the Government had or had not departed from their previous position.
Lord KIRKHILL: The Government have departed from their earlier position in the light of the criticism which was made in the other place when the White Paper was debated. I was about to say in passing that I should look forward to Lord Drumalbyn's support when we came to discuss the Wales Bill because the committee system is spelt out in some detail in that Bill. However, I suggest there is a difference between that Bill,
1528
which will set up an Executive Assembly, and the position as the Government see it under the Scottish Assembly provisions. For the reasons I have been explaining, the Government have not felt it right, necessary or, indeed, desirable to legislate for every last detail of the workings of the Assembly or its relationship with the Executive, which is the sort of emphasis we were debating on earlier Amendments today.
It is true that the Scotland and Wales Bill included rather more detail of this nature than does this Bill, but the Government have had to bear in mind the criticism that has been expressed. In saying that, I do not want to suggest that the Government are out of sympathy with the tenor of the noble Lord's Amendments; indeed, we hope the Scottish Assembly will make full use of the committee system and that there will be close collaboration between the Executive and the Assembly committees. However, we think it would be a mistake to lay down everything in advance as proposed in the Amendment.
In considering the Bill, we must bear in mind—we were saying this earlier from these Benches—that we are legislating for what we consider will be mature and responsible people who will be Assembly men; indeed, perhaps some Members of the Assembly will be and will continue to be Members of your Lordships' House. I do not think we shall be legislating for people who are entirely inexperienced, and this really brings us back to the belt and braces argument that we had earlier today. As 1 was saying, I should have no complaints if the Assembly set up a committee system along the lines indicated in the Amendment, but the Government emphasis is that the Assembly should be left free to determine its own arrangements. If we were to lay down too much in advance, I think we should be faced with the prospect of having to pass further legislation here soon after the Assembly was set up, and I do not think that is a prospect which your Lordships would relish. For these reasons, I hope Lord Drumalbyn will not press his Amendment.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I have some sympathy, as I always have when the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, speaks, with what he said. It is not simply a matter of setting up a committee system but of setting up a new kind of committee

1529
system, a sort of pre-First Reading committee. It will be within the recollection of noble Lords that, about 18 months ago, we referred to the Procedure Committee of this House a proposal not dissimilar to the one we are considering; that we should have established here a committee, and later several committees, related to the functions of several Departments of Government so that there could be some pre-legislative committee study before a Bill actually came before the House. Perhaps because, neither here nor in the other place, have we yet got around to adopting this method, I can see some force in the Government argument that the time has not come to present it, as one might say, "uncooked" to the Scottish Convention.
Perhaps Lord Kirkhill will bear two points in mind on this aspect. The first is that this sort of system has worked well and advantageously in Europe. The second is that we ourselves have found that one of the disadvantages of our own established procedure, both in this House and in the other place, but particularly in the other place, is that Committee sittings on a Bill can be unduly drawn out, for whatever purpose; it is usually for a political purpose and has no relation to the substance of the Bill. That has led in turn to the evil of the guillotine. If there were a system to make possible the pre-legislative digestion of Government proposals, the need for the guillotine on the one hand and the case for prolix operations on the other hand would be avoided.
We are discussing a Bill of which I believe about 65 out of 83 clauses were not even discussed in the other place because of the working of the guillotine here is an approach which could make the guillotine and the prolix Committee stage procedures unnecessary and which might result in a great improvement of Parliamentary procedure generally. Having said that, I only asked the Government to give thought to this aspect and not to close their minds entirely. As I say, I feel some sympathy with the answer given by Lord Kirkhill, in that we have not yet got round to working such a system here and, if that is the case, who are we to teach others? However, I hope the Government will not close their minds entirely to something along these lines.
The Earl of PERTH: If I understand the position of the Government, they have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, but cannot at this stage go further. On earlier Amendments dealing with the standing orders, attention was drawn to Clause 7 and what the Secretary of State may do. I suggest that, as several noble Lords asked earlier, we should be told on Report what sort of lines will be laid down by the Secretary of State for the procedure or standing orders because that might help us on the issue that is being raised by Lord Drumalbyn. If we knew what the Secretary of State was likely to say in general terms, that would be helpful, and the point now being raised by Lord Drumalbyn would seem an admirable point to include in the sort of information given.
Lord KIRK HILL: My noble and learned friend replied to that point earlier. His reply may not have been entirely explicit, but it was as far as my noble and learned friend could go at that point.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for what he said, though I had hoped for some more concrete indications of how the Government's mind was working on this matter. I doubt very much whether the regulations which the Secretary of State is to make early on as to the procedure to be followed, until the Assembly has made its own standing orders, will cover this sort of matter. I should have thought it would deal mainly with the actual setting up of the Assembly; how it should get into line, so to speak, for taking the steps that will enable it to make its standing orders and get under way.
I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be wary, as the noble Lord has been wary tonight, of going into considerable detail in the early stages. Therefore, I would have no great hope that the Secretary of State would have much opportunity to give the ball a kick in the direction in which I am suggesting it should be kicked in those draft standing orders that he intends to introduce in order to get the Assembly started. I suppose that the only answer can be the kind of Press publicity and so forth that one would expect to be given to this kind of innovation—as it would be an innovation to this

1531
country, though not elsewhere—and if the Government set their minds against this proposal being put into the Bill, then that is the best one can hope for. But I would still hope that in considering how to deal with this whole area of the Bill which deals with standing orders, they would think about this again, and that if it seems appropriate to introduce this innovation in the Bill itself, they would do so.
The mere fact that the Scotland and Wales Bill was criticised for being much too long, and for going into too much detail, ought not to be quoted on every occasion as a reason for not putting something more into this Bill; and I hope that it will not be. This is a matter on which the noble Lord has sympathy. That being so, I do not for a moment suggest that my Amendment could be accepted in its present form, but I should have thought that, at any rate, again there should be a provision which could lead to a favourable consideration of this question by the Assembly, so that when it makes its standing orders this should be very much in its mind. ft would be possible to devise a very much compressed Amendment. This Amendment has been taken, largely, from the Scotland and Wales Bill, but I should have thought that consideration might be given to having this kind of guideline in the Bill.
Lord KIRKHILL: The Government see merit in quite a number of Amendments which are before your Lordships, but in our judgment we feel that it may be a mistake to over-particularise in the Bill, especially given the state of opinion which seems to have emerged very clearly on the Scottish scene in relation to earlier versions.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Will the noble Lord bear in mind that in this matter there is no revising chamber, and that a pre-legislative chamber, or pre-introduction chamber, or, alternatively, some kind of revising chamber—even the best chambers in the world—sometimes do not absolutely complete word for word the perfection of Bills which may otherwise be achieved? This point may apply in relation to Scotland, too.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I do not want the noble Lord to particularise as far as I have in this Amendment. What I
1532
want is to get the spirit of my Amendment, in a compressed form, into the Bill, and I hope that he will consider this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I think that this would be a convenient moment for the proceedings of the Committee to be halted for one hour.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.4 p.m. and resumed at 8 o'clock.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I am advised that if Amendment No. 323 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 116.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 12, line 23, leave out from ("committees") to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment and, therefore, any question of its compatibility with the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, between which my Amendment is sandwiched, need not arise nor be discussed by me. The matter which I wish to raise is a general one. By means of this Amendment I am seeking to discover whether, within the single permissive sentence of Clause 26, there is hidden, by implication, an opposite and negative provision. As the clause stands, it permits the Assembly to appoint committees with functions restricted to devolution matters.
The Bill, as we all know only too well, has had plenty to say about the legislative competence of the Assembly. However, although I stand to be corrected, I do not believe the Bill has anything to say about what the Assembly is competent to discuss. I believe there is no such restriction in the Bill as it stands at the moment. If there is no such restriction, then, not only can they talk about anything, but there will surely be subjects closely touching Scottish interests, special interest, which they will wish to discuss and which it would be singly appropriate, I suggest, for the Assembly to have committees consider and report on, although the subjects will lie outwith the Assembly's legislative competence. How about a standing committee on relations

1533
with Westminster? How about a committee concerned with the quality of representation of specialist Scottish interests by United Kingdom embassies, consulates and other overseas agencies?
I know that later on we shall come to the general question of how wide Assembly debates should be allowed to range, so for now I shall content myself with asking the noble Lord who is to reply whether there is any intention to restrict committee activity implicit in Clause 26, and what the Government's views are on the points I have made. Before I sit down, I might perhaps comment that, in view of what we have heard from the triumvirate on the Front Bench opposite this evening about apron strings, et cetera, it might not be surprising if they looked with some favour on my Amendment. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: I wonder whether it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss my Amendment at the same time, because it in fact touches on the same point. The only thing is that it has totally the reverse effect to that of the Amendment moved by my noble friend, but it might be simpler for the noble Lord who is to reply. In an earlier Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that the Assembly should be left free to determine its own arrangements. I personally think that that is too wide a brief. Evidently my noble friend Lord Gray thinks that this is suitable, that they should set up what committees they like and discuss what they like. In my Amendment I suggest that we should insert the word "only", so that the clause should read that they could set up committees
"… with functions extending only to any matter which … is a devolved matter".
This is totally the reverse effect of my noble friend's Amendment, because he wants them to discuss everything.
I see the drawbacks to be that we have the situation in which various matters are devolved, such as housing, transport and education, and certain matters are reserved, such as taxation, the economy, foreign affairs and so forth. It is inevitable that the Assembly, when it discusses housing and transport, will touch on, say, the economic state of Scotland, or the economic state of the United Kingdom. This clause permits the Assembly to set up committees
1534
extending to any matter which is a devolved matter. Of course, it is perfectly possible to say that the economy, and even taxation, extends to housing or to education, both of which, of course, are devolved matters. Therefore, it might be said that the Assembly would be perfectly entitled to set up a committee on taxation or the economy because it must be able to discuss everything in order to know how it affects housing in Scotland. In a similar way, you could say that, though North Sea Oil has not been devolved to Scotland, yet inevitably it is going to be a subject of discussion and, therefore, let the Assembly set up a committee on it.
Now if these other committees are set up, such as my noble friend Lord Gray suggests, they will inevitably discuss matters over which the Assembly has no control, and I would have thought that this would inevitably lead to a clash in some way between Westminster and the Assembly. I would have thought that the subordinate Assembly should set up committees only for matters over which they have jurisdiction, and not for matters over which they have no jurisdiction. After all, these committees are not Party committees; they are, or they will be, effective and powerful Assembly committees. As I understand it, they will he permitted to call evidence, to ask for civil servants or for a Minister to come and explain what the Department intends to do or what the Minister intends to do —I said "a Minister"; I mean a Scottish Secretary—and they will watch over a Scottish Secretary. They may make suggestions on policy.
Is it really right that there should be such a committee which has all these wide powers? As I understand it, they will have them—and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will correct me if I am wrong. Is it right that these Committees should in fact have the power to call people to discuss matters over which they have no jurisdiction?
Lord KIRKHILL: I apologise for intervening—it is something which I rather dislike doing, particularly in the earlier parts of a noble Lord's remarks —but the noble Earl will keep in mind, will he not, that there can be no question of compelling a Minister, for instance, to attend? I thought I would make that point at the outset.
Earl FERRERS: That is helpful, and perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to explain how he visualises these committees working. Recently—a month or so ago—we read in the papers about the business of, I think it was, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in another place calling the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. One wonders whether these similar committees will have that type of power. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to say that they will not be able to call Ministers.
One wonders whether they will be able to call the chairmen of nationalised industries, or whethet they will be able to take evidence. If they cannot, that is certainly a curtailment of their power; but one wonders whether it is in fact right to have set up committees, which presumably arc going to be fairly powerful bodies, over matters which are not devolved at all. That is the reason why my Amendment suggested, in contrast to that of Lord Gray, that these committees should be restricted only to those matters which are devolved. If they are not so restricted, I can visualise that there would be conflict in the end between Westminster and the Assembly, and it will make it unclear to people what locus standi those committees have if they have the right to discuss and consider evidence on matters over which they have no control. I mention this in passing on Lord Gray's Amendment. I thought it more convenient than to have a separate debate on my Amendment.
Lord GRAY: Perhaps I could say to my noble friend Lord Ferrers that I think he has, in part, misunderstood me. The form of my Amendment was chosen to enable me to make my point which is an interrogative one; namely, whether the restrictive aspect of the clause prevented committees (which would not have functions in terms of legislation or deal authoritatively with matters which clashed with Westminster from being set up because in the Bill there was this restriction as to what was apparently the only sort of committee that might be set up by the Assembly.
Lord KIRKHILL: I thought it might be convenient in a general way to discuss these Amendments together. It may be of help to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, if I
1536
were to respond to his direct point now. The short answer is, No. This clause is essentially a permissive clause. There is nothing to stop the Scottish Assembly setting up its own unemployment committee. I give that as an example. The particular Department concerned is not devolved to that Assembly, but there should be nothing within the Bill or within this clause to prevent that course of action being followed by the Assembly. I think that is the short answer to the question.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I would say that you cannot stop the Assembly discussing anything. If you take the National Farmers' Union, they have political committees and economic committees; the CBI have the same; the trade unions have political and economic committees about things over which they have absolutely no jurisdiction but which affect their lives enormously. The Scottish Assembly, while (I would say, happily) assenting that the powers to regulate the economy and other matters lie in Westminster, will want to discuss the economy and will want to set up committees to study the matter in order to put a peculiarly Scottish viewpoint both in Westminster and, perhaps, in Brussels. I do not think that the question of particular committees on Bills, which obviously should be a different sort of committee restricted to the Bill in question (and that Bill must be within the powers) would negate any setting up of study committees which are necessary and, I think, completely in line with the Assembly's point of view in representing the people of Scotland and their interests.
Lord KIRKHILL: I agree with the remarks made by Lord Mackie. That is certainly how the Government see the situation evolving. I can be more specific to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and reiterate that so far as ministerial attendance is concerned there can be no question of compulsion. Ministers can be asked. The compulsion contained within the clause relates only to the Assembly's own people. There is no question but that somebody working for the Assembly can be compelled to attend a particular committee. Beyond that the remit of this clause does not extend.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I ask a question about Clause 26? I speak as someone who has always been interested in the committees set up by nationalised industries and other industries to be concerned with consumer affairs. It is consumer affairs that I am concerned with under this clause. The nationalised industries, like railways, airways and others which have Scottish importance and interest as well as important English interests, at the moment have United Kingdom consumer committees which are concerned with the users of the airlines or railways or the Post Office and so on.
If you set up committees in Scotland, will those committees be able to discuss the United Kingdom aspect of what I would call consumer affairs, or will they be limited to the Scottish aspect of, let us say, the railways or airways? My feeling is that it would be important not to isolate the interests of consumers, but that if some of these interests are devolved and you do have a Scottish interest which is separate from the United Kingdom interest, the interests of the consumers should be represented on both sides. I feel that it would be better to keep the United Kingdom interests in these industries, because everyone who uses the airlines or railways or whatever the industry is, feels more or less, the same. We all want good railways, better railways, good airways, better airways. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has often said, we want the interests of the consumers to be fully represented on the nationalised bodies.
I should like the noble Lord to tell me whether in the plan which is put forward under Clause 26 there will be the possibility of the joint interest of the United Kingdom, as opposed to the devolved interests, represented on these committees. I think it is important. From my contact with the Scottish Consumers' Association I can tell the noble Lord that they are very worried as to whether their interests will be represented if the matters are devolved; and, if they are not devolved that their interests will still be represented on the United Kingdom committees. I speak with the interests of those people at heart, and I hope very much the noble Lord will be able to tell me what is the situation under Clause 26.
Lord KIRKHILL: As the noble Baroness would freely acknowledge, matters which stand devolved are capable of legislative action—but only matters which stand devolved. As to other matters which will undoubtedly affect people living in Scotland, these matters can be discussed. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the Assembly setting up committees to discuss matters of considerable interest to people who live in Scotland. If the matter under discussion is not a devolved matter, it stops at the point of discussion. It does not go any further than that within the competence of this Bill.
Earl FERRERS: In other words, as I understand the noble Lord, the Assembly can, for instance, set up committees on taxation to discover the impact of taxation on Scotland, even though they have no jurisdiction over taxation?
Lord KIRKHILL: The short answer to that question is undoubtedly, Yes. An example is that there are some local authorities who, for example, form a special committee to ensure that their catering department does not buy South African Outspan oranges. There is usually nothing within the competence of local government to stop them from so doing. Similarly within the Assembly, if they wish to discuss these matters.
Lord BURTON: I thought it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who earlier on congratulated the Government in cutting out a lot of the unnecessary parts of the original Bill. I cannot understand now why the Government are not accepting my noble friend Lord Gray's Amendment because it seems that these words are unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said that they are only permissive. But why put them in at all? I was thinking of local government. The local authority can set up committees on matters in which they have no jurisdiction at all; they are merely pressure groups. I can think of committees on bus companies, telephone authorities and one thing and another. Cannot Lord Gray's Amendment be accepted?
Lord KIRKHILL: It is essentially a matter of judgment. I would not claim the Government's judgment at each and every point of the Bill is always the

1539
judgment which noble Lords should accept. But this case concerns a permissive cause and is not very much more than a nudge to the Assembly that it might go in a certain direction. To that extent, surely the clause is useful.
The Earl of PERTH: Do I understand this correctly, that although they may appoint committees on matters which are devolved, it is also within their power to deal with matters which are not devolved?
Lord KIRKHILL: It is within their powers to discuss matters.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I find great difficulty with this. The clause is pretty specific. It does not say that the standing orders of the Assembly may not include provisions for the appointment of committees dealing with anything under the sun. What it does say is that it may include provisions for the appointment of committees with functions extending to devolved matters. I should have thought that that implies that the functions of committees must relate to devolved matters in some way or another. They may go beyond that, but it seems extraordinary to put a clause like this into the Bill and then allow the committees to be set up to deal with any matter affecting Scotland. I should have thought my noble friend's Amendment to put in the word "only" was a very sensible one. I hope that a little more direction will be given to this. I have an Amendment later dealing with Motions. That is a totally different matter. But when one studies matters in committees, and there are committees of inquiry, surely those must be related to the functions of the Assembly.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I find this fascinating. May I pursue the question of the Outspan oranges? There will be some Members of the Assembly full of all kinds of very responsible, public-spirited matters; but there will be a few with their "hobby-horses". Perhaps Outspan oranges might be an important issue for some people. But there will be others with "hobby-horses". Is the noble Lord really suggesting that this Assembly will have time to establish committees just, as it were, off the tops of their heads about any issue of which a Member may feel concerned?
Lord KIRKHILL: If I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, I was attempting to say that the clause, as it stands, does not debar the Assembly from setting up a committee to discuss anything which the Assembly wishes to discuss. It can only legislate on those matters which stand before it in a devolved manner. Outspan oranges was perhaps an unfortunate example. It was one which came quickly to mind, a verbal "flannelgraph", and I regret having said it now.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Perhaps the Minister should look at this again. He nudges the Assembly towards saying that they may set up committees with functions extending to any matter which is devolved. It could be taken in a negative way to say they could not set up other committees, simply study committees. Perhaps this matter needs further consideration.
Earl FERRERS: I am still worried about this. I do not want to make an issue out of it but I thought that the Government, in the Bill, meant to say that the Assembly could set up committees with functions extending to any matter which is a devolved matter. I thought, to make that absolutely clear, that if one inserted the word "only" it would be perfectly clear that one could set up committees only for those matters which are devolved. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, now says that they can discuss anything they like. If that is a fact, then surely my noble friend's Amendment ought to be accepted. What is the point of saying you can set up committees on a devolved matter if you can set up committees on matters which are not devolved, which are reserved? It must be either one or the other. I thought the Bill insinuated that the Assembly should not set up committees for matters which were not devolved; but now the noble Lord says it should do so. I find this confusing.
Lord KIRKHILL: I do not think I can add substantially to my earlier remarks. I will take up one point which the noble Earl has made. We would consider adding the word "only" to be unnecessarily restrictive. I remarked earlier that I think it is a question of

1541
judgment. I do not think that there is more to it than that.
Lord GRAY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having dealt with my Amendment in the way that he has. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. It is interesting that, caught in the cross-fire between myself and my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has surprised a number of noble Lords as to exactly what is the nature of this clause. In the circumstances, and perhaps with a view to this matter receiving further consideration, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
8.29 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 12, line 25, at end insert ("and with or without powers to send for persons and papers as the Assembly may decide when appointing each Committee").
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked if I would associate his Amendment with mine. The purpose of these two Amendments—and they have the same purpose—is to empower (and Bills do empower things to happen) the committees to send for persons and papers. The difference between the noble Earl's Amendment and mine is that I leave with the Assembly the power to decide in which cases a committee should be empowered to send for persons and papers. I should have thought that this is right. It is essential that if they are having certain forms of committee of inquiry they should be able to send for persons and papers in the same way as committees of this House and the House of Commons.
Where I think my Amendment is defective and where the Amendment of my noble friend represents an improvement is that I feel there has to be some restrictions on the persons who may be sent for. I am not at all certain that even my noble friend's Amendment does not go a little too far in that respect, but at least he excludes the possibility of sending for Members of Parliament or for papers
1542
which relate to the defence of the Realm. I think that is obviously so, and there ought also to be a case for excluding papers which enjoy Crown privilege, and one thing and another. I did not spell these out because I really wanted to ascertain the Government's thinking on this matter.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to make some sympathetic noises, at any rate, about these Amendments because I do not believe that the power to send for persons and papers is inherent in the powers of the Assembly and I think it ought to have them. I do not think I need say more than that. I beg to move.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: May I say that this Amendment appears to stress that there are two different sorts of committee. Certainly, it is only right that a committee on a Bill which is within the devolved powers of the Assembly should be able to send for persons and papers. I think that, when the Assembly sets up a study group, it is in a different position, and it seems to me that the clause as it stands restricts the ability of the Assembly to set up the two different sorts of committee a study committee and a legislative committee on a Bill. That is as far as I would care to comment on this point.
Lord KIRKHILL: While appreciative of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which he has expressed so succinctly, the Government's difficulty in accepting this Amendment is that we take the view that it would be inappropriate for Assembly committees to have the wide-ranging powers that are suggested. I am advised that they would in any event be unenforceable in certain circumstances. What sanctions could the Assembly employ against a private individual, for example, who failed to respond to an Assembly summons?
Parliament's powers in this respect derive from the kind of inherent privileges which the Assembly will not have and is not intended to have. To accept an Amendment of this kind would introduce for the Assembly a level of authority which is appropriate, outside the courts of the land or for law enforcement purposes, only to a sovereign Parliament. It is, of course, desirable—and this is perfectly possible

1543
under the Bill as drafted—that the Assembly should be able to give its committees adequate powers to require, as I said earlier, its own people to appear before, and provide information for, Assembly committees. That would extend to Assembly officers and staff, to Scottish Secretaries and their staffs and to the members and officials of bodies operating directly and exclusively under the Assembly's control. But, in the Government's view, it would be wrong to go beyond this; and I have been suggesting that it is difficult to see how powers going further than that would be capable of being enforced. I think that that perhaps answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think that if the noble Lord will look into this he will find that, generally speaking, the power to send for persons and papers is not very easy to enforce. There are many cases in which this is so. Admittedly, the courts can make it a contempt. If somebody is subpoenaed, that is a different matter: they are subpoenaed. But when persons and papers are sent for people do comply, and sanctions have not really been necessary. I do not say that you can send somebody to the Tower, or something of that kind for not complying; but it does not happen. Nevertheless, there is the power to send for persons and papers and I think it is a good thing that that should be so. I suppose that to talk of the majesty of the Assembly would be to use the wrong word, but at any rate the authority and dignity of the Assembly would be enhanced by means of this power. I really do not think it will be found to be sufficient to send for your own people, as the noble Lord has succinctly put it—meaning civil servants who serve the Executive and officers of the Assembly, and so on. I do not think that is good enough: I do not think it would be effective. I recommend the noble Lord to think about this a little further, because I think the power is required here. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 306 and 308 not moved.]
8.36 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 349:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) In naming persons to be members of a committee appointed under this section, the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties is, so far as practicable, reflected in the membership of the committee.".
The noble Lord said: I think this is an important Amendment. There will be a "Parliament "of 150, and it looks as if there will be a considerable number of committees. Local authorities differ in their practice in the manning of committees, particularly when it comes to a chairman's committee, or something like that. They are rather apt to put people all of one Party on the committee. I think that if the committee system is to work in the way I hope it will, each committee should be a microcosm of the Assembly and should be fully representative of all the Parties there. I think this is quite a reasonable obligation to lay upon the Assembly and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. We have waited rather a long time for something to be accepted!
I think this is a sensible and important Amendment and I do not expect for one moment that the Assembly would resent this being imposed simply because local authority practice varies so much. If this is what we think should happen, then it should go into the Bill and I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: I apologise to the noble Lord for keeping such a straight bat this evening, but this is a particular phase of the Bill from my point of view. I agree with the noble Lord that the substance of his Amendment is of importance and is certainly worthy of being discussed. But again it comes down to this question of judgment. If we had an Executive Legislature, as is envisaged in the Welsh Bill, then the argument is incontrovertible. I do not agree with his argument when we have the question of a Scottish Executive with legislative power. It is because of that distinction that I find difficulty in accepting this Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: What worries a lot of us is that so much power is being given to the Scottish Assembly to run themselves that Westminster has really absolutely

1545
no control at all; and the noble Lord has often said, as have others, that here we are dealing with responsible and sensible people—but we do not know that we are. If that is the case, of course, we need write very little into the Bill. But the whole purpose of Parliament and of Acts in law is to cater for the difficult cases and to cater when things go wrong. This Amendment seems to be perfectly reasonable. All it says is that:
"the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties… is reflected in the membership of the committee".
That seems an admirable thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, says it is quite right. Why should it not be in the Bill?—because it is perfectly possible that you might get an Assembly which takes the view of: "No, we do not want the membership to be reflected appropriately or adequately; we want it to be reflected our way." I cannot see why it cannot be put into the Bill.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: In this case, I wholly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The noble Lord the Minister has vast experience—nobody more so—of local government in Scotland, and he knows that wherever you find local government going wrong and getting into a beastly condition, which is bad for the subject, the ruling Party always grabs all the convenors' seats for itself. That is always a sign of bad local government. In the noble city of Aberdeen it hardly ever happens, because it is an object lesson in local government. When the Government are entrenching some clauses in the standing orders, one like this is probably the best that can be put in, because it gives a degree of fairness which is absolutely essential if we are to have a reasonable governmental system in Scotland, and it appears to be in line with experience.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should very strongly like to support this Amendment. There are quite a number of areas in Scotland where there is no tremendous Party interest in local government. In the area which I represented for a great many years, the Party was hardly represented. One stood for local government and was accepted, practically on a non-Party basis, if you were prepared to do the work and did it to the satisfaction of your constituents. It would
1546
be a great pity if, when people in the Assembly were appointing committees for certain jobs, they did not take not what I would call a non-Party view, but a generous liberal view of the number of people and of the different types who could be members of committees.
This Amendment is a good opportunity for the Government to show that they do not want to be so tremendously Party-political about many aspects of Assembly government which will not be essentially Party political. In many cases, they will be in the general interest of the public, and the Government will be missing an opportunity if they do not accept this proposal which seems eminently suitable. It does not rule out the fact that, if one wants to appoint very Party political people, one can do so, but it also makes it possible to appoint people who are not inclined very strongly one way or the other.
Lord KIRKHILL: I said earlier that mine was a straight bat. I turn slightly to cover, in the light of your Lordships' debate, and I agree to reconsider.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Did the noble Lord say that he accepts the Amendment?
Lord KIRKHILL: No, that is going a little too far. I said that I would reconsider, in the light of all that has been said.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am so disappointed. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to this Amendment, in the long run. Of course, if we had proportional representation we should inevitably need to have this. But it is all the more important if we do not have proportional representation, and perhaps the noble Lord will bear that in mind, too. I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HYLTON: I should like to support, as strongly as I can, the pleas made earlier today that the directions which the Secretary of State will, in

1547
due course, lay under Clause 7 should be made available to your Lordships' House. It quite frequently happens when Bills are going through your Lordships' House that many important points are left to be dealt with later on by subordinate legislation or, sometimes, even by circular guidance. When that happens, it is frequently asked that these pieces of paper should be produced, at least in draft, and Governments of various complexions usually say "We cannot possibly do that, because we shall need to have consultations with the various interests who will be affected". In this case, we are talking about directions which will have some force, or which will give some degree of guidance, in advance of the Assembly deciding upon its own procedure and standing orders, so I can see no reason why what the Secretary will eventually produce should not be made available. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept that before we reach Report stage.
Clause 26 agreed to.
8.46 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 350:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
Provision of Bills not within legislative competence.
(". The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for the Presiding Officer or any person acting on his behalf, to disallow discussion on any provision of a Bill by the Assembly or any Committee of the Assembly which, in his opinion, would prevent the Bill from being within the legislative competence of the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: We have had very long discussions on trying to make certain, so far as possible, that the Bills that go to the Secretary of State comply, in practice, with the lines of demarcation between the devolved and the reserved matters, because, as we have seen, the complications in dealing with Bills of this kind are very great indeed. I think everyone has said, at all stages, that we want to avoid Bills being passed by the Assembly which will not ultimately become, or are not liable ultimately to become, Acts of Parliament through being submitted to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.
One of the ways suggested was pre-examination of Bills, and it was explained
1548
that, very largely, this would be done by the Law Officers. Nobody said which Law Officers, but I suppose that it will, in the first place, be the Law Officer of the Assembly who will consider this matter and, no doubt, if the Lord Advocate is feeling in a good mood he, too, will be prepared to give his advice. In the House of Commons, the Speaker in the House and the chairman in a committee have power of selection of Amendments, and, obviously, they will not select Amendments that are ultra vires or beyond the scope of the Bill that is under consideration.
What this Amendment seeks to do is to introduce a parallel procedure for the Assembly. Of course, it is not the same and specific provision needs to be made in the standing orders. I hope that this is possible and that the procedure that I have in mind is the right one; namely, that the presiding officer, as the equivalent of the Speaker in the House of Commons, will be the right person to "disallow discussion", which means not to select an Amendment; and that in a committee it will be the chairman who, in the words of the Amendment, will be "any person acting on "behalf of the presiding officer.
There is difficulty about disallowing discussion upon any provision in the Bill, to the extent only that the presiding officer must have expert opinion. I am not absolutely certain that exactly the same provision as applies in the House of Commons would be appropriate. In the Commons, for example, Mr. Speaker has his own legal adviser. Presumably the adviser to the Assembly would be the law officer, who might also have his own legal adviser. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will say that the principle is worthy of consideration. Indeed, the principle is unexceptionable. However, I should not be at all surprised if in some way or another the drafting is defective.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will regard this as a real aid to the proceedings in the Assembly and as a real help towards ensuring that the legislation which the Assembly passes is not ultra vires and does not go beyond what it is entitled to do. I beg to move.
8.52 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord has correctly divined that we are in

1549
sympathy with what has motivated him to move this Amendment. Indeed, if he looks at the Scotland and Wales Bill, in Clause 26(4), the noble Lord will find that there was a provision that:
"The standing orders shall include provision for drawing the attention of the Assembly or of any committee of the Assembly considering a Bill to any provision or proposed amendment of the Bill which in the opinion of the presiding officer of the Assembly or chairman of the committee would prevent the Bill from being within the legislative competence of the Assembly".
Lord DRUMALBYN: Yes, I am aware of that, but I prefer the procedure of disallowing it, in the same way as Mr. Speaker does, because "drawing attention" would not necessarily prevent discussion.
Lord McCLUSKEY: So far we are together in agreeing that some such provision would make sense, but I should like to point out what I conceive to be the real difficulties if one accepts such a scheme as is envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who considers that there ought to be some machinery for stopping discussion where the matter is, in the opinion of the presiding officer, going beyond the competence of the Assembly. As I see it, the difficulty about that scheme is that one cannot make a straight comparison between the role of Mr. Speaker in another place and the matter of vires here. These are quite different matters. Indeed, the matter of vires could be quite a difficult legal question. The presiding officer will not necessarily have a background in law. He will not necessarily have such authoritative advice available to him from clerks as is available to Mr. Speaker in relation to the questions which he has to consider, but certainly I do not think that the law officer would be seen as an adviser to the Assembly.
One has to consider this situation. Under these provisions, the law officer is likely to be a member of the Executive itself. Accordingly, he will be offering his advice to the Secretary. It may well be that the Secretary introduces a Bill, on the advice of the law officer, to the effect that the Bill is intra vires. If the presiding officer and his deputies then look at that same Bill which the law officer has said in his opinion is intra vires and they come to a different opinion and hold that it is ultra
1550
vires, they would then stop discussion on the Bill, or upon a particular provision of it. That would put the presiding officer in an impossible position. He would be advising against discussion of a Bill which the law officer had thought was intra vires.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Perhaps it would help if I intervened at this point. There is another difference between this Amendment and what was contained in the Scotland and Wales Bill. I deliberately excluded that Bill. So far as that Bill was concerned, I realised that in introducing a Bill the Secretary would be depending upon the advice of the law officer, whether or not the law officer was a Scottish Secretary. I believe that this point is to be considered. As I understand it, this point relates merely to Amendments. It will be a very useful way of ensuring that Amendments, and possibly Amendments also of private Bills, shall not be discussed if they are ultra vires or, rather, if they would make the Bill ultra vires.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I agree with the noble Lord that the words of his Amendment would include amendments to a Bill which had been introduced, but they would also include any other provision of the Bill, because the wording in the third line of the Amendment is quite general; namely:
"…to disallow discussion on any provision of a Bill".
The difficulty, as I say, is that, given the kind of advice which is available to the Scottish Executive and its Secretaries from the law officer and the kind of advice that may not be available to the presiding officer, it would be very difficult for him to form an opinion which might be adverse to the opinion of the law officer. If, of course, somebody else introduced an Amendment which, in the opinion of the law officer, was ultra vires, then no doubt that would be made clear to the person who introduced the Amendment and would also be made clear to the Assembly, and the Assembly would simply have to act responsibly and in accordance with that advice. But it would be putting too great a burden upon the presiding officer if he were called upon simply to rule out of competence discussion upon a matter which ought ultimately to be resolved by the courts since it might involve difficult legal questions.

1551
The difficulty would be even more compounded when it came to the role of a deputy presiding officer or the chairman of a committee who would be empowered by this Amendment, as I read it, to disallow discussion on vires grounds. But, he, the chairman, is likely to be an active politician in the Assembly. This would put him in a very difficult position, and his judgment on vires—it may be an amateur judgment based on the advice of people other than the law officer—might be attacked as being a political judgment rather than a legal judgment.
I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position. If it were possible, one would like to see some provision that would prevent unnecessary discussion on matters which were clearly ultra vires. But given the fact that most of the clauses in the Bill, certainly all of the important ones involving expenditure, would proceed from the Executive itself on the advice of the law officer, one would not think that that kind of problem would arise often enough to justify this kind of provision, with all its attendant difficulties.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Would it be possible for committees of the Assembly to be set up on subjects which are not devolved, such as defence, employment and foreign affairs? Could the Assembly set up committees to discuss these matters? I take it that those committees would have no legislative power, but presumably they could report to the Secretary of State. What is to be the relationship between the committees which the Assembly can set up on devolved subjects, which I understand that it can do under Clause 26, and subjects which are not devolved and are purely United Kingdom subjects, such as defence, employment and foreign affairs?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that my noble friend Lord Kirkhill explained in relation to a slightly earlier matter that the Bill did not prevent the setting up of committees which could consider non-devolved matters. The rationale is that the interfaces, to repeat the horrible word that I used earlier, and the overlaps are such that one cannot prevent that, and in any event one would not wish to do so. However, when it comes to exercising functions, powers and duties, that is an
1552
entirely different matter. Nevertheless, we cannot stop the Assembly committees from discussing matters which are not devolved.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Does not the noble and learned Lord think that under those circumstances the Assembly would be storing up for itself another series of complications, in so far as the United Kingdom Parliament either would pay no attention to or would overrule any of the proposals made by these committees on subjects in relation to which they had no power since they were not devolved matters? Is that not going to add terribly to the complications, since then they will be in the awkward position of having to say to the Assembly: "Whatever you want is not what we want and therefore we shall pay no attention to what you say"? This is another subject on which, if you allow the Assembly to set up committees on subjects over which they have no jurisdiction, you will be storing up terrible problems, because I imagine they would be extremely irritated if the United Kingdom Parliament paid no attention to what they had recommended.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will allow me to say on his behalf that the Amendment is concerned with the provisions of a Bill and not with the kind of talking shop committee that we spoke about earlier. When it comes to the provisions of a Bill it may well be that the Assembly may decide to remit the subject matter or any provision of a Bill to a committee. That is one thing, but the committee of the Assembly meeting purely for the purposes of discussing matters which are not contained in a Bill, is a different matter altogether.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I wish the noble and learned Lord would not always speak in such derogatory terms of the "talking shop".
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is right about that? He is much more likely to be right than I, but the Amendment refers to "disallowing discussion on any provision in a Bill by the Assembly or any Committee of the Assembly". If we are going to have

1553
committees at large discussing everything from foreign policy to the oranges which were mentioned earlier—which are perhaps connected in some way—would that not be covered by the Amendment, or am I wrong?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not know whether I or the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, should answer this, but I am quite certain, as I read the Amendment, that the noble Lord is concerned with the legislative competence of the Assembly and the question as to whether or not a provision might be within or outwith the legislative competence, and he is trying to provide that where a provision in a Bill is not within the legislative competence then somebody at an early stage should have the power and competence to stop the discussion on that matter. I hope the noble Lord will make it plain if I have misrepresented him.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: The noble and learned Lord is of course quite right; but the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, was asking about the position of committees, and it was on the answer given by the noble and learned Lord that I was asking whether he was quite right in what he said.
Earl FERRERS: I think the noble and learned Lord's sympathy is with my noble friend on the Amendment but he finds it difficult to accept the Amendment as it is drafted. I understand the reason why he thinks it might put the presiding officer or his deputy in difficulty on some occasions if this Amendment were accepted; but I think the principle is fairly important, that if a Bill is introduced and if somebody introduces an Amendment to that Bill, the introduction of which would render the whole Bill to be outside the powers which the Assembly is competent to deal with, there should be some provision to stop that Amendment being discussed in the same way as the Speaker does in another place. He says: "This is outside the scope of the Bill and we cannot discuss it". If nothing is put in, the situation would then arise on Bills where Amendments could at least be spoken to, the Bills being within the competence of the Assembly but the Amendments being outside the competence of the Assembly. I hope that the noble and learned Lord
1554
will be able to give a little thought to this to see whether it is possible to make an improvement at the next stage.
9.6 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. To some extent it has rather depressed me. I cannot believe that the presiding officer will not be able to recruit staff to advise him in the same way as the Speaker in another place recruits staff to advise him. Of course they will not immediately have the long experience of officers of the House in another place, or indeed officers of your Lordships' House, although I would not think it impossible that some worthy Scots from one staff or the other might be appointed in a similar capacity to the staff of the presiding officer in the Assembly. This would be vitally necessary for the proper working of the Assembly. I hope that at any rate that difficulty can be overcome.
Then the noble and learned Lord said that the chairman of the committee might not have the necessary experience; but certainly my experience in another place was that the chairmen of committees were well and truly advised by a clerk sitting literally at their elbow who knew the subject backwards and could tell the chairman at once whether or not to select a particular Amendment on account of its being ultra vires. I cannot help thinking that the same procedure ought to be available in the Assembly. So to that extent I shall look at the Amendment again, but I hope that we may be able to reach some kind of solution to this which will ultimately be acceptable to the Government.
I really do not think that this matter comes very much into the political arena. If one comes to an Amendment and somebody in another place—to put it in common parlance— "argues the toss", they do not get very far; they are simply told that the Amendment is not selected, and that is that. No reason is given. What were the phrases that were used —the "fractious Scots". The fractious Scots are not going to be all that fractious; I think they would accept the chairman's ruling, just as they do the referee's decision, even though it is rather disagreeable.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: I wonder whether, as a very old convenor from the Highlands, I might come in on this. The Assembly, or whatever you are going to call it, is going to be a democratic institution and there is no reason whatever why the Members should not talk about exactly what they like—I do not care what the subject is—provided they do not go on too long. Somebody presumably will be in a position to say: "We have discussed this long enough, and that is the end". It is as simple as that.
Lord DRUMALBYN: In that case perhaps we could call the Assembly a ceilidh. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Financial initiative]:
9.9 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 12, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("where") in line 27.
The noble Earl said: This is a perfectly simple Amendment. Clause 27 says:
"Standing orders … shall include provision for securing that, where a Scottish Assembly Bill proposes to authorise any expenditure to he met from … the Scottish Consolidated Fund"
it shall first have the authorisation of the Scottish Secretary. No Bill which is going to cost money can start in another place unless the Government have first of all approved the expenditure, and my Amendment really says that exactly the same should apply in the Assembly: that before a Bill which is going to involve expenditure from the Scottish Consolidated Fund is presented it should have the approval of the Executive. It should not, I would suggest, be part of standing orders; it should just be a fact. I cannot see why it should be put in this clause as part of the standing orders. My Amendment suggests leaving out the words making it mandatory that standing orders should include this provision. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am sure the Committee is becoming familiar with this particular argument as to whether a provision should be in the Bill or in the standing orders. Our view is that the
1556
procedure for recommending a Bill imposing a new charge forms part of the ordinary legislative process of the Assembly. The Government believe that it should, like other parts of that process, be left to be determined by standing orders of the Assembly, just as the corresponding procedure at Westminster is dealt with in the standing orders of the other place, where expenditure provisions in a Bill must be founded on a Money Resolution made with the Queen's recommendation.
To attempt to lay down in the Bill itself a direct procedural requirement determining this single part of the legislative process would seem to us to make little sense. The Bill leaves it to the Assembly to relate this part to the rest of its legislative procedure. I do not think I can usefully add to that. It is the old argument as to whether we must tack the whole thing down in the Bill or whether we can say to the Assembly: "You are a responsible legislative body. Here is a model which you may choose to follow; this is the way to do it, put it in your standing orders". I do not think this Amendment raises any different point of principle. I would ask the noble Earl to reconsider it.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The noble Earl must be happy with this clause because it uses his favourite word "shall "instead of "may".
Earl FERRERS: Is it not a funny thing that one minute we are trying to persuade the Government to put something in the standing orders and the next minute we are trying to persuade them that what is in the standing orders should not be there at all? We have no difference with the principle as drafted at the moment, that the Scottish Secretary should give approval. The only consideration I had in mind was that it ought to be a fact of life and should not be part of standing orders. But if the noble and learned Lord persuades me that it is the right place for it, I am quite happy to accede to his suggestion. I will not press the Amendment, and I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will not forget that, when I ask him at a later date to reconsider and agree with my suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.13 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("cannot") and insert ("shall not").
The noble Earl said: I fancy that I spoke a little too quickly. I have the happy thought that the noble and learned Lord will accept this Amendment because it is almost grammar. What the clause says at the moment is:
"… where a Scottish Assembly Bill proposes to authorise any expenditure…the Bill cannot pass unless the authorisation has been recommended by a Scottish Secretary".
Of course, a Bill can pass if it is voted on. I think what the Government are trying to say is that it shall not pass without approval of the Scottish Secretary. This, as I say, is almost a matter of semantics, and I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree that this is an appropriate amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I can draw a distinction between semantics and grammar I shall do so, but on another occasion. On this occasion I shall simply say that I am convinced that this is worth looking at. I do not think it is a matter of great importance but I shall look at it.
Earl FERRERS: I am bound to say that when the noble and learned Lord says he is going to have a look at it I wonder what he was doing when he was preparing himself for the Bill. I am delighted to know that he will look at it. I do not think he need look too long. If he says yes I shall be quite happy but I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy. I beg leave—
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before this is withdrawn the noble Earl should realise that, if I start fiddling around with someone else's grammar, I shall have to face the wrath of the Parliamentary draftsmen.
Earl FERRERS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("a Scottish Secretary") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: This is slightly different, and I am not sure that it will have quite the approval of the noble and learned Lord that the other one has. I shall hope to persuade him that it may be a good idea if he considers it. There is to be a block budget produced every four years by which the Westminster Parliament will allocate money to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The problem here is that, if the Scottish Assembly proposes a Bill such as one relating to the National Health Service or one to set up a new Housing Corporation which will propose to build a number of houses over the next 20 years, there is going to be increasing expenditure both as to capital and as to running expenses.
I visualise a situation in which, if a Bill of this nature is produced, the Scottish Secretary will come to Westminster and say, "Your block budget is not big enough. We have passed a Bill and we are going to build X houses every year for the next 20 years". As the years go by, so the houses will become more expensive and the running costs will also become more expensive. The Scottish Secretary will go to the Secretary of State and say, "We thought five years ago that the cost was going to he such and such; now it is twice as much, therefore you, Westminster, must provide more money".
In the same way, the Scottish Assembly quite rightly, has power to build a hospital which may cost £1 million a year to run. The Scottish Assembly produces a Bill, builds the hospital and in five years' time it is discovered that the cost is not £1 million a year but £5 million. Many of these Bills which involve expenditure are going to involve capital expenditure and an increasing running expenditure, the effect of which is going to devolve upon the United Kingdom Parliament because they are the ones who are going to have to provide the block grant. I should have thought that it was only reasonable that the Secretary of State should have a say, or at least he consulted, before approval is given to the introduction of one of these Bills. In the end it is going to be the Secretary of State who is responsible for providing the funds. I would hope that that thought might meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: This Amendment is directly contrary to all that we hope will happen to the Scottish Assembly. The whole idea of the block grant is that it will be based on an assessment of the present and future position of Scotland in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom—an assessment which will obviously be indexed with regard to inflation. If you try to transfer responsibility for authorisation of a Bill to the Secretary of State, you take away the essential independence of the Scottish Secretaries, who we hope will be acting in the knowledge that they have to live within this block grant, which must take into account the sort of rises in cost about which the noble Earl was talking. I think the Amendment runs contrary to all that he has been saying and that critics have said about the fact that there are no taxation powers. The Scottish Secretary must have a sense of responsibility. If the Assembly passes this authorisation on to the Secretary of State and therefore on to Parliament and the Exchequer here, that sense of responsibility will be lacking.
Lord DRUMALBYN: This is one of the rare occasions when I disagree with my noble friend, partly because one is so very familiar with the procedure in the House of Commons, where every Bill has a financial resolution and there must be a Treasury Minister there to assent to it, to nod, or to move it. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will remember that very well, too. Just as a matter of pure procedure, this is a constant reminder to Parliament, to the House of Commons, as it would be to the Assembly, that there is the need for the funds available to be safeguarded. Every provision involving public expenditure has to be sanctioned by the Treasury in the case of Parliament, and by a Scottish Secretary who has obtained authorisation for the release of the amount from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. I feel that this proposal would not be an improvement, since there would be nobody in the Assembly to represent the Secretary of State.
This is one of the useful formalities, and is a constant reminder in Parliament of the rather lavish expenditure, which is all too common these days, perhaps, and of the need for Treasury control. I suppose that one of the Scottish Secretaries will be responsible for this, or each Scottish Secretary may be able to authorise
1560
it on behalf of the Scottish Executive. I do not know how it would work, but I think it is a good discipline which should be retained.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Would the noble Lord not agree that if the Scottish Secretary, as distinct from the Secretary of State, gets the go-ahead from the Secretary of State, and then Westminster, he will be able to blame him for any increase in cost?
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am not certain that I see the sequence. He might try to do so, but I do not think that he would be able to do so.
9.23 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The answers that I would offer have been encapsulated in the last two speeches. However, it is perhaps right that I should state briefly the Government's precise position. First, the noble Earl said that this was a slightly different Amendment. That was a breathtakingly immoderate statement of the position. It is totally different. This is one of a whole series of provisions which would attempt to emasculate the Assembly. After all, the direct interest in the matters at issue here lies with the Scottish Administration and the Assembly. It is the arrangements for the control of devolved public expenditure which are concerned. It is the Scottish Administration, and not the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for determining priorities within the total resources made available to them.
To make the Secretary of State responsible, as would the Amendment, for deciding on the admissibility of new forms of devolved expenditure, would place him in an impossible position. It would be wholly alien, as the two noble Lords who have spoken have suggested, to the whole concept of devolution contained in this Bill. Indeed, I can put it as strongly as this. In a real sense this would wreck the scheme of devolution in the Bill. The noble Earl, in speaking to it, sought to defend it on the grounds that, as new expenditure would fall on the block fund, the need for a Scottish Secretary's consent may not be an effective constraint, and that the recommendation of the Secretary of State, who takes responsibility ultimately with Parliament for the size of the block fund, is

1561
more appropriate. However, an argument of that kind ignores the fact that, while the Assembly legislation may force the Scottish Administration to reorder its expenditure priorities, it cannot oblige the House of Commons to approve an increased total.
In my submission, to transfer responsibility to the Secretary of State in the way that this Amendment envisages—that is to say, the responsibility for recommending Assembly legislation—would breach a fundamental principle that devolved spending priorities are for the Scottish administration to decide. It would also breach the principle that the Government at Westminster should take no part in the ordinary legislative processes of the Assembly in relation to devolved matters. It is only after a Bill has been passed by the Assembly that it falls to the Secretary of State to consider whether it should be submitted for approval by Her Majesty in Council. It would distort the whole character of the relationship between central and devolved Administrations if the Secretary of State could prevent the Assembly from completing proceedings on a Bill which it wished to pass.
I know that the noble Earl admires frankness second only to weakness, and therefore I shall be perfectly frank with him and say that we do not intend to accept this Amendment at this or any other stage.
Earl FERRERS: I am bound to say that I have a certain feeling of kinship with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because for the first time I have discovered what it is like to put forward and support a point of view and then find that I am the only person in the Chamber carrying that point of view. That is a situation in which the noble and learned Lord, I am sure, must have found himself from time to time.
However, I do not put this Amendment forward with any degree of shame because the noble and learned Lord has said that it would emasculate the Assembly. Of course it was not at all my idea to emasculate the Assembly. He said that the Scottish Secretary should be responsible for dealing with these devolved matters. That is absolutely so. The reason for
1562
putting the Amendment down is, as I see it—I may be wrong, and if the noble and learned Lord could explain where I am wrong I should be grateful—that the Scottish Secretary can come forward with proposals which will have a commitment to run for say, 10 or 20 years. The running expenditure will, because of inflation and a number of other matters, increase over those 10 or 20 years, and yet the end result is that the United Kingdom Parliament is responsible for providing the money. I should have thought that the United Kingdom Parliament, therefore, ought, at some stage, to be told in advance of the total of their commitment or the fact of their commitment, otherwise it seems that the Scottish Executive can invite the United Kingdom Government to accept a blank cheque. If it wants to build, for instance, a hospital which has running costs of £1 million, in 10 years' time the running costs may be £10 million. Where will the money come from? It can only come from Westminster. We come back to the whole nub of the weakness of the Bill, that if there are no tax-raising powers at all for the Assembly it all bumps back on to Westminster.
At this stage of the Assembly Bills, which we are considering now, Westminster will not be involved at all. Therefore, it has to accept the fact of the results of these Bills, with all the implications of expenditure, and yet not know anything about them and have no say as to whether Westminster could accept such a charge. I may be completely wrong about that, and if I am I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would explain how this would work.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Perhaps I may be permitted to help?
Earl FERRERS: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would help.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The whole idea is that the indexed formula will apply. If the Scottish Assembly erects a hospital the costs of which rise from £1 million to £20 million—quite outside the formula—then it will have to bear it or close it down and face the wrath of the electors of that district. The Treasury will commit itself to a formula for a block grant and the formula will obviously include things like inflation.

1563
However, if the Scottish Assembly builds a hospital the costs of which rise far and away above the formula, then that is its responsibility. It will not get any more money. It will simply have to close it down or cut the cost. So the Treasury, having fixed the formula, knows exactly what its commitment is, and it does not have to provide more money for mismanagement by the Scottish Assembly.
Earl FERRERS: With respect to the noble Lord, that is all right as a capital expenditure. But, when one has built one's hospital which was to cost £1 million per year to run and one finds at the end of 10 years that it is not costing £1 million but £10 million, that may not be due to mismanagement but to inflation and many other factors. If that is repeated many times across the spectrum, we can well see a situation developing with the United Kingdom being obliged to provide large sums of money over which it has no control from the outset.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I must apologise to the noble Earl. I did not realise that the noble Lord did not understand that indexation refers to inflation. It means that the inflation factor is built into the index so that inflation would apply to running costs much more than to capital costs, which would prevail the first year. However, as I understand it, it would all come out of the block grant.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to make a point. The whole reason for getting the consent of whoever is responsible in the Exchequer for the Consolidated Fund for a Bill is that, generally speaking, Bills create continuing expenditure from year to year. I believe that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is valid. After one has had that estimate of continuing expenditure approved, which is done by a Financial Resolution, indexation will run. If there is gross mismanagement and the cost of running that particular service, whatever it may be, is far more than the cost of running similar services in other parts of the country, it will be for the Assembly itself—in particular the Executive— to put matters right.
Earl FERRERS: The Lib-Lab pact did very well and I am grateful to the
1564
noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for explaining what the Government intend should be done in the Bill. I only hope that the noble Lord has it right. However, I am not quite so grateful to him for his slightly disarming remarks about indexation, of which I have some idea but only, of course, at the kindergarten level—the noble Lord is at a much higher level than that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment I should make it plain that, quite apart from the Lib-Lab pact, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It was because I felt that I could not assist the Committee further that I did not rise to my feet again.
Earl FERRERS: I would see that as a Conservative-Labour pact as well, in which I seem to be the odd man out. Therefore, I think that, on the whole. I had better withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
9.33 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 351:
After Clause 27, insert the followine new clause
Motions
". Standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for the discussion only of matters directly affecting Scotland.".
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that we are rather back at the Outspan orange again. The fact is, of course, that there is no specific provision in the Bill for the discussion of Motions. Motions are a very important part of the proceedings of any Assembly because they enable the Assembly to express its own views, to move for matters to be put right that individual Members consider wrong, to recruit support for these matters, to press them on the Government and so forth. There is no provision for that.
Presumably, it is intended that the Assembly will not merely legislate and divide itself into committees. It may not be thought that it is even necessary to make any reference to Motions in a Bill of this kind, but I should have thought that it is reasonable to do so, if only to put some

1565
kind of restriction on what can be discussed in the Assembly. T would agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that the time of the Assembly is money and it is a matter of money, too, if you spend a lot of time discussing matters that are of no relevance whatever.
I should not have thought that it was in any way an impertinence to the Assembly to define the matters that they should discuss. I think it was Solomon who said that,
"the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth".
It would be much better for the Assembly to discuss the matters that really concern Scotland, because that is what they are put up for. I do not mean matters that concern only Scotland. This is why the Amendment says:
"Standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for the discussion only of matters directly affecting Scotland.".
This seems to me a sensible provision. I do not think it would be at all appropriate that the Assembly should discuss international affairs. There are aspects of defence, no doubt, directly affecting Scotland that they will wish to discuss. One sometimes wonders whether these matters directly affecting Scotland on the defence side may not become a good deal more acute in the future. But it is important that there should be provision for Motions, and there should be provision equally for a limitation on the width of the Motions that can be discussed. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, this again comes back to a principle which we have talked about in earlier debates. I do not know whether I can say much more than I said then. There does not seem to be any good principle on the basis of which the Assembly may not discuss that which it chooses. I might inject the thought that, if we are too constrictive, I am sure that Members of the Assembly can quite easily get round any formula we might devise. One has only to think of the other place and perhaps Prime Minister's Question Time, and the usual Question, "When is the Prime Minister going to visit (I will say) Aberdeen?", my home town. This enables the Member to get up and ask him almost anything he wants. It is on the grounds that we want to give
1566
the Assembly as great a freedom as is possible—and I accept that it is a question of where one draws the line—that the Government would like to resist the Amendment.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I am a little hesitant to rise because I have not clarified my own mind about this. I am a little uneasy about this conception that committees of the Assembly should be free to discuss non-devolved matters at large. Is it suggested, for example, that they should be able to discuss matters of foreign policy? Some might say, why not? Well, would it be conducive to good government if they were to express themselves strongly—and I can think of many people in Scotland who might be Members of this Assembly who might express themselves strongly—in conflict with many aspects of the Westminster Government's foreign policy? Is it the Government's conception that the Assembly should be free to set up committees at large to discuss such issues? Is it thought that that would be fruitful, helpful, and conducive to better Government in these various fields?
One thinks also in relation to defence and the organisation of the Armed Services —matters relating to Scottish regiments, and so on. One might say—I am sure many of your Lordships would say—why should the Assembly not set up committees to discuss these matters? Why not indeed? Why should we not talk about anything we want to talk about? But is it really thought that this would be conducive to better Government in relation to these various matters in the United Kingdom, and that it would promote better government in these areas that this Assembly should be free to set up committees in any area at all?
9.40 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I do not altogether agree with the noble and learned Lord, but there is a point to be considered here. When I was in the European Parliament we spent many agreeable hours discussing horrors in Spain and civil rights in Peru and other places on the South American Continent, and there was no doubt that that provided a way of passing the time, whereas the European Parliament at the moment finds it difficult to pass the time. I suggest the

1567
Government retain some sort of responsibility over what we are discussing. Do they see, for instance, the Scottish Assembly having these wide-ranging debates, what I might call Wednesday debates-plus? Is that to be part of the function of the Assembly? Will pressure groups within the Assembly be able to use the Assembly as a sounding board to initiate debates which are not properly within devolved matters but which they may use to put forward their points of view? Will minorities be able to use the Assembly and—I hesitate to ask this—will extreme points of view be adduced by Parties in the Assembly to push forward their points of view?
Whether it is desirable, let alone possible, to legislate for this, I doubt; I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said in that whatever the standing orders or this House may say, I am inclined to think that if the Assembly wants to have rather airy-fairy debates with little point at the end of them, it will have them. When the Government look at the strategic part of the Assembly's role, I wonder whether they will encourage this.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Does the Minister think it would be a good idea for the Assembly to express a view about the Polaris base in the Holy Loch?
Lord KIRKHILL: I do not think I can say the Government can at this stage express a view as to what might be, in terms of a Scottish Assembly debate, conducive to good government if one takes it on a United Kingdom basis. What I have been saying is that Clause 26 is permissive; the Assembly is not debarred from discussing that which it wishes to discuss. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langiside, asked whether a specific question of defence or some aspect of foreign policy on a United Kingdom basis could be discussed. As I read the Bill, such a discussion is not debarred to the Assemblymen if somebody chooses to raise the issue and there is a majority view that the matter be discussed.
On the various points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I can only say that in each case the Government have no view on those points, but the Assembly might certainly discuss those
1568
where, for example, as he suggested, a pressure group within the Assembly were to emerge. Of course, as to the political control of the Assembly, in my experience —this is at another level, that of local government—political control tends to squeeze the pressure groups, and I do not think I can go beyond that.
9.44 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I must press the Minister on this. The whole conception of the Bill is that government in Scotland will be better. There are two purposes to the Bill, it is claimed; one is to improve government in Scotand and the other is to take the steam out of the Nationalist pressure. How is this sort of thing going to promote either of those? For example, if we are to have a committee on the defence of the Realm to express itself at large and get itself publicised widely in the newspapers and on television, to whom will such a defence committee report and to whom will it be answerable?
What is the position? Will there be a plethora of committees in Edinburgh, in the Royal High School, sitting under the Calton Hill, expressing themselves about everything under the sun, and telling the Westminster Government how they should conduct their foreign policy and their defence policy? Will this really promote the better government of the United Kingdom? Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us to whom these committees will report`? I have in mind in particular this defence committee, which he apparently accepts with his customary, charming aplomb; he does not get excited, as I am sorry to say I sometimes do, at the thought of this kind of thing. T o whom will these committees report? To whom will they be answerable? Will they be answerable to anyone, or will they just be the sounding board for many people in the Scottish Assembly who will have "hobby-horses"?—and I can think of many who will have "hobby-horses", if, by some misfortune, this Bill is ever passed into law.
Lord KIRKHILL: I should like to respond to that specific point. I said earlier this evening that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Assembly, if so minded, from setting up a committee to discuss that which the Assembly

1569
determines should be discussed. If noble Lords wish to extend that and isolate particular aspects which the Assembly might wish to discuss, so be it. I cannot comment on that. All I can say is that the Bill does not debar the Assembly from so doing, nor does the Bill debar, for instance, the Assembly in plenary session discussing anything it wishes to discuss. I cannot foretell what kind of committees, with what kind of remits the Assembly will set up. But if the Assembly sets up a committee on something which is not a devolved matter, the Assembly cannot legislate upon that issue, but the Assembly can discuss the matter. That is what I was saying.
Lord DRUMALBYN. May I intervene for a second? Are we not getting rather far away from the subject, which is motions, not committees?
The Earl of PERTH: I want to make exactly the same point. As I understand it, we are now discussing Clause 27, not Clause 26—
A noble Lord: No, it is the new clause, after Clause 27.
Lord KIRKHILL: Certainly we have gone off the point somewhat, but, as we keep saying, the Scots tend to be somewhat contentious from time to time.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE. I wonder whether we have gone off the point. The Amendment says that:
"Standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for the discussion only of matters directly affecting Scotland."
I should have thought that many people would regard the existence of the Polaris base on the Holy Loch as a matter directly affecting Scotland. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, both of whom are much more conversant with the proceedings of this Chamber than am I, I should have thought that this was a relevant point.
Lord KIRKHILL: I am a Minister at the present time in the Scottish Office, which spans in Scottish terms quite a number of the United Kingdom Departments of State. I should be surprised if the Scottish Assembly has time, after
1570
properly scrutinising that which stands devolved before it, to be involved in a proliferation of committees, as has been suggested.
Earl FERRERS: Is there not something slightly ironical here? The Scottish Assembly can, apparently, set up committees and discuss the Polaris submarines. According to my noble friend Lord Selkirk—if he was right in what he said on Second Reading—the Scottish committees may discuss that matter, but the Scottish Assembly cannot complain about smoke emitted from the Royal Navy, though the local authorities can. I should have thought that if that was the situation, it ought at least to be able to discuss the Polaris submarine.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: It is not beyond the resource of any Parliamentarian to stretch the rules of order so that anything he wants to discuss can be discussed. I remember once, in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place, having a bet with somebody as to whether I could bring a debate on Scottish health round to Suez, and I managed it quite all right. On another occasion I managed to bring in Lancashire on the grounds that everything North of the Mersey should belong to Scotland, anyway. It is not at all difficult for an enterprising Parliamentarian to widen the scope of debate. Those of us who have been schooled (if that is the word) or educated, or brainwashed by the rich irrelevancy of the correspondence columns of the Scotsman, let alone, with respect, of the Church and Nation Committee of the General Assembly, will be aware that Scotsmen find matters relating to Scotland in the most recondite and remote subjects; and nothing that we do, nothing that Parliament does, nothing that an Act of Parliament does, will ever stop the Scots talking their heads off if they want to. Therefore, I would suggest that this Amendment by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, well intentioned as it is, is really ineffective. It will not get anything done; and I am happy to say, just to show that I am so impartial and unbiased, that on this matter I support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I have listened to this debate with con

1571
siderable interest, and it depresses me; because if in fact we are to settle what is going to be an exceedingly expensive form of government, additional to all the other forms of government and all the other innumerable people who are involved in Scottish government, we hope we shall have something which is going to concentrate on Scotland and that this Assembly is not going to spend a lot of its time discussing a whole lot of matters for which its Members have no responsibility as Assemblymen. They have a responsibility as voters to the United Kingdom Parliament, of course; but that is another matter. Everyone who has a vote has a responsibility for everythng which affects the United Kingdom, and most of those matters are still going to be dealt with by the Westminster Parliament. But if we are going to set up this Assembly, then unless it is prepared to do most of its work (in fact, I should like to think all of its work) in the interests of the area for which it has responsibility—that is, the devolved matters—we are simply paying a lot of people to do a lot of talking, which we in Scotland love doing, as we all know, and arguing, which we like better than anything, and all that will have nothing to do with what is in fact under their jurisdiction.
I would have thought that the Government would be delighted to find something which would at least concentrate the Members of the Assembly on the job that they ought to be doing, because if they do not do their job then there is absolutely no reason for having them at all. They can talk their heads off in another place in Westminster, the whole thing will be reported on the radio and they will have a lovely time. Let them do that; but if they are going to be of any use on affairs which are purely Scottish, which is what the Assembly is supposed to be for, then for heaven's sake let us try to do something which will make them concentrate on the job they are supposed to be doing, and not just have a jolly time, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said he had in the European Parliament talking about all sorts of things in which they had, apparently, nothing but an intellectual interest. I am not interested in producing an Assembly which has an intellectual interest in a number of things but does not do the job for which it was elected.
1572
I think the Government are making a big mistake if they do not do something to restrict what the Assembly does.
Lord KIRKHILL: May I just say this? The Assembly will he under the close political scrutiny of the rather concentrated Scottish media, and I would imagine that the Assembly will concentrate very clearly on devolved matters.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I wonder whether I may pursue this matter. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, was absolutely right in what she said. I am not so naive, perhaps, as I at times look, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, seemed to suggest. I quite appreciate the idiosyncrasies of politicians and Parliamentarians, and the fact that you cannot stop them talking, if they are determined to do so, about anything at all. What I am questioning is the common sense of the Government in encouraging an Assembly such as they are suggesting we should have—heaven protect us from it, but they are suggesting we should have it—to express itself in those areas to which I and other noble Lords have referred and to delude itself into thinking that this will contribute to the better government of the United Kingdom. That is what I am suggesting. Of course we cannot stop people talking here or in the other place about these various things. They are there; but what the Government are doing is to set up this body and encourage it to do it. That is my point.
9.55 p.m.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. We have to face the fact that a number of people will be elected to the Assembly—they may not be a majority—who are going to try to persuade the rest of Scotland that they have only a half or a quarter of the powers they want. They are going to try to get a reputation for being able to debate and to make announcements upon undevolved subjects such as foreign policy. You cannot stop them from doing that. They will fill drill halls and places all over Scotland and form committees of protests; but what I think this Amendment is trying to do—and I hope to he corrected if I am wrong—is at least to say that the

1573
discussions promoted on undevolved subjects should not have upon them the stamp of the new Legislature, the Convention or the Assembly, call it what you like.
I have another point to make. If this Amendment falls and the Assembly committees are to be open to discuss anything officially as committees of the Assembly and be written up in the papers as such, then—although not on this Amendment but on an earlier one; the first one that we had, I think—as the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland can and does pronounce on every possible subject one can think of. it will make it all the more important, if the Assembly is to do the same thing, that the two Assemblies should not get muddled and, therefore, that the Assembly should have a separate name.
May I repeat that I think that what this Amendment is trying to suggest—and I hope it is, for that is why I support it—is that the discussions of undevolved subjects by the official committees should not have the official stamp of the new Assembly.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I agree straight away that it is possible to bring almost any matter into any discussion, as, indeed, this discussion has shown. That is not exactly what this Amendment is about. Surely, we can get into our minds the purpose of Parliaments and Assemblies! We all know there is the legislative side. The standing orders are almost all about the legislative side. The whole thing has become unbalanced. Nothing is said about the deliberative side and that is immensely important; for not only does it tend to the formation of opinion, but it influences the Government, whatever it may be, or the Executive, in what it does and in the decisions it makes. Debate can he critical of the Government in its Executive capacity, and so forth.
The Motions are tremendously important. To leave them out of a Bill like this seems incomprehensible. If we are to have standing orders, surely this should be mentioned. As I have said, they have their place. Mention of them should have its place in the Bill itself and, at the same time, the subjects of the Motions should be confined to what my noble friend Lady Elliot has suggested—the good government and the benefit of Scotland, and matters affecting Scotland.
1574
Surely this is not an unreasonable proposition. 'agree that one can putdown a Motion and the standing orders can, in turn, limit the subjects that can be put down for discussion to matters affecting Scotland. That is a sound limitation. If the Speaker is not able to keep those who are there to the point, that is a different matter. I should have thought that, even in Scotland, when matters affecting Scotland are being debated it should not be too difficult to keep the de bate on the subject for the benefit of Scotland.
This is what the Amendment is about. I hope the noble Lord will think about it again. We must get a proper balance in the Bill. We must help the Assembly to produce standing orders that will make the Assembly work well and itself be for the benefit of Scotland. This is all I am asking. I hope that between now and the next stage the matter can he further considered. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 352:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Questions
(" . Standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for members to question the Scottish Secretaries on matters within their competence.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for pursuing matters further. It is a little more doubtful whether there should be a standing order in relation to questions. This is really to complete the cycle as being a good means of keeping the Scottish Executive on their toes. I should have thought that it was not a bad idea to put in a reference to the power of the electorate to question the Executive through the elected Members. This is what questions are all about—certainly in the House of Commons. Therefore I do not think that there is anything more that I can say about this. You either like it or you do not like it. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: It will not surprise the Committee if I say that the Government's attitude in relation to this Amendment is very much the same as in relation to the earlier point. The noble Lord said he was a little more doubtful about the need for this. If one writes

1575
provisions of this kind into the Bill, it will double in length—certainly in this regard—and the Assembly will be left with nothing to decide for itself. No doubt the Assembly will want to make provision for questions to be asked and answered. Surely it is a matter for the Assembly to decide exactly the form in which it will make provision for that. I should have thought the Assembly would certainly introduce such a question and, even more clearly, the decision as to how it should be done will be left to the Assembly. I cannot add to the matter; it is the same general principle that we have been discussing.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I do not propose to press this Amendment. I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord's mathematics. There are five lines here to add to the Bill; I am sorry that he said it was doubling the Bill's length.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My arithmetic is better tonight than it was on the previous occasion when I was corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I was talking about many thousands at that time. If one looks at the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, added on Friday evening, they extend to three typed pages. They amount to 13 Amendments, and are taking about two hours of debate. When I talked about doubling the Bill in length, these provisions, if they are all to be included, as the noble Lord suggested, would certainly double the Bill so far as it deals with this kind of matter.
Lord DRUMALBYN: The noble and learned Lord has found some quick explanation of this astonishing statement. I suppose at this stage I had better withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Members of Assembly acting as additional Commissioners]:
10.4 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 13, line 6, leave out ("Chairmen") and insert ("President of the Assembly").
The noble Earl said: When I put down this Amendment there was one word "Chairman", that I was unable to understand. Since then 1 see the word has been altered to "Chairmen". I still do not think that its meaning is clear. I move this Amendment not merely to press this but to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would put in the interpretation clause what the word "Chairmen "is meant to mean. I am given to understand that it means the Lord Chairman of this House and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the other place. I am perfectly happy with that interpretation. If the noble and learned Lord will explain it for the benefit of those who have the arduous duty of reading this Bill, it will be a great advancement in clarity.
If I may mention just one other point which I think is moderately within reason here, what about hybrid Bills? There is no reference whatever in this Bill as to how hybrid Bills are to be dealt with. This is a Bill dealing, under Clause 28, purely with private legislation and I think there should be some provision for hybrid Bills. I do not suppose that the noble and learned Lord would care to reply in detail on that this evening but, with respect, may I suggest that he should consider it before the next stage of the Bill. Hybrid Bills are important and they require some consideration. However, all I am asking the noble and learned Lord to do at the moment is to agree that the word "Chairmen" should be in the interpretation clause. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: First of all, in relation to the word "Chairman". which appears at line 6, page 13, that was a printing error and I think a correction slip was put in at one stage indicating that the word ought to be "Chairmen". Secondly, what the clause envisages is that when Commissioners arc being selected under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, then the
1578
panel of members may include Commissioners or possible Commissioners who are from the Assembly rather than from either House of this Parliament. We do not think it is necessary to define "Chairmen" because in the context of this clause it is plain that the Chairmen referred to are those who appear in the appropriate section of the 1936 Act, mentioned at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 28. I am sure that the noble Earl has looked at the 1936 Act before moving this Amendment. He will see that the Chairmen referred to there are indeed, as he mentioned, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees in this House. That is what is meant by "Chairmen", and we would not have thought it was necessary to spell out any definition, because the term is taken from the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936.
In relation to hybrid Bills, I presume the noble Earl is talking about a hybrid Bill in the ordinary sense and not in the sense of involving both devolved and non-devolved matters. Then in the ordinary sense I think it is unnecessary for the Bill to say anything about it, because all this clause does is to make it competent for Members of the Assembly to be on the panel from which the two Chairmen may select Commissioners; that is all. The rest of the private legislation is left where it is at the present time, although of course it is possible in the future for the Assembly to produce a scheme for the possibility of transferring some private legislation in relation to devolved matters to them. But this clause is purely about making Members of the Assembly available to act as additional Commissioners.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that there should be a new brand of hybridity which involves conflict not only between the individual and the generality of the public but also between the Scottish individual and the Scottish generality, in the terms of conflict between devolved matters and United Kingdom matters? If so, I think we have a completely new field to uncover.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am not corn-plaining about that; I am making no such suggestion. I am glad that the noble Earl

1579
signified, when I asked that question, that he is not using "hybridity" in any different sense. So far as I am concerned, the answer is fairly straightforward. There is nothing in this Bill which changes anything at all about hybridity. It does not change very much about private legislation. It merely makes it possible for an additional Commissioner to be appointed from a panel including Members of the Assembly.
Earl FERRERS: If the noble Earl were using "hybridity" in the other sense, what happens if you get a Bill which contains matters relating to devolved matters and matters referring to reserved matters? Can any part of it be discussed, or does part of it come to Westminster? What happens in that kind of situation?
Lord McCLUSKEY: If this is a viva voce question and answer session, I shall try to answer that. The answer is that nothing different happens from what happens at the present time, because what is plain from this Bill is that private legislation is not devolved. Accordingly, if someone wants to use the 1936 Act to come forward with a provisional order and seek appropriate confirmation, he Foes so in the ordinary way. All that:he Bill does—and it does nothing else ,n relation to private legislation procedure in Scotland, which is different from that in England—is to make it competent to have among the panel of Commissioners who investigate the preamble to the Bill, and anything else that they have to investigate, an Assemblyman.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. None the less, I think that he might put something in the interpretation clause. I do not think that that would reduce the meaning of the 1936 Act. I certainly envisaged that this was a form of private legislation on devolved matters. That may not be the case, but there may be private legislation on matters which are purely devolved; at least, I imagine so. I hardly dare to express any view on this Bill, but I thought that it was conceivably possible. I should have thought, also, that there was a possibility of hybridity on devolved matters. If this were the
1580
case—I hesitate again to imagine what this might be—would this not need to be covered by this Bill?
The noble and learned Lord is suggesting that any form of hybridity would be a United Kingdom matter, and would not come under this Bill at all. I wonder whether he is quite sure about that. I should have thought it was conceivable that subjects which were wholly devolved would be dealt with under some form of hybridity within this Bill. I only suggest that, and I have no concise example to give, but I should not have thought that that was impossible.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I did not give the best answer that I might have given to the noble Earl about the definition. May 1 refer him to subsection (4) of Clause 28 on page 13, lines 14 to 16, which states:
"Any expression to which a meaning is assigned by the Act of 1936 for the purposes of that Act has that meaning also for the purposes of this section."
The noble Earl will find in the 1936 Act the definition of "chairman", and therefore it is incorporated by that subsection into the clause. So that the definition point is met within the terms of this Bill. Although it is not set out within the terms of this Bill, it is included in subsection (4). So far as private legislation is concerned, no different question arises, because all private legislation in relation to matters which are devolved or not devolved remains exactly where it is, other than the composition of the Commissioners. That is all.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I appreciate that. What the noble and learned Lord is saying is that if hybridity arose on a devolved matter, or on a non-devolved matter, it would be treated in the manner in which it is now treated by the Westminster Parliament.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Exactly.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am still inclined to think that we should try to reduce explanation by reference where we can. Going back 40 years is perhaps a pity. I know that it is easy enough for lawyers, but for the general public there is something to be said for trying to make

1581
this Bill as reasonably comprehensible as possible. But I shall not press the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Clerk, officers and servants of Assembly]:
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BURTON: I am not sure that it is right that any clause in this Bill should pass without some comment. I hope that it will not be considered a ritual irrelevancy—if I may paraphrase my noble friend Lord Lauderdale—if I draw attention to the fact that earlier today we had a lengthy debate on maintaining order in the Assembly. Here we have an important officer called Black Rod. I understand that there is already a White Rod in Scotland and should we, therefore, not quickly stake a claim to a Tartan Rod, before the Red Rod takes over?
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Remuneration of members, etc.]:
10.15 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 324:
Page 15, line 13, after second ("Secretaries") insert ("and such persons who are to be treated as being members of the Assembly for the purposes of section 20(8) above").
The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment and T shall deal with it as briefly as I can. The Amendment arises on a number of points which the Committee discussed when considering Clauses 2, 3 and 20 of the Bill. The people to whom I refer in my Amendment are those people for whom Clause 20(8) provides continuity of office when there is a change from one Assembly to another at dissolution and election.
I know that Clause 20(8) was not entirely concerned with pay, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, pointed out last week, but pay did enter into the question. In a clause where we are considering the fact that the
1582
Assembly shall decide what salaries shall be provided for the Members, I am wondering whether or not we should have regard to the position of people who may from time to time find themselves in the somewhat unusual situation of being considered as Members of the Assembly for the purpose of continuing in Executive office.
I have looked again at our discussions on Clauses 2 and 3. I believe that there is a possibility that on occasion there may well be a post-dissolution interregnum of perhaps a month. Since we do not know and cannot even guess at what arrangements the Assembly will make for its own pay and expenses, and since we cannot therefore envisage what balance there may be between pay for the salaried Members of the Assembly and remuneration for Executive office, I wonder whether or not this is a point which the noble and learned Lord could take on board for consideration when he is, as he has undertaken to do, giving consideration to the matters raised under subsection (8) of Clause 20. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: At this late hour I do not want to take up time on such a tiny point. We agreed to look at certain matters. This one, I think, would fall within our review, so we will look at it as well.
Lord GRAY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 15, line 14, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 121 goes also with Amendments Nos. 122, 123, 124, 126 and 127. The joker in the pack is Amendment No. 125 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, although I think that it refers to a similar matter. All of these Amendments refer to the payments, allowances and pensions of Members of the Assembly. The Bill states in Clause 31 that the Assembly is to decide what it is going to pay its Members. In other words, the

1583
Assemblymen will decide their own pay. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will not again have a go at me and say that I am emasculating the Bill. I see that it is the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who is to reply. I am sure that he would not use such a horrible expression as that, and I can assure him that the intention is not to emasculate the Bill.
However, these Amendments are designed to ensure that it is the Secretary of State who decides the payments, allowances and pensions for the Assemblymen. In fact, the question would be decided in conjunction with the Assembly, but under these Amendments the Secretary of State would submit his proposals to the House of Commons by laying a draft of the order depicting the payments and allowances, and another place would have to approve them. I believe that it is right that the House of Commons should approve such pay and allowances. Clause 31(2) states that the Secretary of State will be responsible for the initial levels of payment until the Assembly make their first determination under Clause 31(1). This will be a very important decision to take because the levels of the first payments, which will be made anyhow by the Secretary of State under the Bill, will be likely to determine the subsequent levels; so in fact the Secretary of State will be pitching the levels initially at what he thinks is right. I suppose that the levels of the first payments will depend largely upon what kind of Assembly this is to be. I suppose that the Secretary of State already has an idea in his mind of what type of Assembly it is to be, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be able to tell us something about that.
As this is to be the Secretary of State's direct and immediate responsibility, the Government must know what they have in mind. I wonder whether the Government see this as being a full-time or a part-time Assembly. Do they consider that it is likely to meet as often as or less often than the House of Commons? For instance, will it have the same strange hours as the House of Commons, so that the Assemblymen can do two jobs? Or is it going to be a nine-to-five job, in which case the Assemblymen will not be able to have any other form of employment and, therefore, remuneration? As 150
1584
Assemblymen are taking over only a proportion of the work now done by 71 Members of Parliament and the work that they take over only in fact covers one Ministry—namely, the Scottish Office —are the Assemblymen considered to be deserving of similar pay?
Exactly what have the Government got in mind and where do they expect the salaries of Assemblymen to be paid? Do the Government expect them to be like councillors and to get nothing but an attendance allowance? Or do they expect the Assembly to be rather like your Lordships' House, where you have expenses up to only a certain maximum? Or do they reckon that the Assemblymen should have the same level of pay as Members of Parliament? Or do they reckon that they ought to have the same level of pay as Members of the European Parliament? Or do they reckon that they ought to have something between the two?
The initial payments will set the tone expected of the Assembly, but once it is set up the Assembly can decide for itself exactly what it will pay, and in the end the United Kingdom will have to find the money for it. This will incur a cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer. I just wonder what will happen if the Bill is not amended in any way, and if the Assemblymen in fact pitch their salaries above the salaries of Members of Parliament. It would seem to be an almost inconceivable thing for them to do, but it is perfectly possible. I suggest that it is much better for the House of Commons to have the ultimate control by having to approve the level of payments, as indeed they have to decide the scale of pay of councillors. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: In responding to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I wish to emphasise, as I have rather more than occasionally this evening, a theme which runs through Government thinking; namely, the freedom on the part of the Assembly to arrange its procedures. The Government would include in that freedom the responsibility for setting the pay of Assembly Members and Scottish Secretaries. Clause 31 provides that, once the Assembly is established, it will assume responsibility for determining the

1585
salaries and allowances and pensions of its own Members, just as the determination of those of Members of Parliament is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament.
The Government do not think it appropriate or necessary for the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members to be controlled by Westminster, but I accept that there are two points of view about this. In the Government's view, these are essentially matters for the Assembly to determine in the light of its own appraisal of the likely workload of Assembly Members. Clearly, there is a link between the remuneration of Assembly Members, the working hours to be adopted by the Assembly and the regime required of Parties in the Assembly. The Government's view is that this cannot be settled now. These considerations will have a bearing on whether the Assembly is to be full-time or part-time, although these terms are perhaps somewhat ambiguous.
The real issue is probably whether it is to be possible for an Assembly Member to live on his pay, a point touched on by the noble Earl, or whether other income-earning activities are to be the rule. I am sure that noble Lords will have a view on these matters. The Government believe that at the end of the day these are matters for the Assembly to determine and, on the basis of its views, to set the salaries. As we have been saying earlier today, the Assembly will be responsible for a wide range of important matters affecting Scotland and, in our view, it would be out of keeping with these responsibilities to deny it responsibility for fixing its own salaries. In my opinion —and I have expressed this view and it is a personal one—we can confidently expect Scottish public opinion to play a crucial part in influencing Assembly decisions on these matters.
Nevertheless, the Government recognise that potential candidates will need to know the likely level of remuneration before they present themselves for election at the first Assembly. For this reason, the Government accept that they will have to set initial salaries and this will have to be done in good time for the first election. The Government believe that the appropriate time is after the result of the referendum is known and the draft
1586
of the first commencement order has been laid before Parliament and approved. Clearly, the Government will take their decision as to what should be the initial pay of Members of the Assembly in the light of the views expressed in Parliament and elsewhere, and as we move towards the date of the first election. The Government would be open to the accusation of acting prematurely if they made an announcement before then. The Bill provides in subsection (2) that the Secretary of State should direct what the initial salaries of the Members—and, I stress, only the Members—should be without reference to Parliament in any way. I think that is as fair a résumé of the Government's position as I can give to your Lordships this evening.
Lord GLENICINGLAS: I am a little worried by what the noble Lord has just said because he is talking about Government thinking. I have been listening to a lot of the debate on this Bill; clearly there are some parts on which the Government have been thinking very deeply and have told your Lordships that as a result of their very deep thinking they are not prepared to move from the position they are in. There are other parts of the Bill, as in this case, where the noble Lord refers to Government thinking, where it is perfectly clear that they have not been thinking at all and have not even begun to do so. Therefore, they are claiming the merit of not thinking about it in order to leave the Assembly with the appalling problem of having to think about it itself. This is really quite a problem for the new Assembly in the light of the fact that we all—those of us who have been Members of Parliament for some time and are now here—know that the general public intensely resents the idea that Parliament sets its own salaries. It may be right or it may be wrong; that is neither here nor there.
In this case, the Government are saying that the Assembly must set its own salaries. I know of no single thing which will cause more fury throughout Scotland than that. After all, the Government have been at this for a number of years. I cannot believe that they have not decided the sort of amount of time the Assembly is going to give to its business. I would guess that, in a normal year, about three months is right, and I have not

1587
done the thinking the Government must have done. If the Government cannot suggest even the approximate level of salaries but are going to leave it all to the Assembly, then whatever the Assembly does will be spat on by everybody in Scotland on the ground that the Members are feathering their nests.
The Government have been responsible for at least two years for thinking deeply about this. This is not the first time that the Government have produced some ideas, but they should be honest with your Lordships and say, "We think the average workload of a Member of the Assembly is so many months, or whatever it may be, and we think the appropriate level of salary should be around this figure", instead of continually saying, "We are not thinking about this at all; we are leaving it to the Assembly to decide". There is no single thing which will cause the Assembly more trouble and more discredit, whatever the unfortunate Members of the Assembly decide, than leaving it to them, out of the blue, to settle their own salaries.
10.31 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I agree with the excellent points made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the salaries fixed by the Government are for the Assembly during the period when they are responsible. I thought that this point was taken and covered well by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when he said that the Government would fix it and would announce the figure after the first order was made for an election. I think that is quite fair because there is nothing that people would discuss more; there is no red herring that you could produce that would provoke more useless discussion than naming a figure or a salary at the present time. I think that is a wise move, and it was a sound point the noble Earl made that this would have a tremendous influence on salaries.
With regard to people fixing it, I agree it is a beastly thing to fix your own salary and people will scream about it, but it is very economical for the country. There is no question but that Members of Parliament have been grossly underpaid for years because they fear the popular Press so much. If I may digress, the
1588
House of Commons for years has tolerated the most appalling conditions in catering because every time the food gets better there is a scream from the popular Press that it is losing a whole heap of money. The House of Commons should be quite firm and say that there should be a decent standard of catering and efficiency and proceed without listening to screams from elsewhere.
I think the scheme will be quite economical—and in Scotland it will be even more economical. It is most practical to set the figure and then trust the Assemblymen to follow it. If the Assemblymen are wise I would suggest that they fix some Civil Service figure, and say that it will stay like that, otherwise they will get into the poverty trap into which MPs have got themselves at present.
Lord DRUMALBYN: As the noble Lord Kirkhill has referred very much to what is in my Amendment, I wonder whether it would be convenient to discuss my Amendment No. 353 at the same time. He talked about the draft of the first commencement order. How long would he estimate—I do not ask for a firm figure—that the first commencement order would run before the election? What time would elapse between the first election order and the actual election? I would imagine it would have to be something of the order of 28 days in order to be certain of getting the draft approved by both Houses of Parliament; and then, of course, there is the time of the election itself. I thought I was not very far out in setting 60 days as a minimum.
The problems here are quite easily discernible. First, somebody has to set the level of salaries. The question is: Who is to do it? There are arguments for the Secretary of State doing it. On the other hand, who is he really responsible to in doing so? Supposing that he does it all by himself. He will be questioned about this in the Houses of Parliament, anyway. This will not pass without comment. Some will say that it is too much. Some will say that it is too little, I dare say. But would it not be more sensible to get it approved? Would it not be more sensible to get formal approval from the House of Commons for the proposal of the Secretary of State

1589
to fix the salaries in the interim period until the Assembly fixes its own salaries?
Would it not be more sensible to do that, because the Secretary of State will thus obtain a general consensus of opinion behind him. Otherwise, he will not know whether this is or is not acceptable to anybody. If he does it, he will receive much criticism. Some will say it is too much. Some will say that it is too little. I should have thought that it would be more sensible to get the approval of the authorities.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that the candidates have a right to know what pay they will get, at least in the interim period. I agree that they should know that before they decide to stand for election. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will agree, although he did not deal with this point, that, whatever the level at which the Secretary of State fixes the salaries, this will tend to influence very strongly the level of the salaries that may ultimately emerge.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas is absolutely right when he says that in doing this the Secretary of State must take into account the work burden of the Members of the Assembly. There must be some idea about this. It may prove to be wrong, but if it is proved wrong then it may be altered. But it will not prove to be wrong straight away.
I think that the great danger is that the salary will be set too low as a start. I know that Members of the House of Commons may resent this, but I am quite certain that it should be fixed at a decent level, a respectable level, to start with. Otherwise there will be just one long drag behind, as has happened in the House of Commons, which is thoroughly undesirable. That certainly will not add to the prestige of the Assembly.
Those are the main points that I wanted to make. The Government should be thinking very carefully indeed about how long the Assembly is likely to sit. Will it be so many days a week? Will it be so many weeks in the year, or what? They should fix the levels having regard to that, but not having regard to that alone. After all, if one is elected a Member of an Assembly then one is a member of the Assembly throughout the year. One will do a great deal of work
1590
on that job even though the Assembly is not sitting.
These are important matters that have to be considered. I hope that the Government will lose no time in considering them. I am not asking that they shall give us the answer now. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that it would not be desirable to disclose too soon the amounts that are likely to be paid, if anybody has thought about it yet. I rather doubt whether they have. I do not really think that that matters. The main thing is to make certain that the level of salaries for the Members of the Assembly is adequate to secure the kind of Member that we want to have.
Lord BURTON: I should like to know whether the Government will give an assurance that there will be no question of attendance allowances such as happens in local government? The mistake in that connection must now be realised and it is vital that the salary should be fixed and that there should not be an attendance allowance.
There is the further problem that, if the Secretary of State does not appoint the salary from the start, then, when the Assemblymen stand for election for the first time, they will not know what they will be paid or what their position will be. Certainly, as regards the initial salary, I should have thought that it was an absolute must that the Secretary of State should state before the election what they will be paid.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me on two small incidental points. First, have the Government in their thinking on this matter to date, reflected on the circumstance that many of the Members of the Assembly, like many of the Members of the other place, will have to maintain two homes—one in Edinburgh and one elsewhere? Secondly, if they have, do the Government not agree that that may make it a little difficult to resist the conclusion that the 150 Members of the Assembly should not be paid appreciably less than the 71 Members of Parliament who are doing the work at present?
10.42 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: First, I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, and

1591
reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the Secretary of State will set the initial remuneration of Assembly Members. I should suppose that that would create the basis for a continuing formula. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I certainly accept the criticism which he made as regards attendance allowances. I do not think that any factor is ruled out at this stage, but I shall certainly give consideration to the relevant point which he made in that connection.
I should like to revert to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for a moment. I can advise him that the commencement order will run for several months. We envisage that it would be of a longer period than, for example, 60 days. I have to accept that we must give consideration to the question of the number of days which the Assembly will sit and that must be a factor in determining initial remuneration.
As to the first part of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, I shall specifically draw his comment to the attention of the Secretary of State. As to the latter part, I do not think that I shall make any observation.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Before we leave this Amendment, I hope that whoever makes these decisions will study what is happening at present in America. At one time—for good reasons or bad—I had the opportunity of going round a great deal of America and seeing how various States ran their particular operations. I was very impressed with several States which had the same sort of problem —although not exactly the same—as the Assembly would have. They had discovered over the years that much the most efficient way, both from the point of view of running the State and from the point of view of the Members of the State Councils or whatever they were called—State Legislatures—was to run an operation by which they met for perhaps two months in February and March, for instance, and two months in October and November and they never met again at all unless they were specifically summoned.
Having some slight knowledge of Scottish legislation, I do not think that
1592
it would be in the least impossible to deal comfortably in four months with all the legislation which is, at present—and there is perhaps already too much—going through the House of Commons and your Lordships' House. That would itself make it possible for a great many Members of the Assembly to deal very effectively with their own businesses and outside interests. They would know that perhaps from time to time the First Secretary could summon them back for an important meeting on some matter, but for the remaining eight months, or even nine months, of the year they would be free to look after their constituencies in a proper manner and to get on with their own businesses. That would make it much easier to attract the right sort of person to be a Member of the Scottish Assembly.
Remembering that this is what I want to do, I hope that the Government Front Bench will not think of this as just a stupid intervention in order to waste time. It is not. It is in order to try to get people to think in terms of the right sort of Assembly, and the right conditions to attract the right sort of people. It must not waste the time of, I hope, very competent and busy people who will give their best thoughts and ideas to the future government of that part of Scotland which your Lordships' Committee decides to devolve.
10.46 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I am bound to say that I feel disappointed about this. Here we have the Government setting up an Assembly, all the paraphernalia of the Bill, all the devolved powers, the Assemblymen, and so forth, yet we do not know what it will he like. We do not know whether it will be a full-time or a part-time Assembly; we do not know what its hours of work will be; we do not know what the pay will be. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, says that that is all right, that we should leave it to his friend the Secretary of State who will eventually decide the right level. He does not even have to submit it to Parliament. I agree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that it will be a good thing, when the Secretary of State initially determines the levels of pay or expenses and allowances, that he should have the

1593
support of Parliament, that he should lay a draft order before Parliament and know that his recommendations have the support of another place.
The curious thing is that when another place decides its own salaries there is, as my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas said, always the most unpleasant feeling about having to set one's own figure. To set the Assembly's figure, the Government have Lord Boyle's committee and the Top Salaries Review Body to say what level should be achieved. Very often the Government of the day then suggest a lower figure for Members of Parliament. All that is gone through for Members of another place. However, here we are to have the Secretary of State, apparently without any advice and support from the House of Commons, saying, "These are the figures that the Assemblymen will receive". The least that ought to be done is for the Secretary of State to have the backing of the House of Commons so that he knows that his suggestions have the approval of another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that a theme runs through this Bill that the Assembly should look after itself. Some of us see a theme running through the Bill too, that we think the Government are letting the Assembly look after itself a little too much. There is a very distinct difference here, because although the Assembly sets its own figures and its own levels of pay, of course it does not have any powers to claim the taxation or money with which it pays its Members. In the end that has to come from the United Kingdom, and from Westminster. It is disappointing that when I asked the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—I thought that this would be a good opportunity—how the Government saw this, whether it was to be a full-time or part-time Assembly, whether the Members would be paid salaries or expenses, he said, "Wait until the referendum has taken place and we will tell you". But the time to know is now. The noble Lord looks agitated. Is he?
Lord KIRKHILL: I am not agitated, but I said that we would listen to what Parliament had to say and to what others might say.
Earl FERRERS: That means, with any luck, that the noble Lord will have
1594
listened to this—I was not suggesting that he was not listening, even though there might have been distractions—and will be able, if we come to another stage of the Bill, to say that perhaps he agrees that there should be some United Kingdom control.
Lord KIRKHILL: I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl. It is not on a point that he is making but on the supposition that he is just about to sit down. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for quite failing to take up an important point because we ranged into his Amendment as well in our earlier discussion. It was on the question of exercising a Statutory Instrument without Parliamentary procedure, and indeed the noble Lord made a specific reference to that. The Government's view there is that it is difficult to see what purpose that would achieve; where we could make the change he suggests. We consider the provisions and directions made by the Secretary of State would be well known. It is only right to place that on the record.
Earl FERRERS: Before I withdraw the Amendment, may I ask the noble Lord one tiny question? He has been kind enough to listen to all the suggestions which have been made. If we were to put down a similar Amendment on Report stage would he be able to give us some idea of how he visualises the Assembly? Does he expect it to be full-time, or part-time? The Government must know, and the Secretary of State is going to fix these figures, so he must have some idea of what is anticipated. It would be helpful to Parliament to know this.
Lord KIRKHILL: All I can say at this stage is that these matters are being discussed. Whether by Report stage I should be in a position to formulate matters with more precision is something I could not answer as of this evening.
The Earl of PERTH: Before the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, withdraws his Amendment may I draw attention to the fact that the Government have in fact made a guess at what is going to be the cost of the salaries and related costs of Members of the Scottish Assembly. I look at subparagraph (iii) in the Introduction where it talks about £6¾ million. If that is a

1595
figure which is quoted, it cannot be out of the air. It must be a figure which has been considered rather carefully by the Government.
They have told us that the staff will be a further 240 in number. If they get paid £5,000 a year that is £1¼ million. That leaves £5½ million in respect of salaries and related costs for Members of the Assembly. All this seems to me to be a degree of shadow boxing. It is somewhat unreal when the Government must have given a good deal of thought to this. It would help us very much if we were told, if not now later, just what is in mind.
As I understand the situation, the Secretary of State at some time—and when I am not very clear—is going to give the first scale for the salaries of the Members of the Assembly. Then the proposal is that subsequently that shall be decided by the Assembly. I think in some degree that is a right procedure, because if the Assembly went wild afterwards and tried to do too much the cost of it would come out of the Consolidated Scottish Fund and the country would object if the cost was too high. Having said that, it seems to me that the Government must have given a great deal of thought to this, and must be aware in some degree of what they are talking about, otherwise we should not find the figure which we find in the Introduction to the Bill.
Earl FERRERS: I think that the noble Earl's intervention is extremely helpful. Obviously the Government have an idea as to what form the Assembly is going to take, particularly as they have fined it down to £.6¾ million and not f7 million. That seems to be a precise figure. It does not help us from the point of view of getting the answer which I had hoped to get, because my modest arithmetic—and, of course, on the subject of arithmetic I would willingly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—tells me that if one divides £6¾ million by 150 one gets £44,000, which I suggest is a fair salary for anyone, though that must also cover the staff. Obviously, the Government have an idea of the form this will take, and that idea Parliament should know in advance of the referendum and in advance of the passing of the Bill. I hope that at a later stage the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be kind enough
1596
to give us the answer; I know he will do his best to find out. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 122, 123, 124 and 353 not moved.]
10.56 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 125:
Page 15, line 19, after ("may") insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will at any rate consider my arguments again on the question of an order here to validate, so to speak, the Secretary of State's decision on what the salaries of the Members of the Assembly should be. I think it would put him in a stronger position if he got validation, and I do not mind whether it is by Affirmative or Negative Resolution. His argument that, if he announced them, they would then be well-known and therefore no authority of Parliament would be required, I thought was rather ingenuous. I am not trying to be difficult; I am trying to make things easier for the Secretary of State. I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider this matter again. Having said that, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment, No. 328, stands in my name, and it goes with No. 329. These two Amendments raise a fairly substantial matter and I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, wishes us to embark on them at this hour or whether he thinks this would be a suitable point at which to adjourn. I am quite willing to move Amendment No. 328 if that is the wish of the Committee.
Lord McCLUSKEY: When the noble Lord says "substantial", does he mean five minutes on the one hand or six minutes on the other? I think it would suit the convenience of some noble Lords if we got on to and into and out of the next clause.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: Speaking for myself, I do not expect to take more than a few minutes, but the points that lie behind these Amendments are quite substantial and I should not have thought the discussion could be less than about half an hour. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee in this matter.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the noble Lord expects to take a few minutes, let us be optimistic and hope the discussion will not take half an hour.
Clause 32 [Agency arrangements and provision of services]:
[Amendments Nos. 354 and 355 not moved.]
10.59 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 328:
Page 16, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) In the event of a function being discharged by the employees of any relevant authority, the Minister of the Crown responsible for the normal activities of that authority shall be answerable to Parliament for the activities of the authority's employees in discharging that function.")
The noble Lord said: I will do my best to deal with this matter in a few minutes, and I suggest it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 329; they are linked, although the points to which they refer are slightly different. The two taken together are intended to address themselves to three problems. When the first of these was raised in another place by one of my honourable friends he received a somewhat unsympathetic answer, perhaps because they were in the same sort of time hassle as we are at the present time.
Lying behind these Amendments is the question of the answerability of Parliament for agencies of all kinds, and the reason I felt it right to warn the Committee before we embarked on it is that this is a considerable issue of constitutional and Parliamentary principle about which we have argued all the time, particularly at Question Time. When Questions such as those relating to the Post Office come up, there is always the problem of whether the Post Office is left to run its own affairs, and if it is. how is Parliament made responsible for it. This matter
1598
arises here out of the use of the word "agency".
Mr. Maurice Macmillan asked one Question of the Under-Secretary in the Commons. It was that, as the Bill stands, if a Department is asked to act as an agent by a Scottish Secretary, is there not a danger that the Department then cannot answer a Question if it is asked one in Parliament? The second point is the same issue the other way round. Mr. Ewing mentioned the two points when he was dealing with this Bill in another place. He said that a Scottish Secretary can enter into an agency arrangement with a United Kingdom Minister. That is the point we have already dealt with. But then it can be worked the other way round, in that a United Kingdom Minister can enter into an agency arrangement with a Scottish Secretary.
Later on, I think it was agreed that where a United Kingdom Minister enters into an agency arrangement with a Scottish Secretary, there is no question, as Mr. Ewing put it, of "shunting responsibility", thereby getting out of being responsible for answering to Parliament for something in respect of which an agency arrangement had been made. I cannot use the word "devolved" here as it has been rather over-used. So the first question is: Can the Minister confirm that that is the case, and that a United Kingdom Ministry would go on being responsible for answering in Parliament for any question on which it had an agency agreement with a Scottish Secretary? But then what happens when we turn it the other way round?
Perhaps I had better leave that for a moment, and speak to the third question, which is the purpose of the second Amendment. Here we have the fact that there is no mention in the Bill of how agency matters are to be paid for. Who is to be responsible for paying for an agency arrangement? It is a little alarming if one reads this clause in relation to, I think, paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, which we discussed at some length earlier. There is an alarming potential increase in the number of powers which can be conferred upon agencies and then taken out of Parliamentary scrutiny and out of financial control. For example, to whom will the agencies be responsible, and to whom will they account for the money?

1599
How is the money to be raised, and how does Parliament control spending of such money? If it should involve an issue of taxation, how is that to be dealt with, controlled, and discussed? That is on the financial issue.
If one goes back to the more general issue about answerability and accountability in Parliament, one thinks of people such as the Crown Agents. I think it is generally conceded that there was a certain lack of Parliamentary control in that case. I am not trying to be critical of the Crown Agents; I am merely trying to use this as an illustration. This leads me on to one other question. In the Bill it is stated what a relevant authority is. It states that it is
"… any public or local authority or public corporation".
But then there is no attempt to define what is meant by a public corporation.
I am not sure that I have moved this adequately, because it is not a very simple matter. I think the purpose of these three Amendments is to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that there is adequate accountability, both as far as Parliamentary responsibility is concerned and as far as financial responsibility is concerned. We fear that, as the Bill now stands, there is a danger of a great increase of public corporations undefined, and there is a danger that we may be extending the area of immunity from Parliamentary accountability in what might prove to be a rather undesirable fashion. I beg to move.
11.6 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My impression is that the noble Lord is over-emphasising the complexity of this clause. It simply enables arrangements to be made between the Scottish Secretary, on the one hand, and any relevant authority, on the other, for one party to carry out functions or provide services on behalf of the other. That is the purpose of it. There is no compulsion on either party to enter into any arrangement. For example, there could be no question, as was suggested in the debate in another place to which the noble Lord referred, of a Scottish Secretary requiring a United Kingdom Minister to carry out a function. So, accordingly, one gets a principal and
1600
agent agreement only if both parties are willing to enter into it, and that is the normal situation. It is necessary to have a clause of this kind because a person or body on whom a statutory duty is imposed cannot delegate that duty or discharge it through any other person unless the Statute so provides; so this clause is to provide that general authority.
This kind of arrangement is well precedented. As the noble Lord will be aware, agency arrangements between the United Kingdom Government Departments, on the one hand, and Northern Ireland Departments, on the other, are a long-standing feature of the relations between Whitehall and Stormont, and provision was made for them in Section 63 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and was repeated, in substance, in Section 11 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Many arrangements were made under the provisions of the 1920 Act, to which I have referred. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland carried out a great deal of work on an agency basis on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Another example I can give to the Committee is that the Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland valued property for the Treasury and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Furthermore, Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Belfast did a great deal of work on behalf of Northern Ireland Government Departments. These are merely illustrations of how it has worked, really without difficulty, over a very long period of time.
I was asked specific questions, and I shall endeavour to answer them in the light of that general explanation. I was asked: Will the United Kingdom Ministry still be responsible? Of course, the answer is, Yes. There is a rule, which even English lawyers will recognise, qui facit per alium facit per se: he who acts through an agent is acting for himself, as it were; he is responsible for what the agent does. Accordingly, the United Kingdom Minister remains responsible for what his agent does. Then I was asked: What are the arrangements for payment? The arrangements for payment are a matter for negotiation between the principal, on the one hand, and the agent, on the other. Reference was made to paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I am

1601
happy to inform the Committee that our discussions on paragraph 8 proceed apace, and I hope 1 shall be able to bring forward such a modified draft that I shall be greeted with cries of acclaim from every part of this Chamber. But we are getting there, and I think no difficulty need arise.
Then I was asked the question: To whom will the agency be responsible? Again, the people who are responsible for exercising functions remain responsible, despite the fact that they delegate the actual exercise, under these powers, to their agents. I do not think there is any difficulty there. The conferring of the power to enter into arrangements of agency carries with it the right to enter into arrangements regarding reimbursement; but it does not remove responsibility from the person who is statutorily responsible. I think that if one does not approach this clause as if it were something absolutely novel which has been created overnight and if one regards it as being really a repeat in substance of the arrangements that were made and which worked very well for a long period of time, one will see that it does not carry the complexities that the noble Lord fears. In the light of that explanation, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press these Amendments.
Lord GLEN KINGLAS: I am not certain that I fully understood the answer, as perhaps I did not fully understand the mover of the Amendment. This perhaps is because we have moved rather faster than both Front Benches anticipated a little earlier in the evening. But my noble friend Lord Strathcona said that one of the problems that arises is when people ask what they think are reasonable Questions in Parliament—and presumably the same thing would arise in the Assembly—where they are continually told that the Government cannot possibly answer that Question because it is nothing to do with them.
This was the way my noble friend put it at the beginning of his explanation of his Amendment. The noble and learned Lord made a most admirable answer which related entirely to how Government work within themselves. That, if I dare say so, bore no relation at all to what my noble friend said was the point of the Amendment.
1602
There are real problems here because whenever the Assembly meets it will have, inevitably, particularly when it first meets, a lot of Questions it wants to ask the Secretaries (or whatever their equivalent of Ministers will be called) and if they are continually to be told that these have nothing to do with the Ministers, I can see a lot of trouble arising. I may be clean off the point, but I listened to what my noble friend said in moving his Amendment and I listened with pleasure to the extreme felicity of the noble and learned Lord's answer; but they bore no relation to one another.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask briefly if the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to supply an answer to the two points I put down? Does "function "cover the provision of services? The noble and learned Lord will notice that the last two lines on page 15 refer to the provision by one of them for the administrative or professional technical services. This is not necessarily a function, but it is a provision of services. It may be that the word "function "is intended to cover that as well.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think the answer is that, in this context, "function" is distinct from its use in relation to local authorities. ft is not intended to have any technical meaning; hut it does include the provision of services.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: What I had in mind was certain organisations such as the National Enterprise Board; and that is, presumably, an agency within the terminology of this clause. Is the noble and learned Lord now telling us that the Government will be wholly answerable for everything that something like the NEB does? One of the things we have been at some pains at times—and this comes largely from this side of the Committee—to say is that if you are to have these corporations you should not be continually meddling in their affairs; and one form of meddling is to ask questions.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not suggest anything in this clause enlarges or extends the responsibility of the Government. I am saying the fact that the Government or a public body make an agency arrangement means the responsibility which it

1603
owes is not diminished by the agency arrangement. It becomes answerable for its agent in the normal way.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: In effect the noble and learned Lord is telling us that these clauses would not in any way alter Parliamentary accountability and responsibility one way or another; although I take it it may happen at one further remove by the interposing of the Scottish Secretary in between, in the chain of command.
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is exactly what I was saying: no responsibility is altered, merely that it is possible to engage an agent to carry out your function. If I in private life engage an agent to do something for which I am responsible, then I am answerable for the way he does it. There is no difference here.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: We have done rather better than I thought so far as the time is concerned. I am happy to ask permission to withdraw the first of my Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 329 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Provision of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 356 and 357 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Power to make changes in law consequential on Scottish Assembly Acts]
11.16 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 16, line 15, leave out from second ("of") to ("(including") in line 16 and insert ("any part of the United Kingdom").
The noble Earl said: I hope that this is a purely drafting Amendment. The Bill here speaks of amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it. There is no law of the United Kingdom. There is the law of England and the law of Scotland. I have suggested inserting the words:
"any part of the United Kingdom".
I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The point that the noble Earl takes is one that we understand; but I do not think that it is necessary to amend the Bill in this regard. We looked at it and I understand very clearly what the noble Earl is saying. Indeed, the words themselves are closely modelled upon words in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. It was thought by the draftsman that it would make it quite clear, when one talked about the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it, that sometimes one passes Statutes which apply to the whole of the United Kingdom; sometimes one passes Statutes which apply to only parts of it. The wording of this clause would make clear what was envisaged here. It is merely intended to be a drafting improvement upon the wording of the 1973 Act where similar words are found.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I do not mind what it improves. The noble and learned Lord is talking about something which does not exist. The noble and learned Lord knows that perfectly well. The words in my Amendment do exist and are perfectly clear. I fail totally to understand what he is saying. I do not mind what he has said about Northern Ireland because they practise substantially the law of England.
Lord McCLUSKEY: When the Bill talks about the law of the United Kingdom, what the draftsman has in mind, and what I have in mind when I defend it, is that the United Kingdom Parliament may pass an Act which applies throughout the United Kingdom. It is the law of the United Kingdom. I know that if one wants to be a purist, one can say that there is only the law of Scotland, the law of England, the law of Wales or Northern Ireland; but it is surely not a nonsense to say that an Act of Parliament, which applies to every part of the United Kingdom, can properly be described as the law of the United Kingdom.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I am not a lawyer but I have always understood Scottish lawyers to say quite categorically—and I have heard noble Lords say it in the House—that the law of Scotland is separate from the law of England. Now the noble and learned Lord suddenly says—and this surprises me very much—that there is no difference:

1605
the law of the United Kingdom includes Scotland. The noble and learned Lord is a lawyer; he holds an important post in the Government as a lawyer. To announce suddenly to all of us that the law of Scotland is not different from the law of England surprises me more than I can say.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Perhaps the answer to the noble Earl's point depends to some extent upon the terms of Article 19 of the Treaty of Union, which I do not have freshly in my recollection. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has, and perhaps he could tell the Committee whether that gives the answer.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I would only suggest very briefly that if the law which my noble friend Lord Selkirk refers to is the law of any part of the United Kingdom, and it so happens that it is the law of all parts of the United Kingdom, we are really on common ground, and I do not understand why it is that even a minor Amendment of this sort cannot possibly be made.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Would it satisfy the Committee if 1 were to say that we will look at this again?
The Earl of SELKIRK: On that very forthright undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I think that perhaps this is the time when I should move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Medical Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: COST
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: COST