Sitting of 25 April 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Procurement (Employment Consequences)
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence in formulating his defence procurement policies, what account he takes of employment consequences.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Close attention is paid to the employment consequences of all defence expenditure, but the primary objective of defence procurement must be to ensure that the equipment needs of the Services are met in the most timely and cost-effective way.
    Mr. Clemitson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who advocate decreases in defence expenditure are as concerned about employment as those who advocate increased defence expenditure? Does he further agree that the American experience of relocating resources into non-defence uses and the suggestions put forward by the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards in this country give good cause for hoping that such a successful transfer of resources could take place?
    Mr. Mulley: I completely accept my hon. Friend's sincerity in desiring not to reduce employment. I must point out that the transfer of work from the defence to the civil area is difficult. If there are opportunities for additional work in the civil area to deal with the quite unacceptable level of unemployment, I know that my right hon. Friends will be concerned to take such opportunities. This is not a matter strictly falling within my responsibilities.
    Mr. Viggers: Is there any point in transferring the Services pay and records office to Glasgow, apart from transferring unemployment from Glasgow to other areas?
    Mr. Mulley: The question of the dispersal of work from the Ministry of Defence, along with that from other Government Departments, was decided by the Government some time ago. I do not think that this leads to unemployment and I

    1155
    cannot see how the subject arises on this Question.
    Mr. Dalyell: What will be the role, in matters of procurement, of the defence committee of the Scottish Assembly whose formation was anounced in the House of Lords yesterday?
    Mr. Mulley: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I did not realise that the Assembly, which has not yet been elected, had had its committees selected for it. As my hon. Friend knows, the Assembly does not have a devolved power or duty in respect of defence. I cannot help my hon. Friend about what may or may not be the function of a committee that may or may not be brought into being.
    Mr. Churchill: The Secretary of State has on previous occasions admitted that no fewer than 218,000 jobs were to be lost as a result of the Labour Government's defence cuts. How far was this taken into account and how far were Labour Members below the Gangway consulted on this massive job destruction programme before it was embarked upon?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is a little prone to exaggeration.
    Mr. Churchill: They are the right hon. Gentleman's figures.
    Mr. Mulley: No Government would conceivably have gone through with the defence plans which the Government inherited dealing with forward expenditure. While employment is of paramount importance, we have, in the defence area, to tailor our defence procurement to the direct needs of the Services.

    BAOR
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will increase the number of soldiers in the British Army of the Rhine.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): The manpower establishment of BAOR is kept under regular review. No decision to increase it has been taken.
    Mr. Townsend: Is the Minister aware of the widespread feeling in BAOR that units are being asked to do more with fewer men? Will he confirm that some soldiers have been doing a 70-hour week,
    1156
    and that BAOR has specifically asked for an extra 2,500 men?
    Mr. Brown: I am not prepared to comment on reports of this nature on the number of soldiers that BAOR has or has not requested, or to disclose what proposals may or may not have been made.
    Mr. Grocott: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to cost this and other proposals from the Opposition for increased defence expenditure? Will he give some estimate of what would be the effect on taxation of these additional costs?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. In fact, the Opposition are screaming for cuts in public expenditure all the time. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is giving commitments which would cost goodness knows how many thousands of millions of pounds.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Since it is well known that large numbers of tanks have had to be put into mothballs because there are not enough men in BAOR to man them, how can the Under-Secretary dare to give such a complacent answer to my hon. Friend's Question? What is the Under-Secretary doing to remedy this disasterous situation?
    Mr. Brown: On the main question, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford on 17th April. If I were to spend time in replying to speculative Press reports with the hand of the hon. Member for Stretford behind them, I would be doing little or nothing else.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Since I know for a fact that those tanks have been put in mothballs, how can the Under-Secretary dare to atempt to deny that that is so?
    Mr. Brown: Because the right hon. Gentleman well knows, since he held the senior office of Secretary of State for Defence in the last Tory Government, that this is not the sort of information that we discuss publicly.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received regarding the non-eligibility for social security benefits of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving in Germany.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am not aware of any formal representations on this matter, but I know that there has been concern in the Services. While this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, since the relevant regulations apply to Service men and civilians alike, discussions have been held between this Department and DHSS since last year.
    Mr. Goodhew: In that case, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that, although they pay United Kingdom income tax and, indeed, national insurance contributions, the members of the Armed Forces in Germany are not eligible for any social security benefits. Is not the Under-Secretary aware that there are many families whose tour has some time to go when a son finishes school, and he is suddenly unable to obtain employment in Germany, and cannot come home without his family, and has no social security benefits. What is the Under-Secretary doing about that?
    Mr. Brown: I have already indicated that we have had discussions with the DHSS on the matter. The question of eligibility for benefits is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. Churchill: Will the Minister explain why Forces in Germany, for example, have been charged full earnings-related national insurance contributions when they cannot derive the benefits? They cannot get the family income supplement. If they have teenage children of 16 or 17 who have just left school, they cannot draw unemployment benefit. This is doing the forces out of tens of pounds per week for which they would otherwise be eligible.
    Mr. Brown: The discussions are mainly concerned with family income supplement, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. The first two are payable to the dependants in Germany only under restrictive conditions. The third item, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is not payable at all.

    Indian Ocean (Task Force)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent operations of the Royal Navy task force in the Indian Ocean.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): The Royal Navy Task Group which crossed the Indian Ocean in March was on its way home to the United Kingdom after a series of visits to the Far East and Australia. While on passage through the area, the opportunity was taken to conduct routine exercises with ships of the United States and French navies.
    Mr. Blaker: When the Under-Secretary visited the ships of this force, did he say, as has been reported, that as an economist he would not pay the Navy more because the Navy does not contribute to the national economy? What evidence can he cite that economists have contributed more in safeguarding the economy than the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Duffy: There is absolutely no ground for that report or for the other report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph and was attributed to me. I pointed this out in a private letter to the editor. In so far as I entertain views on either of those two counts, as some Conservative Members know, I expressed those views publicly precisely to the contrary.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an estimate of the number of additional jobs which will be provided in the United Kingdom and Scotland, respectively, as a result of the increase in defence expenditure.
    Mr. Mulley: It will not be possible to work out in detail the employment implications of the defence budget targets for 1979–80 and 1980–81 until the programmes for those years have been fully drawn up.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a tendency over the past years to run down the number of defence jobs coming to the West of Scotland? In view of the fact that in that part of the United Kingdom we have more than the national average of unemployed, will he look at the position and try to reverse this trend?
    Mr. Mulley: I shall, as my hon. Friend requests, look into the position. But he will know that, as a result of the Defence Review, we have greatly reduced the civilian manpower directly employed by

    1159
    the Ministry of Defence. In placing defence contracts we have to follow the contractual procedures and to be guided by the timescale and the cost-effectiveness of the equipment that we wish to acquire.
    Mr. Hooson: Will the Secretary of State give an indication of the increase in the number of personnel in the Armed Forces as a result of the increase in defence expenditure?
    Mr. Mulley: We have not come yet to a final view about the expenditures for these two years, but I have already announced an increase in the Royal Marines by retaining 41 Commando. I have also increased the establishment of the Army by a composite battalion, and another 1,200 or so for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning I telephoned his office and that of each of his four ministerial colleagues to give them the page references in yesterday's House of Lords Official Report, where it is stated that the Scottish Assembly would set up an official defence committee? What relationship between the defence committee of the Scottish Assembly and the Ministry of Defence is there likely to be on the question of jobs?
    Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for telephoning my office and giving me the Hansard references. I confess that I do not take a line by line interest in the deliberations on the Scotland Bill in another place. But, of course, as I have already told my hon. Friend, defence is not a devolved subject under the Bill, and the Assembly will have neither powers nor responsibilities in this field. As to whether an Assembly that has still to be set up will have a defence committee, and what it may or may not do if it has one, my hon. Friend will have to restrain his impatience and await the development of events.
    Mr. MacCormick: In view of the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), will the Secretary of State confirm that the percentage of the defence expenditure actually spent in Scotland has been and still is unfairly low?
    Mr. Mulley: As I have explained already, unfortunately it is not possible to place defence contracts on a sort of population
    1160
    average basis. I have to go to firms which specialise in the production of aircraft, ships, or whatever it may be. Quite a number of ships are built in Scotland. I shall look again at the question of percentage, but I must try to get the best equipment for the forces at the best value, and this does not necessarily mean that expenditure can be spread regionally on an average basis in the way that all hon. Members might wish.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: If the right hon. Gentleman has any idea about what is happening in his Department, will he tell the House what has been the net decrease in defence jobs since the Labour Government came to power?
    Mr. Mulley: Of course, defence jobs are outside my Department. I would not, without notice, be able to give an exact number. But at present between 270,000 and 300,000 people are directly involved in defence contracts for us and in our overseas sales. I would think that at least that number are involved indirectly on subcontracts. Therefore, defence still provides a substantial amount of highly technological employment.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Is the Secretary of State prepared to deny that at the very least, if we take civilian and military jobs together, his Government have cost at least 150,000 jobs?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot commit myself to a figure of that size without notice.
    Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman should look at his own answers then.
    Mr. Mulley: If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) would listen a litle more and talk a little less, we should all be more satisfied and he might become more enlightened. I shall look at the number and write to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Air Defences
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the defences of the United Kingdom against possible air attack.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): Yes, and, as I announced

    1161
    in the recent defence debate, this Government are continuing to make considerable improvements in the air defence of this country.
    Mr. Viggers: I congratulate the Minister because he must be one of the few people, apart from those behind the Warsaw Pact Iron Curtain, who is satisfied with our air defences. As we have not bought the Nike missile, and as we have not developed the Thunderbird missile, what defences do we have against supersonic bomber attack?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Before the hon. Gentleman starts criticising this Government about the state of the air defences of this country, he ought to look at the record. He will find that it was the Conservatives who dismantled and discarded the air defence capacity of this country. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what we have done to improve the air defences of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend announced the setting up of another squadron of VC10 tankers for air-to-air refuelling, which will considerably improve our air combat capability. We have announced the coming into service of Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft, the increase in our Rapier squadron and Bloodhound missiles, and a large number of other issues, all of which are restoring the ability of this country to defend itself after the actions of the Conservatives.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that if an unidentified civilian aircraft entered British air space it would not be shot down?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that a civilian aircraft entering our air space would not be shot down. We have well proven procedures. If an unidentified aircraft comes up on the radar screen, it is invariably intercepted. It would be signalled and radioed to follow our interceptor aircraft and land. If it did not respond, we would continue to shadow it until such times as we could get it safely to respond to our instructions.
    Sir Anthony Royle: Since the Korean civilian airliner was over Russian air space for nearly one hour before the disgraceful attack took place by Soviet aircraft, can the Minister give the House
    1162
    an assurance that no unidentified aircraft would stay for an hour over our air space before being identified by our early warning system?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that our systems of air defence are such that any unidentified aircraft penetrating our air space could be intercepted, if that were the option we wished to exercise.
    Mr. Grocott: Since it is impossible for my hon. Friend to answer questions about the vulnerability of our air defences without some estimate of the likelihood of an air attack, can he give the House his estimate of just how likely that is?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: We must take a realistic view. I hope that the negotiations on disarmament will be successful. But we must not neglect the fact that the Soviet Union has increased its capacity to reach the whole of these islands with offensive aircraft. Therefore, in the event of war, we would be subject to air attack. That is why the Government are so anxious and efficient in trying to restore our air defence capacity.
    Mr. Churchill: I am delighted to have the Minister's assurance that Britain's air defences are so much better than those of the Soviet Union. Indeed, I believe them to be such. But before making so much play of the strength of Rapier squadrons, can he confirm that there is only one Rapier squadron deployed at a British airfield and that there are plans for a second one? What plans does he have for a more substantial deployment?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that as a result of our activities there will be more Rapier squadrons deployed for the defence of our airfields than were left by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). It is not my intention to bandy across the House matters which ought not to be so bandied about. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to act irresponsibly—as he does—in defence affairs, that is up to him.

    United States Secretary of Defence
    Mr. MacFarquharasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of Defence
    Mr. Mulley: I next expect to meet Dr. Brown, the United States Secretary of State for Defence, at the ministerial meeting of the Defence Planing Committee in Brussels on 18th-19th May 1978.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: When my right hon. Friend next meets Dr. Brown, will he confirm with him that all American nuclear weapons situated in this country are equipped with electronic safety catches and insensitive high explosive triggers? Will he tell the House why he was so unforthcoming in his answers on this subject, which is quite common knowledge in discussions in the United States?
    Mr. Mulley: With regard to the answers that I gave my hon. Friend—I think on 13th April—I followed the practice of successive Governments over many years with regard to classified information in the nuclear area. When I see Dr. Brown, I shall certainly tell him of my hon. Friend's concern. But from my own visit to the United States Air Force, and my own inquiries, I am satisfied that all reasonable precautions as are possible are exercised by the United States Air Force in this country.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Secretary of State be using his meeting with Dr. Brown to tell him which airfield the Government have decided shall take the American KC135 tanker aircraft? Will he also be telling him that on environmental grounds it will not be RAF Greenham?
    Mr. Mulley: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is trying to jump the gun. Important though this matter is to his constituents, I do not think this would be appropriate for a NATO Defence Planning Committee agenda. However, I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, I met a deputation from his constituency which was led by himself. We shall take note of all the points that were made to us and as soon as possible I shall announce a decision.
    Mr. Flannery: When my right lion. Friend meets the Secretary of Defence, will he congratulate him on the fact that the United States are not going ahead with the neutron bomb? Can he assure us that no one in the United States, or in the Tory Party in this country, is planning a bomb which will destroy trade unionists and Socialists?
    Mr. Mulley: I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's congratulations to Secretary Brown. But I am afraid that on this subject or any other I would hesitate to give any assurance on behalf of the Tory Party because, as I hope the electors of this country have now come to realise, there is an immense difference between Tory protestations and promises before elections and their performances in office.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Why during the last few months did not the Government seek to help President Carter with regard to the neutron bomb by telling him what the Government know to be true—that Europe needs this weapon?
    Mr. Mulley: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, there has always been the question of the conflict and question of balance between the military advantage on the one hand and the arms control considerations on the other. As the Prime Minister has said, we accept and support President Carter's decision. I think that is right in the sense of this particular situation and in the sense of the alliance. That is far better than the irresponsible attack on President Carter which the right hon. Gentleman made at the time of the decision.

    Armed Forces (Bargaining Machinery)
    Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in regard to the setting up of effective collective bargaining machinery covering members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
    Mr. Mulley: The current debate on this issue began last November. Since then, apart from parliamentary representations, I have received resolutions from two constituency parties of the Labour Party and I have seen a delegation from the Asociation of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I have also received 10 letters from members of the public which offered comments on the subject of corporate representation for the Armed Forces, but none of these was in favour of the idea.
    Mr. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has a paternalistic attitude

    1165
    which we in the Labour Party should not accept? Does he agree that the sooner we have effective trade union organisation and effective collective bargaining machinery to deal with wages and conditions of members of the Armed Forces, the better?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not accept that the Review Body is a paternalistic institution. It has very clear terms of reference. Its job is to compare Armed Forces pay with that in comparable civilian occupations, plus the X factor. It does this with great competence. We are indebted to the distinguished body of people who serve the Armed Forces and the nation in this way.
    The problem of Armed Forces pay, like that of many other pay sectors, has not been caused by any lack of representations on behalf of the forces by myself or the chiefs. They have been caused entirely, and, in my view, rightly, by the operations of the pay policy.
    Mr. David Walder: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the Services the view is not, as it is among trade unionists in the House, that a trade union is the solution to all man's ills, from dandruff to sleeping sickness?
    Mr. Mulley: In the representations that I have received I have heard nothing about dandruff or sleeping sickness.
    Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least in principle the denial of the rights of trade union organisation to members of the Armed Forces is a denial of their maturity, sophistication and responsibility as citizens? Does he agree that to place them at a disadvantage with, for instance, those unfortunate people who work for the Grunwicks of this world is a gratuitous insult?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not accept that view. I endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder). From my experience and inquiries I find that the great majority of members of the Armed Forces do not believe that their position would be improved if they belonged to trade unions. Some of my hon. Friends might think that that view is misguided.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Armed Forces certainly
    1166
    do not want trade unions? What they want is Ministers who will support them and who are effective in so doing. Is he further aware that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be judged on their effectiveness by the statement to be made this afternoon?
    Mr. Mulley: I am too modest to comment on the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I accept his general view. In my view, most members of the Armed Forces do not feel that their position would be enhanced if they belonged to trade unions.

    NATO Defence Ministers
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.
    Mr. Mulley: I shall next meet the other NATO Defence Ministers at the ministerial meeting of the Defence Planning Committee in Brussels on 18th-19th May.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to his colleagues that he and the British Government will not support any argument in favour of deploying the neutron bomb within NATO? Will he also make it clear to his colleagues that arguments in favour of this weapon by Conservative Party spokesmen are resented deeply by millions of British citizens?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend's first question is unlikely to arise. My sense of the discussions at the most recent meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group was that its members accept President Carter's decision, as I do. I am not sure that the views of Conservative spokesmen would he of major interest to my ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: At that meeting, will the Secretary of State be pressing upon his colleagues how vitally important it is for the future of our NATO defence strategy that the arms embargo on Turkey should be lifted at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Member is referring to the embargo by the United States. I do not know whether that will come up directly or bilaterally. As the hon. Member knows, discussions

    1167
    are taking place between the two countries. We shall be looking at the longterm defence plans which are to be submitted to the Summit. Obviously this matter will be relevant in that context.

    Defence Minister of Iran
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to meet the Defence Minister of Iran.
    Mr. Mulley: No. Sir.
    Mr. Flannery: When my right hon. Friend does meet the Defence Minister of Iran, will he convey to him that there is deep feeling throughout this country about the number of students who have to cover their faces when they demonstrate against that terrible regime because of brutalities, tortures and reprisals against their relatives? Will he look carefully at any defence agreements that we have with that Defence Minister and ensure that the weapons are not turned inwards against the democrats in Iran instead of being used for legitimate defence purposes in that country?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not sure that it would be the Defence Minister's responsibility to deal with the activities of students. We sell arms to Iran, which is a respected ally in CENTO. I feel that there is no reason why we should reconsider that decision.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not clear that it is in our common interest that Iran should increase its forces in areas such as the Gulf and the Indian Ocean? Should we not do everything that we can to support our allies in CENTO?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree that this is important. The leadership that Iran has established in that part of the world and the real international status that the Shah has achieved by his long experience are assets for stability in that difficult part of the world.

    Inchterf
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make an official visit to the defence establishment at Inchterf.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a visit at present.
    Mr. Canavan: If the Minister cannot visit Inchterf personally, will he send one of his senior officials to investigate complaints from local people about the excessive noise caused by the firing of ammunition there? If nothing can be done to reduce the noise level at source, will the Government consider providing special sound insulation in the houses? Is he aware that people complain to me that it is like living next to a battlefield?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend and I have the greatest sympathy for the people who suffer from the noise of this establishment. But I must remind my hon. Friend that the establishment, which was built before the First World War was there long before any of the existing housing estates. If my hon. Friend has any details about property which has suffered damage as a result of the noise, I should be glad if he would forward them to me. I shall then have the matter examined by the claims division of the Ministry.
    Under the provisions of the 1972 White Paper on development and compensation, I am entitled to make grants, but only when the defence installations concerned have been set up or extended since 1969 to allow greater use. That does not apply in this case.
    Mrs. Bain: Since I am one of the local residents subject to the noise at Inchterf, could the Minister say when we can expect a report from the Property Services Agency which is looking into the alleviation of noise at source? What level of expenditure does the Minister envisage for the sound-proofing of houses, and how does it compare with the profits made at Inchterf?
    Mr. Brown: We expect that the report will be available in August. I cannot say what the results will be. Until we get the recommendations, I cannot comment on what provision will be made.

    RAF Boulmer
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will pay an official visit to RAF Boulmer.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if he had made that visit today or in recent weeks he would have

    1169
    found keen interest in the statement that we all await on Services pay? Does he recognise that it will not be simply what is done to restore the lost comparability that is important but what guarantees can be given that comparability will be maintained in the future? Does he also recognise that increased accommodation costs bear very heavily on those who have very little freedom of choice about where they live, because of their work?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making today. There are many other aspects affecting RAF Boulmer and other RAF stations, apart from pay and problems of that nature, such as insulation of property and trying to deal with the heating costs, about which the hon. Gentleman has written to me on a number of occasions. I appreciate his help and the efforts he has made on behalf of his RAF constituents.

    Defence Scientific Advisory Council
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the membership and responsibilities of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The Defence Scientific Advisory Council is established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State for Defence on scientific and technological matters of concern to the Ministry of Defence. The chairman and other independent members all have distinguished careers in the academic or industrial world and each is appointed in his personal capacity by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that it has been suggested in some quarters that there is something mysterious and sinister about this body? Will he confirm that it is the kind of body that would be expected to advise the defence services of an advanced industrial country?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing sinister or unworthy about the council. It is a highly valued organisation which gives proper advice to my right hon. Friend. There is nothing sinister about it. We welcome and
    1170
    admire the distinguished men and women who serve on it.

    Neutron Bomb
    Dr. Glynasked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates have been made of the likely timescale of the production and deployment of the neutron bomb to fulfil the strategic and tactical requirements of NATO.
    Mr. Mulley: As the hon. Member is aware, President Carter has deferred production of this warhead.
    Dr. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this weapon is essential to NATO, in view of the massive build-up of tanks and conventional forces in the Warsaw Pact? Is he also aware that it is probably one of the best weapons in the defence of Europe to prevent all-out nuclear attack, and that, whether or not the bomb has been delivered, we should be making plans as to how many are required?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. As I said earlier today, it was a very difficult decision for the President to make, balancing the military advantages, which I concede exist, and the arms control considerations. We feel that in the present circumstances President Carter's decision was right, and Her Majesty's Government fully support it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Did my right hon. Friend see the Evening News of a couple of weeks ago in which there was a very strange cartoon called "The Wizard of Id", in which the principal character was asked what benefit there was in our having a bomb that killed people but did not destroy property, and received the answer "It prevents looting"? Is not that a rather sick answer to the ultimate capitalist weapon, and will my right hon. Friend have nothing whatsoever to do with it?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not recall that cartoon. In any event, I should not be influenced by it. It is grossly inaccurate to describe the enhanced radiation warhead, popularly and inaccurately called the neutron bomb, as a weapon that destroys people but does not damage property. Of course, property would also be damaged by such a bomb. I thought that by now at least the facts of the

    1171
    matter had been established, although I understand that the arguments nevertheless still go on. Quite clearly, all the property in the immediate vicinity of such a bomb, if it were ever to be used, would be destroyed.
    Mr. Mates: Why does the Secretary of State imagine that it should be only this one item in the entire nuclear armoury that causes such hysteria among many of his hon. Friends? Could it just be that it is the only item in that nuclear armoury with which Britain and the West are ahead of the world?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair in his comment. As we on the Government Benches have frequently made clear, our concern is with the totality of nuclear weapons, and our desire is to have a reduction of that totality on both sides. It would be quite wrong to single out any one particular weapon for special treatment. What we want to do is to get a reduction right across the board.

    TUC AND CBI
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met representatives of the TUC on 28th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Thomas: Following the Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I shall refrain from suggesting that a neutron bomb might be dropped here and that it would have the advantage of preserving the building and doing away with the rest of us, and will confine myself to asking my right hon. Friend whether he will discuss with the TUC the question of the poll carried out for the Sunday Times, which appeared last Sunday. It shows that, far from accepting the views of the Leader of the Opposition, the British people reject reducing taxes as a way of using North Sea oil revenues and prefer creating jobs and stimulating industry. Has my right hon. Friend studied that poll, and will he discuss it with the TUC?
    The Prime Minister: My recollection is that, if the poll is to be believed, there was a substantial group of people who believed that regenerating industry came
    1172
    first, together with finding alternative sources for our oil when it eventually runs out. I believe that they put tax cuts below that. That is in fact the policy that the Government put forward in the White Paper, and I am very happy if there is some confirmation of it.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask the Prime Minister whether when he next meets the TUC there can be, following that discussion, an open and public debate, not confined to the economc committee of the TUC and the Prime Minister, about the future level of pay settlements—whether it is called phase 4 or anything else? Can the whole country be allowed into the discussion about the future level of pay increases and the consequent effects on inflation and unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware that anyone is stopping a public debate. Indeed. I have heard quite a lot of public debate about pay policy. The question is at what stage the Government should join in, and on that I reserve my rights.
    Mr. Pavitt: In his contacts with the TUC, will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to Hansard of 14th April, dealing with trade union matters, which showed beyond a peradventure that however much those on the Opposition Front Bench might think they had an understanding with the trade unions they would never be able to deliver because of the voices behind them?
    The Prime Minister: I always believe that there is a prospect of educating the Opposition, and I—[An HON. MEMBER: "My right hon. Friend is an incurable optimist."] My hon. Friends believe in the fallibility of man, whereas I believe in his redemption. I still believe that it is possible for the Opposition to work with the Trades Union Congress, provided the Opposition repudiate many of the policies they are following at present.
    Mr. Tim Renton: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he explain why the Treasury's latest forecast of current account surplus for this year, at £750 million, is only about half the forecast it made just a few months ago? In view of the alarming recent trade figures, does the Prime Minister think that even that reduced forecast will be met?
    The Prime Minister: I would not attach as much importance to forecasts as the hon. Gentleman apparently does. I beg him to turn to a consideration of some of the things that are actually happening instead of forecasts that may never take place.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Hordernasked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for Tuesday 25th April.
    The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I shall be addressing the fortieth anniversary rally of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.
    Mr. Hordern: In between those important engagements, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to read the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's recent speech at the Mansion House, in which he condemned both Russian and Cuban intervention in Africa? In the light of reports today that both Russia and Cuba intend to step up this level of intervention, what are the Prime Minister's views on this matter, and why does he not refer these interventions to the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: I shall study any reports that have appeared on this subject and get what information is available. I think that the Government's position has been clearly stated and is well known on the position of the Soviet Union in the Horn of Africa, together with Cuban irregulars or regular soldiers. As for referring the matter to the Security Council, the appropriateness of that course must be considered week by week and month by month.
    Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend have time today to begin considering the speech that he intends to deliver to the special session of the United Nations on disarmament? If so, will he include in part of the speech congratulations to President Carter on his decision to postpone the development of the neutron bomb, which has led to a better atmosphere at the SALT II talks in Moscow recently? Will he ask President Carter, therefore, to extend that decision a
    1174
    little from only deferring the development of the bomb to banning completely its development?
    The Prime Minister: I have not been considering the speech today, but I have already started discussing the line that it should take. I had some discussion with Chancellor Schmidt about the general line that we should try to concert among ourselves on disarmament at the United Nations when he was here at the weekend. I think that it is known that we supported the decision of the President of the United States to postpone production of the neutron bomb. I observe that General Secretary Brezhnev has said that he intends not to produce it either, if the reports are to be believed. As for the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty talks, we should not assume that everything in the newspapers represents the real negotiating position between the two sides. I am hopeful that an agreement will be reached.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When the right hon. Gentleman addresses the fortieth anniversary dinner of the WRVS, will he explain why his Government's policy forced it to withdraw its staff in Germany, where it had been manning clubs for Service men for many years, because the Government refused to continue a public funding?
    The Prime Minister: That is not included in the text of my remarks, but what is included is that the Women's Royal Voluntary Service operates on a voluntary basis and that only its expenses are met. If the hon. Gentleman cares to give me some more details about what he has just said, I shall have the matter investigated. I have had no complaint from the WRVS about that which he has raised.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the urgent necessity to get some stability into the world's exchange rates, will my right hon. Friend say what progress he was able to make this weekend on this matter in his talks with Chancellor Schmidt?
    The Prime Minister: It is somewhat difficult to go into these rather technical matters in the course of question and answer. What I think is clear—the general principle that emerged was clearly stated—is that any new arrangements

    1175
    which are in the minds of anybody and which might be devised in Europe, or on a wider basis, should not be in opposition to the present role of the dollar but should be worked out in a way that will assist the dollar and not attack it.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 25th April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern).
    Mr. Flannery: In the midst of my right hon. Friend's many commitments, will he give some thought to the serious situation now developing in respect of the amending Bills to the Employment Protection Act? Will he take into account the highly organised opposition of the Tories against these Private Members' Bills which are dedicated to trying to prevent the sort of events that occurred outside Grunwick and which the Tories are on record as being in opposition to but clearly would like to create throughout the country, and give us time to get these important amending Bills through the House? Will the Government take them over so that the sort of events on the streets that the Tories rejoice in will not need to be engaged in outside any further Grunwicks?
    The Prime Minister: I know that there is a great deal of sympathy for the Bills to which my hon. Friend refers. However, the Government must be reluctant to take over Private Members' Bills. We are talking about Private Members' time and it should be regulated in that way, otherwise we may as well abolish Private Members' time. There would be an awful howl if we did that
    Mr. Adley: I revert to the answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) about the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Does not the right hon. Gentleman have any unease that the Secretary of State's policy on Rhodesia appears to revolve around giving his whole support to a group of men who have admitted that what they want to see in Rhodesia is the creation of a one-party Marxist State?
    The Prime Minister: I have read some remarks made by Mr. Mugabe about this topic and I hope that when there is one man, one vote and one woman, one vote in Rhodesia, or in the new Zimbabwe, those concerned will take those views into account and vote accordingly. I would not find myself able to support Mr. Mugabe on that basis, and I hope that the voters will not do so either.
    Mr. Radice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the drop in unemployment levels announced today is especialy welcome in the Northern Region? Is he also aware that if unemployment levels are to keep coming down we must expand our own economy and ensure that the West German economy is expanded?
    The Prime Minister: I was, as I am sure was the whole House, gratified to see that for the seventh-month running there has been another small fall in the number of unemployed and a rather larger increase in the number of vacancies, so that the seasonally corrected figure is now 5·7 per cent. I agree that an expansion of our economies generally will be of assistance in reducing the number of unemployed, but the Western countries are facing structural changes and structural challenges as a result of the transfer of technology to some of the newer countries.
    Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to find time today to see his Press Secretary and to ask him how it was that a letter on the subject of forthcoming changes at the head of the two intelligence services was wrongfully sent to the editor of the Morning Star? Will he ask him whether that was an error or whether it was done on purpose?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have seen the Press Secretary today. The letter that was sent informed newspaper editors of the reasons why the Government did not propose to announce the names of the two new appointments to particular posts. No newspaper has published the names, and I am very grateful for that. The Morning Star has not published the names. It has expressed the view that it does not wish to add to any possible physical danger to the holders of these posts, but it uses the letter to criticise the secrecy of the operations of the intelligence and security services. That, of course, is the

    1177
    right of the Morning Star in the free and democratic society in which it operates.

PRESTON
Mr. Thorneasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Preston.
The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Preston.
Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the two issues that concern the people of Preston are jobs and housing? May we expect an early input of public expenditure addressed to those two specific problems?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that over £150 million was injected to help employment. Preston has specifically benefited from that and the Government's decision to help keep the port of Preston open by making a substantial grant. I am told that about 4,500 workers in Preston have benefited overall.
As regards housing, it is true that the allocations of funds to Preston and other towns in the area have been affected by the decision to build the Central Lancashire new town. Building in the new town is affecting building programmes in areas such as that which my hon. Friend represents.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that about 20 years ago one of his predecessors, Mr. Harold Macmillan, opened the first motorway around Preston? Does he realise that the motorway with which we are most concerned, the Calder Valley motorway, has had a history of muddle, delay and misery in the past four years as a result of the postponement by the Government? Will he give his personal attention to the speeding up of the completion of the vital link from Preston to North-East Lancashire?
The Prime Minister: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. One of the Government's priorities in building motorways lies in the South-West, which has suffered in the past because of the concentration on the industrial Midlands and the North. I am
1178

expecting to receive encomiums of praise from all the Conservative and Liberal Members in the South-West.
Mr. Heffer: When my right hon. Friend finally goes to Preston, will he call in on Merseyside on the way? Will he give the Merseyside dockers full support for turning round the ships at record speed, and for the fact that there has not been a dispute in the Liverpool docks for four and a half years? Will he contrast that with the fact that the Southampton docks have been closed, for whatever reason, for the past 14 days, and that not one national newspaper has thought fit to explain the dispute, although Merseyside is constantly attacked for any type of dispute that takes place in the area?
The Prime Minister: I think that it is the desire of the whole House that industrial relations in Liverpool and the industrial progress of Liverpool should be seen in perspective. I am sure that it is right for my hon. Friend to draw attention to the record of the Liverpool dockers, who are involved in an important part of our industrial complex. I shall be receiving a deputation from Merseyside on Thursday that will be led by my hon. Friend. I look forward to discussing these matters with him then.

ARMED FORCES (PAY)
3.31 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the pay of the Armed Services.
The Seventh Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is published today and copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are most grateful to the Review Body for all its work in producing this report.
The Review Body has concluded that the pay of the Armed Forces has fallen seriously behind in the period since April 1975 and the report states that increases in pay of between 19 per cent. and 38 per cent.—averaging 32 per cent.—are now required to restore the full military salary. It recommends that the full military salary should be restored at the earliest possible date, but it recognises the Government's expectation that increases which

1179
exceed the guidelines would need to be staged. It has recommended that this staging should be completed not later than 1st April 1980.
The Government accept the Review Body's recommendations on the levels of the military salary. These will be fully implemented to the current levels for 1st April 1980 in two approximately equal stages after this year and, as the Review Body recommends, the Government give a firm commitment to that effect.
In considering the levels of the military salary, the Review Body has had regard to the element which recognises the balance of disadvantage of Service life by comparison with civil life, known in the Services as the "X" factor. It has also taken into account allowances and charges.
The Government have reached conclusions on these various elements in the light of the Review Body's conclusions and the following arrangements will apply for the year from 1st April 1978. There will be an increase of 10 per cent. in the military salary together with an increase in the "X" factor within the amount recommended by the Review Body, which will add 3 per cent. in total. The extent to which these percentages will be implemented will vary from rank to rank as differentials are restored. In addition, the rate of Northern Ireland pay will be doubled to £1 per day. There will be certain changes in allowances and a standstill in charges for accommodation pending a further examination by the Review Body. These together will add a further 1 per cent. to the net bill.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is arranging for a summary of the new pay scales to be placed in the Vote Office later this afternoon. I fear that they were not there at 3.30 p.m., but we shall get them there as soon as we can.
These arrangements now secure for the Armed Forces a firm assurance about their future conditions of service and will meet, I believe, the view expressed by the Review Body that their particular problems should be recognised.
The men and women who serve in the forces have many diverse and difficult roles, and they have undertaken a number of additional tasks, some of them very dangerous as in Northern Ireland. The
1180
country is grateful to them, and I should like to pay tribute once again to the professionalism and dedication with which they carry out their many responsibilities.
Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to put three points to the Prime Minister. The first is a general one. Is he aware that his statement shows that the Government have failed lamentably to provide the levels of pay that the Services need and deserve? Our people are deeply disturbed that the forces have been let down in matters of pay and this statement means that they will continue to be let down for some time to come.
Secondly, social benefits. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that, as a result of his statement today, members of the Forces will no longer need to apply for rent and rate rebates and other social benefits?
Thirdly, comparability. As average earnings for the nation as a whole are rising by about 14 per cent. a year and as forces' pay has fallen behind that of their civilian equivalents by some 32 per cent., is the Prime Minister aware that this award means that for another year the Services are going to stay as far behind as they are now? Why have the Government done nothing this year to reduce the gap which has led to so many resignations and sapped morale in the Forces? Is he aware that we welcome the promise to restore comparability in two years, but note that promises so far in the future cost this Government nothing? We shall restore comparability, and restore it more quickly.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady has expressed her view, and she is entitled to it, but I notice that she said nothing about the impact and reaction of these matters upon the community as a whole. I believe that the great success that the Government have had has been in enjoining upon everyone the need to accept certain restrictions in order that we may go forward together—for example, as the firemen have done. I shall be interested to know whether what the right hon. Lady said about the Armed Forces applies also to the firemen in their forward commitment and elsewhere. If so, I promise her that, if she ever were in a position to do this, she would find herself either having to go back on her pledge or making a lot more trouble for herself.

1181
But it would not be the first time that a Conservative Government had gone back on their pledges. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) is too young to remember.
As regards rent and rate rebates, I realise that the right hon. Lady has not yet had the opportunity of reading the reports which will be in the Vote Office, but she will find there a statement to the effect that the Review Body hopes that nobody will believe that applications for rent and rate rebates are in any way wrong, improper or a confession of poverty. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady had better wait and read the report. She could have had one with pleasure if she had wanted one. If that is a source of complaint, I ask her to make it formal. I believe that the right hon. Lady would say that I have never failed in my courtesy in sending her statements if ever she needed anything, and I should have been glad to supply her with one.
I am not making any particular point, except that the Review Body says that the system of rent rebates should continue, that it is in the interests of the forces that it should continue and that it should not be regarded as wrong or be used in some way as evidence of poverty if rebates are made in this way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I suggest that, instead of shouting their heads off, Opposition Members should read the report and then they can question us again on the matter.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that many members of the Armed Services will accept this recommendation by the Government, understanding the economic situation and the need to maintain some kind of incomes policy? Does he agree that it would be disastrous for the Armed Services if this issue were to be exploited by the Opposition at a time when the Government's counter-inflation policy is working and the Armed Services and other groups realise that their responsibility towards that aim is recognised by the Government in the report?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the Opposition will be able to exploit this issue, because the country has too much common sense and will recognise the difficult series of decisions involved
1182
in reaching a conclusion of this sort. The majority of people in this country will believe that we have taken a sensible and fair decision, coupled with a firm pledge to bring the Armed Forces up to equivalent and comparable levels in the next two years.
These increases will mean that for a private I the increase in actual pay, as distinct from other allowances, is £6 to £8 a week. For a corporal it is £8 to £10 a week, and for a sergeant £9 to £11. These should not be sneezed at. They are quite substantial sums, especially when added to by some of the allowances and the increases in charges that will now be held back.
Mx. Powell: When the new rates are applied, as I assume they will be, to the Ulster Defence Regiment, will the Prime Minister ensure that special attention is given to the differential between that regiment and the rest of the Army? This differential has been widening in real terms recently and will be widened further as a result of his announcement.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the last part of the right hon. Member's question is right, but I shall take it from him at the moment and I shall ask the Secretary of State for Defence to look into this matter.
Mr. English: Is there any particular reason for the Prime Minister announcing this pay increase, as distinct from the Minister of Defence? Will he say whether this complete breach of pay policy signifies, as many Members on this side of this House would welcome, the scrapping of the incomes policy?
The Prime Minister: There is no particular reason for my announcing this increase—only the precedent that Prime Ministers always do. As regards the position on pay policy, we have tried to give a square deal to the Armed Forces that is consonant with the recovery in which this country is engaged at present. I am not discussing in general terms the future of pay policy. There are differences of view about that. However, there can be no difference of view about the fact that, as a result of the restraint of the last two years, inflation is down to single figures and still coming down. The country recognises that even if my hon. Friend does not.
Mr. Hooson: Is the Prime Minister aware that I welcome the announcement, and that even though the increase is well above the 10 per cent. the country will accept it because of the particular circumstances of the Armed Forces? Will the Prime Minister agree that the finding of the Review Body now—that the Armed Forces had fallen way behind—is the same as the finding that the Review Body made in 1974—that the Armed Forces had fallen behind under the Conservatives? Does this not show that the Armed Forces suffer particularly from intermittent pay policies and that therefore this indicates the need for a permanent pay policy in this country?
The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has correctly called attention to the fact that in 1975 the Armed Forces Review Body specifically commented that the Armed Forces had fallen seriously short as a result of pay policy in the years when the Opposition were in office. I was not going to bring that up, but it it quite clear and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for mentioning it. However, we should not have a competition between the two sides on who can do worse for the Armed Forces. The question is whether we can give them a square deal. The undertaking I have given will ensure that they are brought up to comparable status within two years and this will be generally accepted and welcomed. If there are better ways of determining the pay of public servants, I believe that we should certainly try to find them. I have noted with interest what Mr. Basnett and others have said about this matter. I have seen this over so many years. I do not think that the House would want any group of public servants, whether they be in the Armed Forces or elsewhere, to suffer on these accounts.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Prime Minister accept that this is anything but a square deal for the Armed Forces? If they have fallen behind by 32 per cent. they should be paid 32 per cent. now. What will happen to the Government's promise to bring their pay up to comparable levels in two years' time? Will he agree that it is time Governments accepted that the Armed Forces and, indeed, the police as well, should be outside the restraints of incomes policy, whether it is
1184
voluntary or in accordance with guidelines? Will he not agree that the Armed Forces should be paid accordingly?
The Prime Minister: I understand the right hon. Member's view, but no section of the community can be outside the general welfare of the community. We are all one nation here and everyone has his or her part to play in it. In a very difficult situation the Government have gone as far as they can in meeting the legitimate demands and requests of the Armed Forces.
Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement seems to me to rest on three fundamental principles—firmness, fairness and flexibility? Is he aware that these are far better bases for conducting industrial relations than the party political gamesmanship indulged in by the Leader of the Opposition on pay policy?
The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is to be expected that the Opposition will make the most of what they can, but people will judge whether what is being said represents the real interests of the country. I am content to leave it to the country. I have stated the Government's position and I believe that it will be accepted by the great majority of people.
Sir David Renton: In view of the expected serious shortage of RAF pilots and the fact that it takes a long time and lots of money to train a pilot, will the Prime Minister say whether he considers that the very limited statement on the increased pay which he has announced will rectify that serious situation?
The Prime Minister: I think that it will. The increases that are proposed, for example, for the equivalent of captains and majors run into several hundreds of pounds, although they are of the order of 11 per cent., 12 per cent., and 13 per cent. This, coupled with the firm assurance about the next two years, will have a marked effect on the Armed Forces. It is not as easy as some hon. Members think to get comparable salaries outside for every grade.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister tell us the total costs of the Government's proposals and how they will be included in the current Defence Estimates? Can he say, in view of the

1185
remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, how her proposal squares with the Conservatives' clear determination to propose very substantial tax decreases in the course of the Finance Bill?
The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that it is not my responsibility to answer for the dilemma of the Leader of the Opposition. We have looked into the question of cash limits, and I understand that these can be accommodated within the total figures that have been set out in the Estimates. Perhaps my hon. Friend would question the Secretary of State for Defence more closely.
Mr. Alan Clark: Will the Prime Minister agree, and was this not confirmed to him by my constituent Mrs. Fergusson of the Service Wives Committee, whom he met in Plymouth last Friday, that what causes most distress and resentment among Service families is the way in which their take-home pay is constantly eroded by deductions for housing, for subsistence and in some cases even for transporting their children to school? Does he not feel that this should be looked at very closely over the next two years?
The Prime Minister: I accept that this was put to me as being one of the factors that this group of ladies discussed with me. I took account of what they said. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I said there would be certain changes in allowances which I believed could be accommodated—I have not gone into details and I am not sure that they cover the particular ones that were raised with me—but certainly these can be looked at over the next two years.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Opposition are following their usual line on defence questions and are saying that they would spend more than the Government but without specifying how much? Does he also recollect that it is the declared Conservative policy that such extra expenditure should be met not out of taxation but by reduction of the social services? This means that although hon. Members opposite make a great deal of fuss about defence, they are not prepared to put their hands in their own pockets for it.
The Prime Minister: Yes. No doubt next week we shall be met with demands for reduced taxation, as I have read in the newspapers. That is bound to increase the borrowing requirement, to which the Opposition are also opposed. One day perhaps they may begin to clear up their own difficulties.
Mr. Goodhart: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year there were proposals to cut the take-home pay of Service men in Germany by 14 per cent. through a review of the local overseas allowance? This was postponed for 12 months. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that Service men in Germany will not have this meagre increase clawed back later in the year by a change in the local overseas allowance?
The Prime Minister: I understand that local overseas allowance is not covered by this statement and is still under consideration.
Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued success of the fight against inflation is just as important to every Service man and his family as it is to every industrial worker and his family? Whilst it is right and proper that the Services should have their working conditions examined from time to time in the House of Commons, it is much more important that my right hon. Friend should seek the views of the TUC and the CBI in all considerations of any form of wage increase and not take too much notice of the criticisms of Conservative Members, who have now reached a level at which they even use the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom for political purposes.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My correspondence and my meetings show that those members of the Armed Forces who correspond with me or address me are as concerned with overcoming inflation as anyone else. They have found it extremely difficult to continue with their livelihoods during the last two years. I think that what is taking place now, together with a firm pledge for the future, will help them to meet this, and I believe that this is generally recognised.
Mr. Wall: In view of the widespread erosion of the morale of the Forces and the police and their importance to the security of the State, will the Prime

1187
Minister say whether he considers them to be a special case?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have deliberately avoided using the term "special case". We take each case on its merits, and that is what we have done on this occasion.
Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), a few minutes ago, will he initiate discussions with Mr. David Basnett and other TUC leaders designed to take the pay of non-industrial public servants out of the political and wage-bargaining arena, perhaps by indexing them to manufacturing wages?
The Prime Minister: I have had many years' experience of negotiating wage increases, and I am not sure that that would be an appropriate thing to do. But I should be very happy indeed to discuss with Mr. Basnett any of his views to try to get a basis which will be acceptable, which will not add to inflation and on which other people cannot build.
This is a very complex problem. It is one to which the House, I hope—perhaps in less of a partisan spirit than seems to exist this afternoon—will devote its attention, because there is no doubt that on occasions the public services use the private services to build on, and the converse can happen, too, and set off another wage explosion. I am determined that that shall not happen, no matter what is said.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that before we come to the Wales Bill, which is under a timetable motion, there is a Ten-Minute Bill and a point of order, so I propose to bring these questions to an end at 4 o'clock.
Mr. Viggers: Does the Prime Minister accept that local overseas allowance is not, in fact, part of pay at all but an allowance for living abroad? When can we expect a further statement on this matter, bearing in mind, for example, that local overseas allowance in Gibraltar has been frozen for two years for the Services whereas those personnel in the Foreign Service have had rises ranging from 54 per cent. to 86 per cent. and,
1188
indeed, receive London allowance as well for living in Gibraltar?
The Prime Minister: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure that he will put it in due course to the Secretary of State for Defence, who has also heard what he said.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the Prime Minister accept that most fair-minded people will see this as a fair package for the Armed Forces? However, did he hear the leader of the Scottish National Party say that there should be a 32 per cent. award straight away? What should we in Scotland say to firemen, police and others about such a proposal? Might not this be best left to the proposed Defence Committee of the Scottish Assembly?
The Prime Minister: I thought that it was a way of trying to get votes for an independent Scotland so that the Armed Forces of Scotland would be so well paid. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the SNP nods his agreement to this. But I have a feeling that the people of Scotland are not as easily taken in as all that.
Mr. Emery: Will the Prime Minister clarify his statement on comparability? If, using the averages, the 13 per cent. paid this year will reduce the discrepancy from 32 per cent. to 19 per cent., and if in the next two years the comparability factor means that there will be another, say, 12 per cent. per annum, which is 24 per cent. by April 1980, plus 19 per cent., is the Prime Minister giving an absolute undertaking for all further Governments that 20 per cent. increases, if they are averaged over the two years, will be given to the forces in the next two years?
The Prime Minister: I shall not go into the figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because no one knows what the figures will be—except the howling mob opposite. I am taking the hon. Gentleman seriously. I do not take some of his hon. Friends so seriously. They seem to be more intent on making party points about it.
However, taking the hon. Gentleman's question, I made it clear, and I should like to repeat it, that the Government give a firm commitment to the effect that the increases will not only overtake the arrears that now exist—if that is the proper term for them—but will take

1189
account of increases that are gained during the next two years. That is another reason for us keeping increases to the minimum that we can, because these will be very substantial improvements.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been better to concentrate help where it is needed most, amongst the ordinary worker in uniform rather than the chiefs of staff, who have already had a £750 hand-out under the Budget? Does he also agree that the paternalistic approach of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body needs to be replaced by effective trade union organisation and collective bargaining machinery to deal with the many problems faced by members of the Armed Forces?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will no doubt be interested to learn that the chiefs of staff are excluded from this report. As regards a trade union, having witnessed the events of the last few weeks, I have a feeling that the Armed Forces do better without a trade union than they would do with one.
Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that on the Government side of the House we all believe in decent pay for the Armed Forces, both now and in the future, and we hope that in the future it can be substantially improved? Does he agree, however, that the total defence expenditure is quite a burden on the British economy and that we must look forward to the possibility of advancing detente policies in order to reduce our burden and to make it possible to pay these men much better than they are going to be paid? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it does not help the process of detente for third-rate lectures in Austria by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition on what is supposed to be Marxism—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to extend the time for these questions by two minutes. I did not hold a fair balance in the questions. But if questions are very long, it is easy to cut out the other side.
The Prime Minister: I might ask why I should suffer, Mr. Speaker.
1190
Defence is, of course, a burden on the budgets of every country, including the developing countries, whose increase in the arms burden is so severe. Therefore, it is right that we should try to get a measure of disarmament as soon as we can. But I am bound to say that until we can, I do not think it would be the proper balance to increase the pay of the Armed Forces to the point at which they would go into battle knowing that all their rent was paid but without having the equip-merit to fight.
Mr. Charles Morrison: Regardless of whether anyone thinks that this award is fair and regardless of incomes policy, why does the Prime Minister think that this award will stop the loss of manpower from the Armed Services? In particular, why will it stop the loss of expensively trained pilots, already referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), when they can receive far greater awards in civil airlines in different parts of the world?
The Prime Minister: I think that some of these detailed questions ought to be put down to the Secretary of State for Defence, because I do not wish to get some of these very complicated matters incorrect—though I am told that in the case of some of the pilots to whom the hon. Gentleman refers there is a substantial increase. But I would sooner he got the exact details from my right hon. Friend by putting Questions to him.
I think that when people come to look at this and see the increases that are involved, which are substantial, and they recognise that there are attractions and advantages in Service life—none of which has been mentioned during the last few weeks coupled with the firm assurance that has been given, they will recognise that this makes a reasonable career for a young man. With that I am satisfied.
Mr. Pattie: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the current exodus of Service personnel relates to the previous inadequate pay awards and that this award will cause the present stream to become a flood? Does he not realise that the country can appreciate that if miners and power workers were leaving their industries at the rate at which Service men are leaving the Services, a deal of 30

1191
per cent., and the rest, would be cobbled together?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I have the figures of redundancy, premature voluntary release and medical discharge, and they do not bear out some of the wilder accounts we have been hearing over the last few weeks. I hope that some hon. Members will put down some Questions to ask for the actual figures. They are bound to be very revealing.
Mr. Skinner: On the subject of rent rebates, does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Housing Finance Act, which was euphemistically called the "fair rent Act", was introduced in 1972, the Tories said that it could affect up to 40 per cent. of council tenants and therefore was not designed to fit the needs of those who were merely on the poverty line? Will he also appreciate that his little difficulty this afternoon has been caused mainly by the fact that he is operating against the backcloth of an incomes policy? Will he bear in mind the fact that while a few Liberals and a few trade union leaders may support a phase 4, there are millions of trade unionists who say that they want nothing more to do with an incomes policy and that it would be better if the Government got out of the middle of that ring?
The Prime Minister: I was not aware that I had discussed a phase 4. What I am discussing is a perennial problem, which will remain with us whether we have an incomes policy or not—that the Government are a large employer and must take a view about their public sector and the public services. The Government therefore cannot get out of the ring on these matters. They should take a view and negotiate. One day my hon. Friend will discover this, when he is doing the negotiation himself.
As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I repeat what I have said before—that it would be wrong to assume that what was done under the Act to which my hon. Friend referred has a direct relationship to the system of rent and rate rebates in the Armed Forces—if I understand correctly the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. There, it is related to the size of family and other questions. If I have that report
1192
aright, I hope that we shall get away from saying that, ipso facto, someone applying for this relief is poverty-stricken or is below the level which is appropriate. I understand that that is not the case, so we should not encourage that view.
Sir Ian Gilmour: The Prime Minister has this afternoon shown a remarkable ignorance of this whole subject. Perhaps that explains why he has not given the forces a square deal. Is he aware that what he said about keeping these increases within cash limits is totally wrong? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed the other day what everybody else knows—that a pay increase is outside the defence budget?
The Prime Minister: I of course take due note of the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman. I will observe them duly and I am humbly sorry if he thinks that I have not managed to satisfy him this afternoon. However, I have to satisfy not just the right hon. Gentleman but the whole community. That is the responsibility I have and that is what I am discharging today.

ARMED FORCES (PAY)

  NEW MEMBER
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
  John Vincent Tilley Esq., for Lambeth, Central.

QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULINGS)
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I should like to raise relates to part of your statement on privilege on Friday. I gave you notice of it yesterday and you asked me to postpone it until today.
My first point concerns the right of the House to make points of order on statements by Mr. Speaker. In February 1978, the House passed new rules about privilege, one of which made it clear that there could be no points of order on your rulings. However, there are occasions when you make a statement which contains both a ruling and other matters on which points of order might be appropriate. I would hope that on those occasions when you make, as it were, a "hybrid" statement—our traditional right under Standing Orders to make

1193
points of order should not be eroded by the rule of 6th February. I should like your ruling on that.
Second, I am concerned solely with the fifth paragraph of that ruling, in which you mentioned an order prohibiting the use of the colonel's name and reinterpreted the ruling from the exact words in which it was made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
I should like to raise three points. First, what is the basis of the words:
"In view of the order of the court prohiting the disclosure of the colonel's name"?
That was not the form of words used by the DPP, and great concern has been expressed about it.
Secondly, I hope that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that your form of words in the statement—
"to remove the matter from the jurisdiction of the courts and then claim that the courts have no further power".—[Official Report, 21st April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 866.]—
does not correspond to any stated or unstated objective either by the right hon. Member for Crosby, who moved the motion, or by me and my hon. Friends. As I understand it, the privileges of the courts are wholly for them, just as ours are wholly for us.
Thirdly, would you accept that sometimes situations of such national importance can arise that Parliament must have its say, irrespective of the position of the courts in the matter?
I would not wish you to rule immediately on this matter, Sir, but I would ask you to take these points into consideration in any further statements that you may make or in any contacts that you may have with the two Front Benches, since they expressed a desire yesterday that this matter should be fully thrashed out on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) gave me notice of a point of order. I do not know whether he gave notice as well to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). I want to deal with the point of order which has been raised. If the hon. Member has also had notice, that is another matter.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On the same point, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as my hon.
1194
Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) did not ask you, to rule on the sentence you used in your statement on Friday? It is a part of the defence case that there was no court order prohibiting the disclosure—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he is beginning to refer to the criminal court case which I said we are not going to discuss.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking points of order any further on this: the hon. Gentleman must understand. I am saying to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West that of course I shall bear in mind the matters that he has raised.
Later—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to enlarge on any statement I have made in connection with the earlier case. If the hon. Gentleman has another point of order, I am prepared to listen.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I make a submission on the third point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman obviously feels that his hon. Friend has not made himself clear and perhaps wants to help him out. I have undertaken to consider what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take into consideration another element? You will recall that in the debate of the report of the Committee of Privileges on 6th February this year the Lord President made a statement on privilege when he said,
"There are two sides to the privilege coin. On one side it is essential, for the authority and rights of this House, and essential if the hon. Members are to perform their functions adequately, that there should be an absolute right for hon. Members to be able to speak freely in this House without any intervention from monarchs, newspaper proprietors or whoever it may be. People in this House must be allowed.…."—[Official Report, 6th February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1194–5.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Without the slightest disrespect to the Lord President, I am not responsible for his speeches and I make no claim to be responsible for them. I am concerned with the interpretation of the rules of the House.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter concerning Prime Minister's Questions today. I deferred raising this matter since the Prime Minister was to make a statement on defence and I thought that it would be more convenient and courteous to you and the House to raise the matter now.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that there were 55 Questions down to the Prime Minister today. Every one of them referred to his timetable. We have had arguments before about how Prime Minister's Question Time should be conducted. Like other hon. Members. I have tried to put down Questions to the Prime Minister on broad policy, but they have all been transferred. May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker? We have now reached the point at which Prime Minister's Questions, in terms of the Order Paper, have become a nonsense.
Do we accept as a House that the only Questions which the Prime Minister's Office is prepared to accept on his behalf relate to his timetable? I am sure that it is for the convenience of the House and of the Prime Minister that we revert to the practice of former times when one could table Questions on broad Government policy to the Prime Minister which were accepted and not transferred to departmental Ministers.
In view of the fact that we are now on the air and being judged by a wider audience, I suggest that this matter should be examined. I have no other means of raising the matter with you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Mendelson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman raising the same point of order?
Mr. Mendelson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to urge you to find some means of making a further reference to the Procedure Committee, or of consulting the two sides of the House. When the Procedure Committee discussed this matter, we had the fullest co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and a considerable amount of time was spent in reaching agreement. The Prime Minister assured us, and that assurance was conveyed to the House, that in about 85 to 90 per cent. of all cases he would deal with substantive Questions raised with him. It is a matter of great regret that I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price)—namely, to the effect that we have not acted on that recommendation and have made it impossible for the Prime Minister to implement it.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to both hon. Gentlemen for the way in which they have raised this matter. It is, of course, for the Prime Minister to decide which Questions he accepts, and no doubt he will learn of what has been said this afternoon.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Hungary) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ghana) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Medicines (Radioactive Substances) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

LIQUOR PRIZES
4.15 p.m.
Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the clarification of the law relating to the use of intoxicating liquor as a prize.
I beg leave of the House to present a short Bill to clarify a narrow part of our licensing laws. Before you, Mr. Speaker, or any other hon. Members react anxiously at the thought of tampering with the drink laws, let me explain that I am not seeking to implement any recommendations of the 1972 Erroll Report, although I personally feel strongly that a reform of our restrictive and complicated licensing laws is very much overdue.
What I seek to do today is to effect a small exemption clause in the Licensing Act 1964 so as to allow a common and widespread practice to be brought within the law.
At present, as the law stands, anybody offering liquor as a prize in a draw or tombola unless he has secured a justices' licence is breaking the law. Most hon. Members, or their wives, attend functions each week at which they perform the drawing of winning tickets. Sometimes we find ourselves winning a prize and often feel constrained to put it back to be drawn again.
A large number of these draws or raffles are in aid of worthy charitable causes. Anybody connected with such organisations, as most hon. Members are, will know of the vast amounts of money raised in this way for national and local voluntary campaigns. I must point out that so far as I am aware there has been little or no interference with these activities by the police authorities, certainly in regard to actual prosecutions.
However, in December of last year I was approached by a constituency charity organiser, Mr. Ken Mullins, who is also a local JP, who complained that his fund-raising organisation "Teddy Charities"—nothing to do, incidentally, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—an organisation which raises a great deal of money for various disablement organisations in the area, had to curtail its use of liquor as prizes for bottle stalls at charity fetes and fairs. This followed advice which he had
1198
received from the Devon and Cornwall police authority that such a use of liquor prizes was illegal in that it constituted a "sale" of intoxicating liquor in unlicensed premises.
The action which started up the whole inquiry was the reported closing of a bottle stall at a local fete at Heles School, Exeter. The perhaps over-enthusiastic police constable training at the Police Training College was perfectly within his rights in pointing out that the law as it stood had to be effected in this way. Although prosecutions have not been made, advice has been issued by the police authorities stating the facts as they stand.
Not all that long ago there was a hoo-hah about drink provided at all those wine-and-cheese functions and other social occasions. It was clearly then decided that a justices' licence—an "occasional licence", as it is called—is required when these functions take place on unlicensed premises.
My case was not quite as clear cut as that. Nevertheless, I could see that although the police authorities would not wish to interfere with worthwhile charity activities, if asked to intervene they would have to state the law as they saw it. I thought that the best course of action was to write to the Home Office to obtain clarification. As is so often the case when. Members of Parliament write to that Department, the answer was very disappointing. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who is the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, took two months to inform me:
"The question whether a person who offers intoxicating liquor as a prize in a draw or game of chance, could be regarded as selling the liquor without a justices' licence and thereby guilty of an offence is a question of law which can ultimately only be decided by the courts. It is not one on which the Home Secretary can express an authoritative opinion."
The hon. Lady went on to state in her letter that there was no prospect at present of early Government legislation on this subject.
However, on 28th January, a week previous to the Home Office letter, an article appeared in the law Journal, Justice of the Peace, dealing specifically with the question of liquor prizes. Because of increased interest in this matter, the editors

1199
had asked Mr. J. N. Martin, editor of "Paterson's Licensing Acts", to examine, as they put it
"the growing phenomenon, the use of alcoholic liquor as a prize or stimulus to sales".
I shall not attempt to go into the details of that article, except to say that it confirms that the exchange of a ticket or payment constitutes a sale or transaction, comes within the Licensing Act 1964, Sections 160 and 196, and therefore requires a justices' licence for that sale.
I then went to the deputy chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary and I received a letter which clearly stated the following:
"I have to inform you that in my view if intoxicating liquor is offered as a prize in a draw, it is unlawful in as much as it constitutes a sale".
He went on to reiterate that the police did not go looking for this type of offence, but finished by stating:
"However, when advice has been sought, it is up to us to state the law as it appears to us"
Therefore, having with my layman's eye carefully examined the legal aspects of this widespread practice, I am convinced that the Home Secretary's advice that the courts should clarify this matter is wrong. The legal precedents indicate to me that the courts would support the police view.
My Bill—which I hope the Government will support and the House will speed
1200
on its way—seeks very simply to remove any doubt about the nature of such prizes. The one-clause Bill will provide that,
"For the avoidance of doubt, the use of intoxicating liquor as a prize in any form of competition, gaming, lottery or other amusement shall not be regarded as a sale, exposure for sale, or a transaction in the nature of a sale of the Licensing Act 1964".
I know that hon. Members would not wish to have to decline the purchase of draw and raffle tickets at the various functions they attend, and certainly they would not wish to curtail the essential fund-raising activities of the many thousands of charities which help the handicapped and elderly. I therefore ask the House to support the introduction of this short Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Tim Sainsbury, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Alan Clark and Mr. Jerry Wiggin.

LIQUOR PRIZES
  LIQUOR PRIZES
  Mr. John Hannam accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the clarification of the law relating to the use of intoxicating liquor as a prize; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th May and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WALES BILL
  [9th ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 19th April.]
  [Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

  WALES BILL
    New Clause No. 1

      PERIOD BETWEEN GENERAL ELECTION AND REFERENDUM
      "If a proclamation summoning a new Parliament is made before a referendum is held in pursuance of section 83 above, the referendum shall not be held earlier than three months after the date of the poll at the election of members for the new Parliament; and if an earlier date has been appointed by Order in Council under paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to this Act, the Order shall not take effect, but without prejudice to the making of a new Order under that paragraph.".—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.21 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Committee may recollect that when we were dealing with the Scotland Bill an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was carried, against the Government's advice, providing for a gap of three months between a General Election and the referendum if a General Election preceded the referendum.
      The Government accept that it is desirable that a similar provision should appear in the Wales Bill. The wording of the new clause is, I think, an improvement on the wording which my hon. Friend had inserted in the Scotland Bill, and perhaps I should add at this point that we have tabled a similar amendment to the Scotland Bill in another place so that both Bills will be the same.
      This matter was grouped for debate, although not reached, on the last occasion. In the circumstances, perhaps the Committee will accept my assurance that what the new clause does is to put into the Wales Bill a provision similar to that which was carried into the Scotland Bill, though putting it in correct legal language.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: It would be churlish and curmudgeonly of me were I not to acknowledge what the Government have done, in more eloquent language than I prepared for the Scotland Bill.
      Mr. Francis Pym: I thank the Government for tabling the new clause and for the way in which the Minister moved it. I am sure that he was wise to table it and fulfil the wish of the Committee that in the arrangements made for the referendum what applies to Scotland should apply also to Wales. The only instance in respect of which they did not try to do that was the 40 per cent. requirement, and on that they got an even dustier answer than the one they had earlier. They were, therefore, wise to do what they have. At any rate, I am grateful for it.
      However, as we are debating this aspect of the Bill, that is to say, the timing of the referendum and the wise separation of the campaign and vote on the referendum from any General Election, may I ask the Minister of State again about the running of the referendums in Scotland and in Wales on the same day?
      On the assumption that the Wales Bill becomes law in the present Session—and the Scotland Bill, too, for that matter, though that also is speculative—do the Government intend to hold the referendums in Scotland and in Wales on the same day?
      It has long seemed to us that that would be highly desirable. At an earlier stage, the Government indicated that such was their intention. To be fair to the Minister, they did not give an absolute commitment, but there was a clear indication that that was their intention. In recent months, I have found a clear desire in the House that these referendums, if they are to be held, should be held on the same day, for all sorts of reasons. This is, I suggest, a good moment for the Government to tell us whether, in that event, now that they have moved the new clause in terms similar to the provision now in the Scotland Bill, they intend that both should be held on the same day.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I also thank the Minister for tabling the new clause. Not only is it right that the procedure here should be related to what has

      1203
      been decided for the Scotland Bill; it is of considerable importance on its own merits, since it is not desirable that one event should, as it were, be overshadowed by the other.
      I regard three months as a minimum period. For my part, I should prefer the period to be a trifle longer, but certainly we should have this minimum period between the holding of a General Election and the holding of a referendum.
      I strongly endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It is of enormous importance that the referendums should be separate but be held on the same day so that the result of one should not be affected by the result of the other. In my submission, it would be bad if the result in Scotland—or, vice versa, in Wales—were to influence the result in the other country. The facts and conditions might be greatly different, yet if there were a decisive result one way or the other in either Scotland or Wales and the other referendum were held a considerable time later, there would obviously be an effect, and this would be most undesirable.
      I urge, therefore, that the two events be held on the same day.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I follow the point raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) that there would be confusion if the referendum were held on the same day as a General Election. We accept entirely that there would be considerable confusion. We do not agree that a period of three months is necessary, but I consider that it should be at least a month.
      However, I wish to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Barry as he went on from that argument. If there were confusion if we had the two campaigns at the same time—the General Election campaign and the campaign on a referendum for the Welsh Assembly—by the same argument there could be confusion if we had the referendum for Scotland and for Wales on the same day.
      Conservative Members and others have strongly pressed, especially about 12 months ago, when they were trying to separate the Welsh element from the Scottish element and put them into two separate Bills, that the circumstances are
      1204
      entirely different. The arguments in relation to establishing the Assembly are different. The arguments in relation to the powers of the Assembly are different, as are the arguments about the functions which the Assembly will undertake. This is bound to have an effect on a referendum if it is held on the same day as the referendum for Scotland.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I am not committed to exactly the same day. The principle which I was applying is that the effect of one referendum result should not influence the other. I do not mind if they are held on successive days or within a few days of one another, so long as the result in one case is not made known before the other referendum is held.
      Mr. Wigley: Obviously, if there is any length of time between the referendums for Scotland and for Wales, the result of one will be known before the result of the other. But to the extent that the result in Scotland can influence, as the hon. Member for Barry believes, the way people may vote in Wales—or the other way round—there is an even stronger argument that the campaigns in relation to the two referendums will influence each other.
      If the hon. Gentleman is trying to ensure that there is fair play in the referendum, what he should safeguard against is the probability that people will be influenced in Wales by arguments which are not pertinent to Wales—arguments in relation to the West Lothian question, for example, arguments to do with the legislative function of the Scottish Assembly, which does not exist for the Welsh Assembly, and so on. Such arguments may well be paraded about Wales, and, conversely, there may be arguments about the Welsh language or the like which have no relevance to Scotland.
      For better or for worse, the media that will be affecting the referendum in Wales will largely be London-based media. The reality is that there are two daily newspapers produced more or less exclusively for Wales, the Western Mail and the Liverpool Daily Post, and there are three or four evening newspapers. The vast bulk of daily newspaper readership reads newspapers produced in London or in Manchester for circulation in Britain as a whole, or at least in England and Wales.

      1205
      The issues that will be taken up in these newspapers in the period leading up to the referendum will, without a shadow of doubt, be issues relating primarily to Scotland. To the extent that these two Bills were necessary because of the fundamental difference between the circumstances of Wales and of Scotland, as was pointed out to us time and again last year, the case stands all the more strong that the referendums themselves should be held on two separate occasions, with the issues argued out fully and thoroughly by the media in Wales, and in the media which come from outside Wales into Wales, but in the Welsh context.
      Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If the circumstances justify separate Bills, they justify holding the referendums on separate days. We are concerned not only with newspapers, but with the number of people who listen to the general news programmes such as "News at Ten" on ITN and the BBC News, which is broadcast throughout the United Kingdom. They will be a major influencing factor on how people vote, yet they will inevitably be concentrating on the Scottish aspect of the question.
      4.30 p.m.
      I am confident that the people of Wales, whether they vote "Yes" or "No", can make up their minds on their own case if they have an opportunity to do so. There is much more danger from holding the referendums on the same day than there is of one referendum influencing the other if they are held on separate days.
      Therefore, I ask the Government Front Bench to respond to the Conservative Front Bench and to give an assurance that the referendums will not be held on the same day. It is important that the referendums are not held on the same day, so that there can be two distinct campaigns, geared to the different circumstances applying in Wales and in Scotland, and responsive to such circumstances, and that the media can put the facts as they see them in relation to Scotland and in relation to Wales, distinctly and clearly, so that people can make up their minds.
      There is a further matter relating to any party political broadcasting or broad-1206
      casting on behalf of umbrella organisations or groupings that may come together formally or informally for a "Yes" or "No" vote in the referendums. We are likely to see groupings. We have already seen them developing informally in Scotland and, to some extent, in Wales. If groupings develop, a balance has to be achieved in party political broadcasting or in the umbrella broadcasting for the referendum—if these are broadcast over the network channels, as may be necessary if they are to be heard in many parts of Wales that receive programmes from stations in England—on the question how the issues and the people who appear on those programmes are to be sorted out if the referendums are to be held on the same day.
      The arguments in favour of having the referendums on different days are overwhelming. There is a need to ensure that the referendums are not held on the same day as are elections to the European Assembly. That could happen if the referendums are delayed over the autumn because of the General Election and the three months' rule that the Government are pressing. If this happened there would be confusion, which could effect the turnout—which is significant now that the 40 per cent. threshold may be implemented in the Wales Bill.
      Some people may want to abstain from voting at the European Assembly election, finding the election a big bore, but may want to turn out for the referendum, to vote "Yes" or "No" or vice versa. Perhaps the Government can meet me on this point.
      The Minister has given an assurance that the referendums will not be held on the same day as a General Election. I hope that he can also give an assurance that they will not be held on the same day as the European elections.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate the Government on introducing the new clause. We had a discussion on the Scotland Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) moved a similar amendment and the Government said that they would consider it. At that time, common sense showed that it was necessary that there should be a period between a General Election and a referendum.

      1207
      The Labour Party will be campaigning for the return of a Labour Government in a General Election, out there are strong differences among my hon. Friends about the advice that we should give to the people of Wales on how they should vote in the referendum. Therefore, we should not get the issues in this Bill mixed up with the question of the future government of Britain.
      I cannot understand the support that is now coming from the nationalists for the new clause. I thought that they were making mischief on the last day on which the Bill was debated in Committee. They were trying to write into the Bill a specific date on which the referendum should be held.
      This clause could not be implemented if a specific date were put into the Bill for the holding of a referendum. It was a nonsense then. I am glad that over the weekend they have considered their position and have put the nonsense aside. Even so, they have caused damage because they have succeeded in deleting the whole clause dealing with the commencement of the Bill. It seems strange that those who accuse some hon. Members in the Labour Party of being critical of certain aspects of the Bill and wanting a certain conclusion to be reached should have caused the greatest damage to the measure that has been done in the whole discussion of the Bill.
      Mr. Wigley: We voted against Clause 82 because it proposed the triggering of a referendum that we believe to be unfair. I believe that the 40 per cent. clause is unfair. We would accept a straight referendum and the verdict on it, but not one which needed a 40 per cent. majority "Yes" vote.
      As to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) about the timing, our amendments last week did not stipulate a precise date. That was a Liberal Party amendment. Our amendment would have provided a period in which it could happen if, after a General Election, a Conservative Government came to power. The hon. Gentleman was getting confused between the Liberal amendment which proposed a certain date and ours which did not.
      We are not supporting this clause. Three months is too long a gap and pushes
      1208
      the thing too far ahead, particularly if the Conservative Party comes to power. But we are not against the principle of separating a General Election from a referendum.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman talks about confusion. His party was in a very confused position in Committee last Thursday. Voting on the amendment to the 40 per cent. clause did not occur until after they had defeated the clause. Plaid Cymru could not have known the minds of those in the Committee. It deliberately set about defeating Clause 82, which was concerned with the commencement of the Act, before the Committee got round to discussing that amendment.
      The hon. Gentleman talks about fairness. He has thrown the accusation against the Government of being unfair. All the Government did was to allow the Committee to reach a decision. What is unfair about allowing the Committee to reach a decision on whether there should be a requirement for a 40 per cent. "Yes" vote? The nationalists voted on the Scotland Bill for 33⅓ per cent. as a minimum requirement. That is recorded in Hansard. Therefore, the difference between us is 6⅔ per cent. Plaid Cymru should withdraw its accusations made over the weekend against the Government.
      It would be utterly illogical for the Committee to reach a decision on the Wales Bill that was completely different from the decision on the Scotland Bill. I believe that the vote on the 40 per cent. amendment was logical. There is a need for a minimum requirement in the referendum, and the Committee has reached a decision about that. It is guidance to the people of Wales and Scotland that if there is a derisory vote in the referendums that must not be taken to be the will of the people. We have provided that there should be a minimum percentage and it is on that basis that we shall give due regard to the decision reached in the referendums.
      It is logical for the referendums to be held at a different time from a General Election. The question is whether the referendum in Wales should be held at the same time as the referendum in Scotland. There are arguments for and against this proposition. There is a good argument for holding the referendum in

      1209
      Wales first because that would have a very good influence on the Scottish result and I am sure that the unity of the United Kingdom would be furthered if we had the referendum in Wales first and conducted the referendum in Scotland about a week later.
      However, I appreciate the arguments against that course. There were orginally arguments about which should proceed first, the Bill for Scotland or the Bill for Wales, we ended up with the Scotland and Wales Bill, which was the wrong way to proceed.
      Obviously a referendum on the proposals for Wales will be different from a referendum on the proposals for Scotland. If the Scottish referendum is held first, the nationalists in Wales will say that the House of Commons is putting Scotland before Wales. They probably have the pamphlets ready now. Equally, if the Welsh referendum were held first, one can imagine the Scottish nationalists on the rampage saying that the Scotland Bill came before the House first and that Scotland should therefore have its referendum first.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a fact that part of the reasons for the proposals for Scotland and Wales being spatchcocked together was that the then Leader of the House, Lord Glenamara, thought that he could get Second Reading, Committee and Report stages and Third Reading on the Floor of the House in six days?
      Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has studied these matters carefully, but I do not think that what he has said was the only reason. Much of the argument concerned whether we should deal with Scotland before Wales, or vice versa.
      There would be difficulties in holding a referendum in one country before the referendum in the other. Progress is being made on the Scotland Bill in another place and that measure may get on the statute book before the Wales Bill. The question is whether we should go ahead with the referendum in Scotland before the Wales Bill has been through all its stages in Parliament. I think that this would be the wrong way to deal with the matter. We should wait until both Bills have been through all their stages in this House and another place so that we know their eventual content.
      1210
      If a General Election came first, there would be a three-month delay, but both referendums should be held on the same day. There could then be no accusations of Scotland or Wales being put first. They would be treated equally.
      Essentially, the media in Wales should deal with the Welsh Bill and the media in Scotland with the Scottish Bill, although the media in England will naturally get involved in the discussions. That would be the fairest way to deal with the matter and I hope that this will be the recommendation of the Government.
      The new clause says:
      "If a proclamation summoning a new Parliament is made".
      I do not know whether there is to be a proclamation for the European Parliament, but we shall soon have a British Parliament and a European Parliament and I wonder whether we shall have to be careful in future to have regard to that fact in the wording of clauses.
      4.45 p.m.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: Despite the characteristic courtesy and helpfulness of the Minister in bringing forward the new clause, I wish to speak against it—though not to vote against it—on two grounds.
      The first is the narrow ground of party advantage. It would be greatly to the benefit of the Conservative Party if the referendum in Wales and the General Election were held on the same day. The more devolution figures in the General Election campaign, the more it will be to the advantage of the Conservative Party. The electorate would have only two choices. If a voter wanted devolution, he could support Plaid Cymru and if he were opposed to devolution, he would support the Conservative Party. Nothing else would be relevant.
      Despite the heroic speeches of the hon. Members for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who speak so valiantly against the Bill—and occasionally vote against it—the Labour Party, despite the total failure of any of its members except the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) to turn up and support the Bill, is committed to the Bill. Opposition Members have been conspicuous by their absence and the Conservatives will have

      1211
      no difficulty in portraying the Labour Party as being half-hearted on this issue and in telling the electors that if they want devolution they should vote for Plaid Cymru and if they do not want devolution they should vote Conservative.
      On the narrow party ground, I should like to see the General Election and the referendum coincide, but there is a more impartial reason for my hope that the gap between a General Election and the referendum will not be too long, and I hope that I shall carry the Minister at least a little way with me.
      My concern is that the Bill builds into the British constitution a permanent conflict between the Assembly and this House. The longer the time between a General Election and the referendum that will lead on to the formation of the Assembly, the more that conflict is likely to be aggravated. The longer the gap, the more inevitable it is that reaction will set in against the verdict reached at the preceding General Election.
      If the gap is more than a few weeks, it is likely that, for reasons that have little to do with the well-being of Wales but have a great deal to do with regret over what was done in the General Election, the people of Wales will tend to elect to Cardiff representatives of the opposite political colour to those they sent to Westminster. This is a phenomenon with which those who have been in government are only too familiar. The closer the referendum is to the General Election the more likely it is that there will be some coincidence between the representation at Westminster and that at Cardiff.
      I do not want to make too much of this point. We all know the grip that the Labour Party machine has on the valleys of South Wales, loosening though it is—and we are all anxious to loosen it as much as possible. However, this is a valid consideration.
      The longer the interval between a General Election and elections to the Assembly being triggered off by the referendum, the greater the risk of that conflict which is the inherent vice in the Bill.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) must not assume that because my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and I are the only hon.
      1212
      Members on the Labour side of the Committee who are in favour of the Bill or that the present attendance of the Labour Benches is any reflection on the support of Welsh Labour Members for this Bill. The overwhelming majority of Labour Members representing Welsh seats are in support of the Bill. The Opposition Front Bench should not get too excited about this. We know that they are on a losing argument.
      The reason why more of my hon. Friends are not here—everyone knows it—is that a number of them are Ministers and they are presently conducting their departmental work. Shortly, when they have finished, they will return to the Chamber.
      I turn now to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) who described the confusion that existed last Thursday. I agree that there was a good deal of confusion. It was on the Plaid Cymru side, because that party did not realise the full implications of what it was doing. It led the serried ranks of the Conservative Party into the Lobby. Conservative Members did not know what they were doing. Plaid Cymru Members had some idea, but the Tory Members had no idea at all.
      I heard several Tory Members asking later "Have we voted in the right way?" Last Thursday they were voting in force for something in which they do not believe. They will be given the opportunity later to repair the slight damage that they did. I am sure that at that stage they will join us in setting the matter right. That was the situation—
      Mr. Wigley rose—
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member might do well not to intervene at this stage, in the interests of his party and of himself.
      I now turn to the point at issue. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, with some passion, that he thought that there was an overwhelming case for not holding the two referendums on the same date. I do not agree with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare said that there was an overwhelming and logical case for holding the two referendums on the same day. I am not impressed with that argument either. All those who have spoken have

      1213
      made heavy weather of this issue. I do not think that it matters at all. The people of Wales and the people of Scotland will come to their own conclusion. They are perfectly capable of doing so.
      For example, next week there will be local authority elections in England, Wales and Scotland. They are not being held on the same day. The elections in Scotland are to be held on Tuesday and the elections in England and Wales are to be held on Thursday. There is no passionate call that they should be held on the same day for some great political reason.
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of fact? I do not think that there are elections in Wales next Thursday. There are in England, but not in Wales.
      Mr. Hughes: That is a relief, anyway. My hon. Friends must not be scared of this issue. It will be a matter for the Government of the day to decide when the referendums are held. There may be circumstances in Scotland, public holidays of one kind or another, which do not exist in Wales, and vice versa. Let it be a matter of common sense, at the time, when the referendums are held. We are making too much of this, for a petty political purpose which is unworthy of the Committee. I therefore suggest that we do not prolong it any further.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: There is one minor argument for the separation of the referenda from a General Election. Forgive me if I call them "referenda" rather than "referendums". There are some English Members of this Committee who may well want to be involved in the referendum campaign. I would not be a bit surprised if the right hon Member for Cambridgeshite (Mr. Pym) and the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mt. Brittan) were to go to Wales because, heaven knows, the Welsh Conservative Party will be a little thin on the ground. It will need some outside assistance if the campaign is to be waged at all. Knowing the scrupulous fairness of my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I am expecting an invitation to speak in their constituencies so that both sides of the case
      1214
      may be fairly represented, just as I am expecting an invitation to West Lothian.
      It seems to be essential that, if the two referenda are to be held within the same year, they should be held on the same day. Otherwise it is inevitable that the result of one will influence the result of the other. I note what my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) says. He makes a fair point about local elections. But local elections are not on the same issue in two separate parts of the United Kingdom. Here the issues will be seen as similar if not exactly the same.
      If we are to judge by public opinion polls—and I would be the first to confess they are a bad guide—were the Scottish referendum to be held first, that would increase the chance of a "Yes" vote in Wales. Were the Welsh referendum to be held first, that might increase the chances of a "No" vote in Scotland. That is the way I read public opinion at the moment. Equally, if the referenda were separated by more than a few months it might be that the Assembly in the country in which the referendum had been held first would already be in existence. It could well be that that Assembly was having the inevitable teething troubles that any rational man must expect such an Assembly to have. That again might have an effect upon the result of a referendum in the other country. It seems to be highly desirable that they should be held at the same time.
      I do not see any great difficulty about the media. It is true that radio and TV news coverage is national, but otherwise we do not have to worry too much about national newspapers printed in London, since I beg leave to doubt whether the referendum in Wales will be the lead story in national newspapers printed in London on every day of the campaign. Great importance attaches to the local Press. My constituents will get a bit of a barrage about the Welsh referendum because my local paper serves part of mid-Wales, including the constituency of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). In this context the local papers are just as important as the national Press.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare touched on another matter to which I wish to refer, namely the interaction

      1215
      of what is happening now with what happened last week. Unless we pass this new clause, we shall have a remarkable situation. My interpretation of the Bill at the moment, following the deletion of Clause 82, is that it would become effective upon Royal Assent. There may be legal argument about that, but that is a possible interpretation. The Bill would become effective in the sense of a transfer of power from the Secretary of State to a non-existent Assembly. What we do in the interim unless that damage is repaired, I do not know. I have volunteered to become Viceroy of Wales for a short period, but I do not think that the Minister of State has accepted the offer.
      We have a difficulty, and it is compounded if we add this clause today and fail to repair that damage. If we postulate that the Royal Assent to this Bill were by chance—I am not making a forecast—to precede a General Election by only two or three months, and it was impossible to hold the referendum between Royal Assent and that General Election, we should be saying that there could not be a referendum until six months after that Royal Assent, and yet, if my interpretation of the deletion of Clause 8 be right, the Bill by then would have been effective for six months before the referendum could be held. That is abundantly nonsense and stems from the joint irresponsibility of the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru last week.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure the Committee that, the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru having made a nonsense, the Government—who have been so sensible in their handling of the measure—will take the earliest opportunity to set matters to rights.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Smith: We have had a debate essentially about whether the referendums should be held on the same day in Scotland and Wales, although some hon. Members have strayed a little into some of the surrounding side issues which affect the referendum.
      The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) asked me, at the start of his own brief contribution, whether there had been any change in the Government's attitude, and I confirm that there has been no change.
      1216
      The timing of the Royal Assent to both pieces of legislation is obviously of considerable importance. The Scotland Bill, it so happens, is proceeding through Parliament ahead of the Wales Bill. We hope that it will be possible for both Bills to receive Royal Assent during the course of this legislative Session, but, of course, we are not totally in control of these events. The House of Commons has to take decisions, and decisions have to be taken in another place. But I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in the Government's attitude. We must work with the circumstances as they arise on the matter of the timing of the legislation reaching the statute book, and with anything else which might happen.
      The House has the final say in regard to the referendum, because the Government must come forward with an order, under the provisions of Schedule 12 of the Bill, and that order must be approved by the House of Commons before the referendum date can be agreed to.
      My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) drew attention to the confusion which occurred with the decision of the Committee to delete Clause 82. I think that the responsibility for that rests entirely with the unholy alliance between Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives. The most charitable conclusion one can draw is that neither knew what the other was doing, and the total confusion which must have been evident when hon. Members met each other in the Lobby must have been amusing to watch. Indeed, one might have been tempted, had one known about it, to go into the Lobby for no other reason than to observe the happy greetings which must have been exchanged between the Conservative spokesmen and those of the Plaid Cymru when they found themselves in an alliance for which they had not bargained.
      I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin that of course the Government will seek to put matters right. The fact that a majority of the Committee behaves in a foolish way does not absolve the Government from seeking to put matters right, and we shall seek to do so when we reach the Report stage of the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin would make an excellent viceroy

      1217
      for Wales. I have been wondering for some time what would be an adequate description of his style, and I think that he is indeed vice-regal. He has all the style and manner which would suit the job, but I am sorry to inform him that we shall be able to put matters right in such a way as will deprive him of that interesting employment.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) struck a very important note when he said that we are perhaps making too much of this and when he asked whether it matters a great deal that the referendums are held on the same day or on different days. I suspect that it does not make a great deal of difference.
      The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) referred to broadcasting and to the way in which the media will handle the referendum. Of course, we hope that the media will give a fair balance to both sides. I do not think that there is any reason to doubt that the media will behave in a way which will give a fair balance to both sides.
      There was an interesting suggestion that the referendums should be held on different days in order to allow English Conservative Members to take part in both campaigns. If the referendums were held on the same day, I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire or the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) would be in Scotland or in Wales. Perhaps it might be wiser for them to remain in England on that day, in view of their policy.
      I can, as I have said, confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we have made no change. These, in a sense, are side issues and not quite on the point of the amendment, but I hope that I have indicated the Government's position.
      Mr. Pym: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to say exactly what he means by the words he used—that the Government have made no change in their position? As I understand the matter, that is, of course, subject to the progress of the Bills through Parliament and their passage towards the statute book, if that is what is to happen. Subject to that, I understand that it is the Government's clear intention to hold the referendums on the same day.
      Mr. Smith: I think that it has been stated in answer to a parliamentary Question. Speaking from memory, I think we said that it would be our objective to seek to have the referendums on the same day—subject, of course, to the obvious difficulty that might be caused if one Bill received Royal Assent before the other.
      Mr. Hooson: In an early part of his speech the Minister seemed to throw doubt on whether the Welsh Bill would achieve the Royal Assent in this legislative Session. Was that merely a form of words—
      Mr. Smith: We cannot guarantee it.
      Mr. Hooson:—used indiscriminately, or was there any specific reason why the Minister threw doubt on it?
      Mr. Smith: I read some amazing stories in the Western Mail from time to time but I do not take them all very seriously. Many newspapers carry amazing stories on this issue. I was not casting any doubt. I believe that, if the House of Commons and another place behave with reasonable common sense in the matter, we shall get the Wales Bill on to the statute book in this legislative Session. It is very much part of our policy, and we have no reason to believe that it will not be achieved. I pointed out that the Scotland Bill is ahead of the Wales Bill. Therefore, on that timescale it is easier for it to achieve Royal Assent in this legislative Session, but we hope very much that both will do so, and nothing that I said was intended in any way to cast doubt on our faith that that can be achieved.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Surely the Government should have no great difficulty in saying that they can put both Bills through in this legislative Session, because there is not a vast programme of legislation. Few Governments have had a sketchier amount of legislation in a whole Session than the Government have in the present Session. Surely there can be no doubt in the Minister's mind about the progress of both Bills.
      Mr. Smith: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman. I would not have said that we are engaged in sketchy legislation. I have reason to know, perhaps more than most hon. Members, how intense our legislative programme has

      1219
      been this year. It has been concentrated on a smaller number of Bills than usual, but none the less it has been an intense legislative programme. I do not think that we have any reason to doubt our capacity to do it, but there is another place involved in these matters. The guillotine, which was such a useful way of organising our debate on the Scotland Bill and on the Wales Bill, is not available to the other place. We have to take all these factors into account.
      While we are on the subject, I draw the attention of Conservative Members to the fact that the House of Lords, in dealing with the Scotland Bill, is not at a point very different from that which we reached under the guillotine in the House of Commons. I think that indicates how wise and sensible our decision was, and, indeed, how generous it was for the Scotland Bill, at least.
      I apologise to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Myer), for not dealing, when I was speaking, with a point he had raised. He said that he was not in favour of the amendment. He was speaking with his tongue in his cheek, but, none the less, he could have avoided the dilemma if he had not voted for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the Scotland Bill. I have checked the Division list and found that the hon. Gentleman managed to vote with my hon. Friend on that occasion. Any dilemma in which he now finds himself, therefore, is one that he has created for himself.
      None the less, I thing that he was right to draw attention to the difficulty there might be for us if there were a reaction against whichever party were to win the next General Election. That is something that the supporters of devolution in Wales will have to take onboard, for after the Labour victory in the next General Election the amount of support for devolution will be increased, if that theory is correct. But we shall face that prospect with fortitude.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 2

      SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE
      '(1) For the purposes of this Act there may be appointed a Speaker's Conference, being a conferenec convened at the request of the Prime Minister and presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons with the function of considering and making recommendations to the House of Commons relating to the appropriate number of Members of that House representing Welsh constituencies after the enactment of this Act.
      (2) Those participating in the Conference shall be Members of the House of Commons invited to do so by the Speaker, who shall secure that the balance of parties in the House of Commons is reflected, so far as practicable, among the participants in the Conference'—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Thanks to the staccato, effective and oft-repeated interventions of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the consequences of the Bill upon Welsh representation at Westminster have seldom been very far from our thoughts during our debates. It has emerged as a central issue, and one that cannot be avoided.
      With fearful inevitability, we have been led again and again to the same conclusion—that one effect of the Bill will be to create an ever-strengthening demand for a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament and in their influence upon this place, while recognising that that demand itself provides no solution to the particular problem that the hon. Gentleman has so often posed to the House. But, frequently as the West Lothian question has impinged itself on our debates, the opportunity for a full discussion of it has not arisen. Our new clause is designed to provide that opportunity.
      It is right that a central issue of this kind should be fully debated and not covered simply by interjection into other discussions. Parliament and the Welsh people have to face up to the issue involved. I and my right hon, and hon. Friends wish that it were not so. We deplore the existence of a Bill which forces us to consider the issue. We would not otherwise wish to do so. We regret the necessity to do so. With passionate

      1221
      conviction, I believe that the interests of Wales are best defended by Welsh Members in this place, and that if a reduction in our numbers was forced on us Wales would be the worse for it. Because of its special problems, Wales needs the strongest possible representation at Westminster. But the question cannot be dodged in the case of this Bill any more than it could in the case of the Scotland Bill. It cannot be dodged because it is unpalatable or avoided because I or other hon. Members do not wish to face up to it.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the hon. Gentleman refresh my memory? I apologise for employing him upon a research errand. Did the Conservative Opposition move a similar new clause on the Scotland Bill?
      Mr. Edwards: An identical new clause was indeed moved on the Scotland Bill. If I may refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory still further, he made a particularly eloquent and convincing speech about it. I refreshed my memory about what he said on that occasion before rising to speak this afternoon.
      If it is an inevitable consequence of the Bill—as I believe it to be—then we should debate it. The rules of order within which we operate dictate the form of our new clause. They are limited and they restrict what we are able to do. In fact, probably the only other way in which we could have raised the issue would have been by an amendment, and I am not even sure whether it would have in order to write into the Bill a specific number of seats for Wales. After all, that is what was done with the Government of Ireland Act.
      But personally, I do not think it right that the number of seats—or matters of this kind generally—should be decided by legislation introduced on a party basis in this House of Commons. We Conservatives believe that constitutional change should be done on the widest possible basis of consent and that changes in the numbers coming to this place are properly and appropriately decided by a Speaker's Conference. That is, of course, what has been done within the last few weeks with regard to Northern Ireland—where recommendations have been made by the Conference to this House.
      1222
      Therefore, I move this new clause believing that the Speaker's Conference is the appropriate mechanism for consideirng these issues and also in the knowledge that there really is no other way open to us to bring this issue before the Committee for full debate.
      Mr. Leo Abse: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to disclaim what is the clear intention of this new clause, namely, that the Conservative Party wishes to have a Speaker's Conference which has the goal not of increasing constituencies in Wales but of deliberately reducing the number of Members of Parliament that will come from Wales if devolution goes through?
      Mr. Edwards: I shall say more about this during my speech. But I have already strongly expressed the view that the Conservative Party would in no way wish to reduce the number of representatives for Wales. We think that it would be damaging to do so. But we believe that we are faced with the inevitable consequences of this Bill and that this is likely to be one of them. Before passing the Bill we believe that the House of Commons should consider those consequences very fully.
      It is an appalling fact that this Bill is forcing so many of us to do things, at various stages, that we really do not want. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), whom I am glad to see in this place, marches through the Lobby in support of a measure which he thinks is inadequate because he hopes that it is a stepping stone to his real objective. Large numbers of Government Members troop through the Lobby to support a measure they dislike for a variety of political reasons. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has told us that he casts his vote in support of a measure which he regards as an unmitigated disaster in order to get the referendum result which he believes will destroy it.
      I am forced to move a new clause providing for a Speaker's Conference that I do not want at this moment—which might recommend a reduction in the number of Welsh Members, which I would deplore—because I believe that it would be an act of total madness and irresponsibility not to consider the consequences of this legislation before we pass it and without at least attempting to provide some

      1223
      mechanism to produce some kind of practical working arrangement.
      5.15 p.m.
      It is not the fault of the Conservatives that we face up to an issue that could otherwise be left in peace and quiet. During the debate on the Scotland Bill, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) opposed our new clause because he thought that our motives might be misinterpreted, in precisely the way that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has just chosen to misinterpret them. But at least the hon. Member for Penistone was absolutely clear where responsibility lay. He said:
      "we must be very careful that we do not appear as wishing to respond to certain dangerous tendencies that will inevitably develop if the Bill is passed. The people responsible for these dangerous tendencies will be the promoters of the Bill, not its opponents. I do not want its opponents to be put into a false light on this matter. The Government and the supporters of the legislation must assume responsibility for these dangerous developments.
      What are these dangerous consequences? Obviously, no matter what I say or what is said by any other right hon, or hon. Member, and no matter how we vote on the amendment today, once the Bill is passed and its implementation begins, many of our constituents are bound to begin to raise the question of Scottish over-representation."
      To that the hon. Member for West Lothian interjected:
      "Of course". [Official Report, 31st January 1978; Vol. 943, c. 291.]
      I believe that the same is true about the Wales Bill. It is the fault of the Government who have introduced a measure that remorselessly forces the conclusion that the representation of Wales is unlikely to be left untouched or, at least, that there will be great pressures to change it. The Secretary of State and Ministers generally say that this is not so. Like King Canute they seek to hold back the tide. But the difference between the king and them is that he was wise and they were foolish. He was seeking to convince his courtiers that he could not hold back the tide. They are seeking to convince theirs that that is precisely what they are able to do. Indeed, worse, they quite unnecessarily destroy the dam and then seek to hold back the water with their bare hands.
      Those of us who are Welsh Members of Parliament will see our role changed
      1224
      in a devastating fashion, as the hon. Member for Pontypool has frequently pointed out. The day-to-day control of the majority of issues that most concern our constituents will be removed from us—matters such as housing, education, health, social services, roads and all the things that constituents come to see us about week in and week out in our surgeries.
      I suppose that we shall have to say to them "I am sorry, there is very little we can do about this. This is no longer my responsibility or the responsibility of Parliament. You had better to go to see Assemblyman Jones. Oh, but by the way, by my voice and my vote I shall be deciding on exactly these issues in Oxford, Abingdon, Newcastle, Southampton and London". We then have to expect our constituents to understand this extraordinary position.
      What are we to do when we come to face them in a General Election? What are we to say to them in our Election addresses? Will our Election addresses say: "Vote for me and elect my party because of our policies on these great social issues in England, but, of course, I shall not be able to do very much about them down here in Wales"?
      It is no good saying that we shall still have a full say on the great economic issues or on defence and foreign policy, because very frequently it is the social questions that decide General Elections. It is also no good saying that we shall still decide on the primary legislation, because primary legislation is only a fraction of our duty or of the responsibility of government in this place.
      It is through secondary legislation and administration that huge areas of government are decided and carried on. For example, education policy is decided largely by Government within a broad framework of infrequent Education Acts. We can examine a whole string of social issues plucked from current experience and debate. Without legislation we could end the sale of council houses, abolish Health Service charges, abolish pay beds, increase bus subsidies or change the rate support grant.
      We shall not be able to debate ministerial responsibility or ask parliamentary Questions on huge areas of Government responsibility in Wales. If we did raise them Ministers would reply tartly that it

      1225
      was not their responsibility. Yet, we shall be able to raise those matters in respect of England.
      We and our Scottish colleagues, numbering more than 100, will decide the political fate of England. We shall be powerless over most of the great social issues in Wales and Scotland. But we shall have decisive power on occasions at Westminster. We shall not decide only the outcome of individual votes on separate issues but also the political character of the United Kingdom Government and the Government of England. I do not believe that that will be tolerable for more than the shortest time to English Members or the English electorate.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member mentioned defence. Like me, he has been sitting here for many days. I wondered whether he had tumbled to the fact that there is to be a defence committee of the Welsh Assembly, which was outlined in the Lords yesterday. I certainly thought that it would not be proper for the Assemblies to set up committees on foreign affairs, defence, unemployment and other non-devolved subjects.
      Mr. Edwards: I am interested in that. I have not caught up with that development. I suppose the situation is that whatever powers are transferred, there is nothing to stop the Assemblies from setting up committees to consider other matters. I do not know what the committees will do, because they will not have control over these matters or over the expenditure. We shall have to explore this issue when the Scotland Bill comes back from the Lords.
      We have been told that this anomaly existed for Northern Ireland. But initially there were only 13 Members, and later 12 with the abolition of the university seats. In that case there were not 107 Members. The price that Northern Ireland paid for a long time, and up to the present time, was a 30 per cent. under-representation in the House of Commons. In addition, on no occasion since the War have the votes of Irish Members changed the political colour of the party forming a Government here. On no occasion would Labour have been in power instead of the Conservatives if the Conservatives had lost the votes of the Northern Ireland Unionists. But there were occasions—on steel, for example—when
      1226
      the influence of Ulster votes was of importance.
      This was regarded as an acceptable price for avoiding the greater problems inherent in the Northern Ireland situation. By accepting this small sacrifice we were able to bury the Irish question—or so we thought—for 50 years or more.

      Wales is not under-represented in that way. In terms of population it is overrepresented, but not in terms of equity. The average electorate in England is 66,056, in Wales, 57,088, in Scotland 53,336 and in Northern Ireland 83,076. There are proposals to change the Northern Ireland representation.
      The disparity in the size of electorates undoubtedly has been seen by some as a good reason for reducing the number of Welsh Members. It is proposed that another 80 representatives should be elected to an Assembly in Cardiff. That means that we shall have about 116 representatives doing the work that is at present borne by 36. However, Wales has been over-represented for well-established and generally accepted reasons. I do not recall that the position has been challenged in the House of Commons for a long time.
      The geographical size of some of the constituencies has been an important factor. The need to balance the interests of the South with those of Mid-and North Wales has also been a factor, as has the desire to guarantee an effective Welsh voice against the preponderance of English voices.
      Even with an Assembly the United Kingdom Parliament and Government will continue to be responsible for many of the most crucial matters affecting Wales. Taxation, foreign affairs, the economy, the EEC, defence, agriculture, energy, industry, the block budget and the override powers, will all be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. In particular, the United Kingdom Parliament will continue to enact primary legislation for Wales.
      This brings me to another matter which is not generally understood. It concerns the way in which all legislation in future will have to be specially tailored to suit the existence of the new Assembly. As a result of the proposals in the Bill the powers to be devolved under Schedule 2 can be altered at any time. They can be

      1227
      increased or decreased at any stage and in any Bill that passes through the House of Commons. We shall therefore have to examine every clause and every line in every Bill, ask ourselves whether it is a matter which is to apply to Wales and what we wish the powers of the Assembly to be.
      There will have to be a clarification in every Bill of that Bill's relationship to the Assembly. There is nothing fixed, stable or permanent about what we are discussing today. From time to time there will be good reasons why Governments might be tempted to extend or withdraw particular parts of a Bill. In such circumstances Welsh Members will have a crucial part to play. There will be a real need for a full quota to represent Welsh interests.
      The Kilbrandon Commission calculated on a parity basis that Wales should have 31 Members instead of 36. It recommended no change in the number for a scheme of Executive devolution. But the essential feature of the scheme for Executive devolution, which the Commission was proposing when it made that recommendation, was that it would be applied in a more or less uniform way throughout the United Kingdom. That seems to be a fairly important qualification of that recommendation.
      In the case of legislative devolution, the Commission recommended that there should be a reduction to parity. Indeed, it argued that there might well be a case for reducing the Scottish and Welsh representation to below the parity level in the legislative case following the Irish precedent. The argument is set out in paragraph 815 of the report.
      One of the difficulties is that there is no clear-cut distinction between legislative and Executive devolution. The legislative process is complex. In this case it is being divided. Whatever the terms and definitions we shall have substantially different laws which will be applied in a substantially different way in Wales and in England as a result of the differences in secondary legislation and administration.
      5.30 p.m.
      Whatever the theoretical concepts, I have little doubt that people will feel that things are different. In politics, what
      1228
      people feel matters a good deal more than the theory. We face a situation of incredible complexity, with Scottish, Welsh and English Members all having different roles and differing interests. That must inevitably create dissension and a demand for changes in the complex balance.
      The problem arises because the Government's proposals are not based on the principles that surely should govern any constitution if a country is to remain stable and united. The first is that every citizen must be related to those who govern him at each level of power and authority in the same way. The second is that any one institution should bear the same responsibility, even if it is not exercised in exactly the same way, for any citizen, regardless of where he lives. In other words, the implications that Scotland and Wales cannot be part of a quasi-federal United Kingdom and England part of a unitary United Kingdom.
      One must be clear about this. A reduction in the number of Welsh Members does not solve the problem. There will be a demand, and there has been a demand already, for a reduction in the powers as well. That brings me to the in and out option, the idea that Members might vote on some issues but not on others. The arguments against that option have been well developed since they were first examined in, I think, about 1893.
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It was in 1896.
      Mr. Edwards: I accept the correction from my hon. Friend, than whom there is no one more expert.
      The option is as unacceptable now as it was then. I do not wish to set out the whole case again. It was done with particular power in the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) of which I reminded him a short time ago, a speech in which he concentrated on this issue.
      There is the impossibility of defining and dividing our business in the way that would be necessary, and there are the intolerable burdens that that impossible task would place on Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House. There is the indirect effect of every decision taken in this place for one part of the United Kingdom upon the finances of the other

      1229
      part. One cannot pass measures without financial consequences which affect the whole of the State. There is the impossible situation that would be created for any Government, for part of their time acting as an Anglo-Welsh Government and for part of it as an English Government. They would never know whether they could carry legislation, and the concepts of ministerial responsibility would collapse.
      For these and other reasons, it seems to me that the in and out solution has justifiably been the subject of ridicule for more than 80 years, although it must be said that that does not prevent people still proposing it today, because the problem will not go away, and the desperate search for a solution goes on.
      It is not only Conservatives, as perhaps the hon. Member for Pontypool was implying, who are impelled to ask these questions. They have been asked again and again on his own Benches. I remember their being asked very eloquently by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), for example. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), speaking for the Scottish Liberals, not only asked these questions on 14th November last year but came to the conclusion that
      "it is imperative that clear conventions are invoked … by which Scottish Members do not vote on such matters."—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 112.]
      In other words, he opted for the in-and-out solution, though on the previous day his Leader had opted for a reduction in numbers to proportionality. Therefore, it is not only Conservatives who can be critcised for some vagueness or imprecision in the search for a solution. We cannot fairly be blamed for vagueness over a problem that we have not created.
      Our solution is very simple. It is to drop the Bill that creates the problem. Therefore, I do not accept the criticism that in seeking to find a solution we are being vague and indefinite.
      But the central argument advanced against our clause when a similar one was debated on the Scotland Bill was that it could produce no solution, because the problem was insoluble. That was the main reason that persuaded so many who share our concern about the issue to oppose our attempt to resolve it.
      1230
      The critics point out, as I have done, that the in-and-out solution is unworkable and unjust, and that a reduction in Members leaves the problem unresolved. It applies whether there are 36, 31 or 15. They argue that if one has an insoluble problem there is no point in fudging it, that there is no point in going through an exercise in consultation to establish what they already judge to be a fact.
      I share the critics' view that, given this obnoxious Bill, the problem is indeed insoluble. But we exist in a world where, if we cannot learn to solve insoluble problems, at least we sometimes have to learn to live with them. If the Bill by some mischance becomes law and is accepted by the people of Wales in a referendum, although I do not judge that that will happen, the problem will not go away. We shall have to learn to live with it. We shall have to find a modus vivendi. We shall have to make the best of a bad job. We shall have to discover, at least for a time, a politically acceptable compromise.
      That compromise may not endure. The situation may prove so intolerable to the English Members that we shall be forced down the road to federalism or to some other political settlement. In my view, that is likely. This is not a settlement that we on the Conservative Benches expect to endure.
      In the meantime, as a Parliament we should have to do our best to make the whole beastly thing work with a minimum of friction. If we did anything less than that, we should be failing in our duty.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: I have been following with interest the hon. Gentleman's argument about the in-and-out system and his admission that some kind of federalism could take place. Do I fairly summarise the Conservative Party's position when I say that it is dead against any creeping devolution but in favour of creeping federalism?
      Mr. Edwards: No. I said several times that we did not want this Bill. We do not want to set off down this road. What I have been seeking to do is to point out some of the unavoidable consequences with which we are faced if the Bill becomes law.
      I take the view, and have taken it all along, that this is not a settlement that

      1231
      can endure. If that is so, we are bound to be forced down a road to some other kind of eventual solution. I have argued on other occasions, and I do not want to repeat my argument today, that it is at least a possibility—though not, I think, at present a politically acceptable solution—that we shall move in some distant future towards a federal structure rather than the chaos produced by the Bill. But I do not wish to say more than that at this time.
      We consider that the best way to seek the compromise that we shall have to find is by the traditional and well-tried method of a Speaker's Conference. If the Bill becomes law, I believe that those who say now that our proposal is a waste of time will find themselves caught up in a irresistible parliamentary movement towards just the kind of Speaker's Conference that we propose. Parliament will find itself in a completely new situation, which it will wish to examine. Even if the conference finally arrives, as it may and as I hope it will, at a justification of the status quo and the retention of the existing number of Welsh Members, the fact that it has done so will for a time make things work more smoothly.
      The recommendations of Speakers' Conferences, if accepted, are accepted in the spirit that they should be made to work. I believe that for a time an effort would be made to make them work. A conclusion about the number of Members is much more likely to be accepted if it is arrived at by a body such as a Speaker's Conference than if it comes by way of the Canute-like declarations of a political party that has a considerable political interest in the outcome.
      I commend the clause. If the Committee rejects it on the ground that it fails to provide a solution for an insoluble problem, the only logical alternative is to throw out the Bill altogether. I hope that our critics who join in that point of view will join us in doing exactly that on Third Reading.
      Mr. Abse: We have heard an interesting but tortuous contribution from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). With considerable clarity the hon. Gentleman adumbrated all the reasons for it being inevitable that there would be an erosion of the number of
      1232
      Members of Parliament coming to the House of Commons from Wales in the event of the disaster of devolution taking place. The hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, gave clear and unequivocal notice that it would be the intention of the Conservative Party, if ever it came to power and if devolution existed, to refer the issue to a Speaker's Conference. That in the end could have only one conclusion—namely, a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament coming to the House of Commons from Wales.
      But it is tortuous for the hon. Gentleman to claim that he would personally wish that in the end justifications for the retention of the existing position would emerge from such a Speaker's Conference, when at the same time he has in a powerful argument shown how inevitable it would be that the Speaker's Conference would come to the conclusion, taking into account opinion in the House of Commons, that there would have to be a radical reduction in the number of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies.
      The hon. Gentleman's argument leads us to the position that the ultimate conclusion of such a Speaker's Conference would be not merely that there should be parity so that the number of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies should be reduced from 36 to 31, but that inevitably, since the task and role of the Members representing Welsh constituencies would be so reduced, the demand would come, and would undoubtedly be reflected in the conclusions of the Speaker's Conference that the Conservative Party is proposing, that the number would be less than 31.
      I do not doubt that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is exactly what will come about in the event of having devolution and having a Conservative Government. From the time that the controversy began I have warned the Labour movement in Wales that it was walking into a trap. I have warned it that if it decided to vote to be a devolutionist it would inevitably mean a permanent Conservative Government in Britain. I have warned the trade union and Labour movement in Wales that if ever, unhappily, a Conservative Government came into existence they

      1233
      would seize the opportunity to reduce the number of Members of Parliament coming from Wales, and that devolution would give them absolute justification for that to come about.
      5.45 p.m.
      The Labour electorate of Wales must understand that if it voted for devolution it would be voting to end Labour Governments in Westminster. All history shows that that would be so. There would not have been Labour Governments for the past 28 years if it were not because of the opinions that have come from Scotland and Wales. The consequence, which must be understood by the whole Labour electorate in Wales and by the trade union and Labour movement, is that it would be suicidal to vote for devolution, to vote "Yes" in the referendum.
      Sir Raymond Gower: It is not possible that some of the electors of whom the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is speaking might take the view that they would be prepared to exchange the opportunity of getting a Labour Government returned occasionally at Westminster for a longer term of Labour control in Wales and Scotland?
      Mr. Abse: I have no doubt that the people of Wales, who have consistently acted as the dynamic for the creation of Labour Governments in Westminster, know full well that the leverage that they want to exercise for the whole of Britain exists in this place. I have no doubt that they will reveal that understanding in the referendum, when they will make it clear that they wish the present position to be maintained.
      The people of Wales must understand that the speech delivered today by the hon. Member for Pembroke is a clear and unequivocal notice on the part of the Conservative Party that it is wholly committed, in the event of devolution taking place, to the setting up of a Speaker's Conference, which would mean a severe reduction in the representation of Wales as for Scotland. It would mean the end of Labour Governments for Britain.
      When I entered this controversy a long time ago I emphasised the loss of Labour Governments and was described as an alarmist, as someone looking for difficulties that would not take place. Therefore, unusual as it may be, I am grateful
      1234
      to the hon. Gentleman, after the long debates that have taken place over two Sessions, for at last declaring that the Conservative Party has clearly taken up the position, and allowed it to be known in Wales, that that which it proposes will undoubtedly hand on a plate the opportunity for permanent Conservative Government in Britain if a "Yes" vote is recorded when the referendum is put before the people.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Speaker's Conference and its conclusions would be both inevitable and fully justified. Is it not likely that exactly the same result would emerge if a Labour Government were returned to this place following a General Election and we had the Bill? Surely it is likely to happen whatever Government are in this place because of the pressures that have been created by the Bill. Surely that will happen notwithstanding the desire of any political party.
      Mr. Abse: I do not doubt that a Labour Government in this place, even if the justifications came into existence, would resist the demand out of political self-interest. I realise, however, that we live in a democratic community in which, inevitably, oscillations take place that lead, as they have always led, to different Governments arriving at different times. It is only a question of when the position will be created when there will be a radical reduction in the number of Members of Parliament representing Welsh and Scottish constituencies.
      I should regard it as tragic if there were a reduction of Members from Wales and a gutting of their roles entirely. Wales has supplied to Westminster a humanity that often it would otherwise have lacked. The whole history of the contributions that have come from Wales to Westminster has shown that Wales is concerned primarily not with ideology, but with humanising the legislative process from the time of Lloyd George, who was responsible for bringing in the old-age pension, to the time of Nye Bevan, who carved out the Health Service, and of Jim Griffiths, who saw and brought into being the Industrial Injuries Acts and the National Insurance Acts. That was because the prime concern in Wales was about people, not power. It has inevitably meant that concern has been brought into

      1235
      the House of Commons for particular problems—for the disadvantaged.
      The Members of Parliament from Wales, precisely because they belonged to a minority group, have always had the capacity to empathise with those who may be minority groups. I am glad that I can claim to have concluded the divorce measures started by Lady Eirene White.
      I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State fox Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), was able to participate vigorously and to play a prominent role in dealing with the problems of those who suffer as a result of divorces.
      I am glad that one can identify people—such as the Foreign Secretary, who is a Welshman—who have assisted those of us from Wales who wanted to alter the adoption laws and to bring into effect the Children's Act.
      Wherever one goes, one will find, looking at the history of the last 40 or 50 years, the particular quality which has emerged out of Welsh culture. Wales has humanised Westminster and brought relief and succour to minority groups throughout Britain. Wales has spoken for the disadvantaged. Wales has been able to persuade the rest of the House of Commons to bring about solutions which alleviated problems which otherwise would have remained chronic.
      It would indeed be an extraordinarily sad day if we were to create conditions in which the Welsh voice at Westminster were to become muted, as inevitably it would if devolution were to come about. I agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke that we would become hopelessly politically ineffective. We would be estranged from our colleagues, because we would be regarded as presumptuous if we sought to intervene in determining any question, including all the social questions in which Wales has played a great part. It would mean that we would be pariahs almost in the House of Commons. Instead of having the capacity to be able to mould the future of the whole of Britain, we would be mere supernumeries.
      The people of Wales are profoundly political. They revel in and enjoy their politics. They have the capacity to give to the rest of Britain, often polemically,
      1236
      but certainly with an elan which is often lacking in other areas. I believe that it would be tragic if that were lost to the House of Commons. I believe that the people of Wales would also feel that it was tragic.
      The great figures who have come from Wales—for example, Nye Bevan and Jim Griffiths; figures whom the Welsh Labour movement has thrown up—would no longer have a place here. Whatever our intellectual capacities, we would be reduced to mere pygmies in the House of Commons. That is not the role that Wales wants for its own people. It believes that it can give more.
      I have no doubt that in the referendum Wales will exercise its customary political wisdom. In doing so, as a result of the notice given this afternoon by the hon. Member for Pembroke, the people of Wales, by voting "No" to the referendum, will at the same time be saying "Yes" to the continuation of Labour Governments in Britain.
      Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), in moving the new clause, made it clear that it was mainly, through not perhaps entirely, for instructional purposes that he did so. It was in order, once again, as we approach our ultimate parting from these three Bills—the double-headed Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill—to reinforce the underlying theorem which has become known as the West Lothian proposition. Perhaps, therefore, there is no need to use much powder and shot upon the objections to the method chosen in the new clause of again highlighting the insoluble problem. However, I think it should be said that it is objectionable that we should write into a statute prescriptions, and, what is more, detailed prescriptions, for a Speaker's Conference.
      The device of a Speaker's Conference, which has upon the whole worked very well since the First World War, is a device domestic to the House of Commons. It is its own business. It is a source of advice which the Prime Minister of the day calls upon by means of the intermediary of the Speaker. It has its own rules and its own methods, and it is the Speaker himself who summons it and decides upon its composition. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate that its nature should be prescribed by an Act of Parliament.

      1237
      One understands, of course, the conveniences of drafting the new clause in this way. One outstanding convenience is that one does not have to answer the unanswerable question oneself. One does not have to write into the new clause a reduced figure which might lay those who produced it open to misunderstandings, such as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has just exemplified. Besides, it would be a little difficult, whatever number one chose, to explain why one had chosen that particular number.
      Although the impossibility of finding a number which is defensible helps to prove the proposition once again, it is a little awkward to move a new clause for the purpose of demonstrating that what one has written into it is indefensible and can have no logical basis. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member for Pembroke should not be expected to apologise for having resorted to the well-tried method of passing to sonic other body—a commission, a board, or whatever it may be; in this case, a Speaker's Conference—a question which has already been recognised as being insoluble.
      I was surprised, therefore, that, at the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Pembroke nevertheless called upon the Committee to pass the new clause. It seemed to me that that was injudicious and pessimistic. It seemed that he assumed the passage of the Bill, which I think we should be reluctant to assume, and that we were thereby invited unnecessarily to affirm what was intended to demonstrate the impossibility of solving, by any such means, the problem which legislation of this kind creates. Therefore my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be supporting this new clause.
      6.0 p.m.
      Perhaps there is a practical and local reason why it would be singularly inappropriate for us to do so. The House, almost without dissent, has accepted and has undertaken to implement the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which recommended that the representation of Ulster should be put on a fair and equal basis with the rest of the kingdom.
      Indeed, if the Boundary Commission, as I anticipate it will, finds it convenient to avail itself of the permission to exceed the average figure of 17 seats by one, the
      1238
      representation of Northern Ireland will be approximately on the same basis as that which is enjoyed today by Wales. That is something which is fully justifiable by the similarity of many parts of the Province to conditions in the Principality of Wales.
      The sequence of events leading to that result began in the earlier stages—there were no later stages—of the abortive two-headed Bill of the previous Session, when it was roundly declared that whatever form of devolution was settled upon for Scotland, as far as the Government were concerned this would make no difference to the representation of Scotland in this House.
      Ulster has been used to an extensive form of devolution for some 50 years, and even since it was abolished in 1972, the prospect of restoring that form of devolution has been held, until recently, to debar us from enjoying the privilege of fair and equal representation in this House.
      Illogical, therefore, though it might have been as applied to Scotland, the declaration of the Government was that the matter of devolution could be regarded quite separately from the matter of representation in this House. This was the key which opened for Northern Ireland the door to full and fair representation which we now look to enjoy with the general and almost universal consent of this House.
      Therefore, it would be grotesque for us, even for demonstrational purposes, to go through the Lobby in support of the new clause, which invokes a Speaker's Conference to reduce the representation for a part of the Kingdom upon which devolution in administration and secondary legislation is being conferred.
      I am sure that my apology for our absence from the Lobby on this occasion will be readily accepted. I hasten to assure the hon. Member for Pembroke that we shall, as heretofore on this Bill and on the Scotland Bill, be taking the more excellent course—that of reforming it altogether. In other words, having proved to ourselves the West Lothian proposition, we must draw the conclusion from that that we are doing something which we ought not to be attempting.
      The West Lothin proposition, in its application to the Scotland Bill, ran in the simple form that it was impossible

      1239
      satisfactorily in a unitary parliamentary State to create legislative devolution in one part only of that State.
      The Wales Bill has enabled us to extend that theorem, and add a rider to it. In its extended form, as exemplified by the contradictions and impossibilities of this legislation, it runs somewhat as follows—that it is impossible satisfactorily in a unitary parliamentary State to confer administrative devolution upon one part of that State to an extent which is not enjoyed by the other parts of that State. That indeed is what is happening here in relation to Wales.
      In all parts of the United Kingdom there is administrative devolution in the form of local government. The devolved administrative powers are exercised by those who are answerable to elected assemblies. That devolution is, for practical purposes, uniform to the whole kingdom. A much greater degree of administrative devolution, not shared for example in England, would be conferred upon Wales by this Bill and consequently it brings back, although perhaps in a less crass form, but equally clearly, the contradictions and impossibilities which led us to say that either one must have a federal State or one must desist from the attempt to confer different forms of devolution, particularly legislative devolution, upon some but not all parts of that State.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: As always, the right hon. Member is constructing a fine argument in logic. However, he has left out one element in his analysis of the relationship between central and local government in the United Kingdom. Already there exists in Wales and Scotland a Department of State which does in fact intervene between the unitary central Parliament and Government and the elected representatives and the people in Wales and Scotland. We have had, since 1964, a decentralised Welsh Office, and the object of devolution is to ensure that the policies which are at the moment being carried out by individual Ministers within that Department of State are in future carried out by an elected Assembly.
      Mr. Powell: The hon. Member has provided an admirable support to the case that I was developing. Indeed, he
      1240
      has greatly strengthened it, and I am much in his debt for bringing this to my attention.
      Of course there has developed a separate branch of administration for Scotland, dating from the last century, for Wales, dating from the last 30 or 40 years, and for Northern Ireland, dating from 1972. But as with all the rest of the administration that the Government carry out, those who administer are responsible to this House, and that is exactly my point.
      Under this Bill this House will cease to call to account those who administer in a devolved form what at present is administered by the Secretary of State, and that for which the Secretary of State, like any other Minister, is responsible to this House. The mere fact that the Departments are organised in a particular way—are organised regionally in some respects—does not alter the fundamental fact that for all those acts of Government they are responsible to the whole of the House of Commons, and to each Member of the House equally. On those subjects the constituents of each hon. Member have no other recourse than through their representative in this House. That is why all attempts to escape from the dilemma and the conundrum by reducing the representation are foredoomed to failure.
      If the subject which is being dealt with is one which has not been devolved, then the part of the United Kingdom concerned is entitled to as full representation in this House for that purpose as any other part of the kingdom.
      On the other hand, if this House is debating a subject which has been devolved, if it is calling to account a Minister who is not responsible for that administration in the relevant part of the United Kingdom, there is no justification for any Members at all from that part of the kingdom being in this House.
      This is where one got into the old story of the in-and-out Members, the notion that in order to recognise the fact that these parts of the Kingdom were entitled to full representation in some circumstances and in other circumstances to none at all, it was expected that they could pop in and out according to the subject that was before the House.

      1241
      I need not dwell upon the impracticability of that course because it was very well dealt with by the hon. Member for Pembroke in moving the new clause. All I need to mention again is that one does not deal with that by saying "Let us split the difference and have, say, half as many Members", because half as many Members does not deal with the problem. Half as many Members does not give one full Members when one is entitled to them or no Members when one is not entitled to them. It is, in fact, a nonsense.
      Those who passed what is regarded as a precedent for this purpose, the Home Rule Bill for Ireland, 1912 to 1914, knew perfectly yell that it was illogical. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has been going around for some time saying that he intends to institute researches to discover on what basis the figure 13 was devised for the parliamentary representation of Northern Ireland under the 1920 and 1922 Acts. I can save the hon. Member a lot of trouble. He need engage in no such research. He will find no reasoning on the matter whatsoever, because there neither was any reasoning nor could have been. It was simply an exertion of authority. The Government of the day said, as it were, "Look, we have a problem here. We have decided to cut the Gordian knot by roughly halving the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons. Now shut up about it if you want to get the legislation through at all."
      That is how it got through in 1912, because the Liberal Government of the day dared not not pass it. They had no choice but to pass that legislation, and to pass it again in 1913 and to pass it again in 1914. Then, what happened in 1920 was not that the matter was rethought but that there was a sort of judgment of Solomon—it was a judgment that Solomon would have performed if he had had four mothers to deal with and not two—of dividing into three-quarters and one-quarter, and giving the one-quarter of the reduced representation to Northern Ireland.
      But everyone knew, or they knew by 1922, that there was nothing stable in that absurd device. They knew that it must result in one of two consequences, which were exemplified in the two parts of Ireland. It must either be the prelude to
      1242
      effective political separation, which was what happened in the South of Ireland, or else it would be so worked that despite that being the implication of such a form of devolution, the power would be exercised in Northern Ireland in a way which would prevent that deduction being in practice drawn.
      The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), describing, in eloquent tones, what would be the reduced condition of Welsh Members in the House of Commons if this legislation passed, said that they would be parliamentary pygmies. It was to the status of parliamentary pygmies that the representatives of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons were reduced—greatly to the disadvantage of that Province and greatly to the disadvantage of the House of Commons when the House of Commons at last had to address itself to the Government of Northern Ireland—by the impossible but enforced compromise of 1912 and 1922.
      Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I say, as we have said from the beginning of these debates on devolution in Scotland and Wales, that this is an irremediable contradiction. We cannot go down this road without entering upon an infinite vista of instability and further discontent and change. The time to stop is now. Let us, therefore, after drawing instruction from the debate upon the new clause so ably moved by the hon. Member for Pembroke, leave it for what it is, a blackboard diagram, and then proceed, not in the referendum but before that, for we are the legislature, the House of Commons, to throw out the Bill.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: It is right that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) should explain in this debate the experience of Northern Ireland regarding the whole issue of devolution, because it has a great bearing on our discussions and on the likely effects that the future will hold for Wales and Scotland.
      As the right hon. Member said, the Bill setting up Stormont led to Northern Ireland being under-represented vis-à-vis the rest of Britain. Of course, at that time the fact that we had Stormont led to a situation in which we did not have a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland sitting around the Cabinet table. It is interesting to note that the decision taken

      1243
      to suspend Stormont has led to the setting up of a Speaker's Conference. That Speaker's Conference, which has made its recommendations only in the last few days, has recommended an increase in the representation for Northern Ireland. The question whether there is a separate Assembly in Northern Ireland seems to have some sort of bearing on the representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons.
      Again, what is significant is that sitting at the Cabinet table at present we have a Secretary of State for Wales dealing with Welsh affairs and a Secretary of State for Scotland dealing with Scottish affairs, and now we have a Secretary of State dealing with Northern Irish affairs. The people of Northern Ireland now have in the British Cabinet a representative dealing directly with Northern Irish affairs.
      We do not know what the future holds in regard to the relationship between the House of Commons and Northern Ireland. However, the Speaker's Conference has said that irrespective of whether we get a devolved Assembly, the increased representation is, presumably, to be maintained. But when the Kilbrandon Commission made its recommendations on the whole constitution and recommended that an Assembly be set up in Wales and Scotland, it referred to the fact that there was over-representation in the House of Commons of Wales and Scotland. We have heard mention of the figures. Scotland is overrepresented by 12 Members and Wales is over-represented by five Members. One can presume that it is the thinking that the figure of 36 Members now representing Wales in the House of Commons could well be reduced to 31 Members.
      That is why, although I shall not be voting for the new clause, I think that the Opposition are fully justified in raising this issue. Under the guillotine procedure, we might not have got around to realising that, when we are talking about what is being done for Wales by creating an Assembly, there is a danger that we look at one side of the balance sheet and say "We are creating a new Assembly and we are giving something to Wales. Wales is now having something that it has never had previously." However, it is important in this Committee
      1244
      stage and it is certainly incumbent upon us in the referendum campaign, to put before the people of Wales a realisation of what it will cost them if the Assembly is established. The question of the number of representatives that will in future represent the people of Wales in the House of Commons will obviously be affected if an Assembly is to be set up in Cardiff.
      Normally, one puts questions during debates on a Bill and has one's answers by the end of the debates. With this Bill, however, as with the Scotland Bill, the longer the Committee stage has gone on, the more questions have been raised in my mind. One justification at least for the guillotine is that without it countless more questions would have remained unanswered.
      For example, on the Scotland and Wales Bill, I asked what would happen to the Welsh Office. We do not know what powers will be transferred to it, as well as from it. What will happen to the Secretary of State for Wales? I have just quoted the Northern Ireland experience. When Stormont existed, there was no Secretary of State; when it was done away with, we created a Secretary of State. Are we to presume that Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff will lead to the abolition of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales? If they remain, will they have places in the Cabinet? These questions should be answered before we go any further.
      Mr. Dalyell: Like me, my hon. Friend has heard some of the debate in another place. Has he not been struck by the number of times that Government spokesmen—not least the Lord Chancellor—have been forced, when there is no guillotine, to say that they will come back with some reply on Report because they cannot answer it at that stage? On the other hand, because of the guillotine, we in this place cannot explore all the manholes.
      Mr. Evans: As I said at our last meeting, they are looking at these matters through a microscope, while we are using a telescope.
      Mr. William Hamilton: And the wrong end of a telescope.
      Mr. Evans: I take that point, too. We have not examined the clauses in detail. We have lost our function to debate the

      1245
      real issues affecting the people of Wales so that they know the full implications of this measure. They should know that they are not being given something on a plate but are being presented with a bill of which they do not have the full details.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has sought to cast doubt on the future of the Secretary of State's role and to compare it with the situation in Northern Ireland. He has missed out one point. When it existed, Stormont was a legislative Assembly. The Welsh Assembly will be executive. When it was proposed to set up a Northern Ireland Assembly, there was no suggestion that the office of Secretary of State should disappear because the Assembly was to be executive. Such an Assembly, therefore, can exist alongside a Secretary of State.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I am not saying that there is a direct comparison with Northern Ireland, but if he is saying that a legislative Assembly would mean no Secretary of State, I do not know whether the people of Scotland have been told that. Their Assembly is to be legislative. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland be abolished while the Secretary of State for Wales carries on? I can imagine the reaction in Scotland. That shows the difficulty.
      We also need a categorical definition of the role of the Member of Parliament at Westminster. Certain functions and powers are to be devolved. Do the people of Wales know that, with the creation of the Assembly, certain matters of education, housing, social services and so on, which used to be raised by their Members here, will be raised in Cardiff instead? The role of an MP will be greatly changed, with an inevitable effect on the number of Welsh Members. If 36 Members deal with a whole range of issues and then half those issues are to be made the sole province of 80 Assemblymen in Cardiff, surely the argument can be taken one stage further. Not only will there be an Assembly, but its members will carry out a different function from that of their counterparts in England.
      Nor should we forget the West Lothian question—what we know in these debates as the West Glamorgan question. Presumably Welsh Members will be allowed
      1246
      to ask questions affecting English constituencies but not affecting their own constituents. This will create more contradictions. It will be a divisive rather than a unifying influence for the people of Wales, England and Scotland.
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman spoke about raising issues in this House. When did we last have a debate on the social services in Wales in this House?
      Mr. Evans: We have debates here on social services in Britain. We had one last Thursday.
      Mr. William Hamilton: And the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) was not here.
      Mr. Evans: Hon. Members have equal rights in this Assembly.
      Mr. Thomas: That debate was not on social services in Wales.
      Mr. Evans: When we talk about social services, we mean those of Britain. Does the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) suggest that we should have different pensions in Wales? That is a social service.
      Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that only last week we had a full day's debate on the National Health Service, which includes Wales, and that not for one minute was any member of Plaid Cymru present?
      Mr. Evans: One should be a little sympathetic.
      Mr. Hamilton: Why?
      Mr. Evans: They had got into hopeless confusion the night before and had to have a meeting to assess the difficulties. After claiming to be the great champions of the Wales Bill, they had been the architects of the defeat of a major clause. We should say, "Physician, heal thyself."
      Mr. Thomas: I was here for both opening speeches on that occasion.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman says that he was here. He could have gone further and added that he could have spoken in the debate on the National Health Service in Britain. That is the important point.

      1247
      What is to be the future role of the Assemblies? When Stormont was in existence, hon. Members in this House could tell Northern Ireland Members "You can raise these matters in Stormont, because they have been devolved to that Assembly". Will a similar cry be raised by English Members in the House of Commons if Assemblies are set up in Cardiff and Edinburgh?
      I do not expect to carry with me in my argument the hon. Member for Merioneth, who believes in independence for Wales and wants to break up the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Thomas: No.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman denies that, but he knows that his party takes that view. It is no use talking about interdependence; he and his party want political and economic separation for the people of Wales.
      Mr. Thomas: No.
      Mr. Evans: If he wants that, there will flow from the situation a separate Parliament in Cardiff which will have full powers. But that is not what the people of Wales want. In fairness to the Government, that is not what they want, either. We know that Clause 1 was deleted, but we also know that the whole purpose of the Bill was expressed in that provision originally in order to unite the people of these islands. The sole purpose of the Government has been aimed at creating that Assembly as a method of unifying the people of these islands. I believe that the Government are wrong. I believe that there are dangers in that view and that numerous questions must be asked.
      We should be turning our minds to certain important matters. We know that the Scotland Bill is making some progress in the other place, but what will happen if this Bill does not receive Royal Assent? We should seriously consider that possibility. It is no use the nationalist Members saying that we have obstructed the Bill, because it was they who voted against the provision dealing with the commencement of the Bill. They were very obstructive on Thursday and we shall now have to find more time.
      Mr. Thomas rose—
      Mr. Evans: I cannot keep giving way. The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech.
      The nationalists are now saying that they will vote against Third Reading. That is what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said. I know that the hon. Member for Merioneth disagrees with that view and I know that the two hon. Gentlemen have their differences. Since certain members of Plaid Cymru say that they will vote against Third Reading whereas others disagree, we do not know what is their attitude.
      We must turn our minds to one other matter. I find that there is no enthusiasm for this Bill in the Labour and trade union movement, a point clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). We must make Labour supporters in Wales consider whether they are prepared to have the luxury of an Assembly in Cardiff while at the same time denying opportunities to the people of Wales—and, indeed, the people of Scotland in that context—to play a part in electing a majority Labour Government in the years ahead. I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. I believe that, even if the Asesmblies are set up, we can have a Labour Government, but I believe that it will weaken our chances. That matter should be put to the people.
      We must examine what will happen if these proposals are given Royal Assent and are then put to the people. I believe that there are still one or two items in the Government proposals that need to be examined. We must consider some machinery for the nominated bodies. I do not believe that we should create a full-time Assembly of 80 people and at the same time maintain the existing machinery of government and add to it to deal with the problem. Nevertheless, that problem needs to be thoroughly examined.
      I believe that a Speaker's Conference on this matter should be given different terms of reference which will enable it to examine a method of consultation in Wales as a result of which there may emerge a body which will bring together Members of Parliament as well as representatives of district and county councils. They could examine lists submitted by the Secretary of State to fill the various nominated positions. That would ensure a

      1249
      body of elected people who would then meet the wishes of the people in seeing that it was not a decision merely of the Welsh Office, but a decision by a body representing district and county authorities. That is a constructive alternative, which we should examine in the coming years.
      If an Assembly is created in Wales there will be a major reconstruction of Welsh local government. That will happen yet again. We have already gone through a traumatic experience in Wales with the reorganisation of local government. The people certainly do not want the whole of local government in Wales to be put back into the melting pot so soon after the earlier upheaval. If my suggestion were accepted, local government could be left alone. One could have the eight counties and 36 district councils, and their representatives could meet together with Members of Parliament. We could do away with the Welsh Grand Committee and those issues could be debated with representatives from districts and counties.
      I do not wish to take up any more time. I believe that the Opposition are fully justified in raising this matter, but I shall not be supporting their clause because it will mean that, since there is to be a referendum, there will be a threat which is apparent to the people of Wales. They will see that Welsh membership in the House of Commons will be reduced in the years ahead. I think that we must cross that bridge when we come to it.
      Mr. Pym: It would be fair to say that the hon. Gentleman is assuming that if such a conference were called it would reach the conclusion that fewer Members of Parliament for Wales would result. Our new clause does not prejudge any conclusion, but the hon. Gentleman obviously regards it as inevitable that that would happen. That means that in his opinion, if this Bill ever were to become an Act—an unhappy prospect—that situation would arise. It is for precisely that reason that we, the hon. Gentleman and many others are fighting this Bill. Am I not right in thinking that that is what he is saying?
      Mr. Evans: If the right hon. Gentleman recalls my earlier remarks, he will
      1250
      know that that is what I said. I believe that that is an inevitable consequence.
      I do not ask the Government to give us any assurances that there will be no such reduction in numbers; they cannot do so. Nobody in this House can give assurances about what will happen in the future, but I believe that if we create Assemblies in Scotland and Wales a demand will be created. We must remember that people are appointed to the Speaker's Conference; they are there representing not their parties but the House of Commons. The decisions taken in that conference are taken on cross-party lines. In other words, they vote on issues as they stand.
      What will happen if we create a Speaker's Conference to examine the representation of the Welsh people in this House? We all know that the Speaker's Conference on Northern Ireland was bound to come to the view that increased representation in this House was required for the people of Northern Ireland. One has only to look at the figures to draw that conclusion. In the same way, if we created Assemblies in Wales and Scotland there would inevitably flow a demand for a reduction in numbers. I believe that would be a backward step. I believe that the political logic of a Speaker's Conference may be directed to that conclusion, but I believe that would be another step which could disunite the people of Wales, Scotland and England.
      Although I resist the clause, I emphasise that the Opposition are fully justified in raising this issue, because it is important that the people of Wales should know what it involves when it is time for them to reach a decision.
      Sir David Renton: We are discussing an issue which is fundamental to the whole Bill. If I may say so, the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) made a characteristically candid and constructive contribution to the discussion. I was interested to hear him say, in effect, that it might be a good thing if the Bill were withdrawn and we had some kind of consultative Assembly in Wales without powers of the kind that the Welsh Assembly is to have under this Bill but with the Secretary of State retaining his powers and being answerable in the House.

      1251
      I was interested in that suggestion, because I was one of the three members of the Kilbrandon Commission who opted for just such an Assembly—and directly elected, too. One of the many advantages of that was that we should then be able to duck this awkward issue of Welsh representation in the House of Commons.
      The Government have introduced what I call a pretty over-developed measure of devolution, and it is a measure of devolution on which the issue ought not to be ducked. But the Government have ducked it. I think that they were wrong to duck it altogether and to pretend that it did not exist, giving no indication how they would deal with it when eventually—if by mischance it ever happens—the Bill is implemented.
      But, having criticised the Government to that extent, I think that they were justified in not writing into the Bill what the future representation of Wales should be. That question would involve an agonising reappraisal if ever the Bill came into force—such an agonising reappraisal that, if I were in the Government's shoes, I should ask myself three questions.
      First, will the Bill ever reach the statute book? Obviously, if it does not, the issue will not arise. Second, will the Bill be killed by a General Election before it receives Royal Assent? Again, the issue will not arise.
      Third, let us assume that in a General Election all the pro-devolution candidates do badly and all the anti-devolution candidates do well in Wales. Would the Government then be justified in going ahead with implementation of the Act or, indeed, with the referendum? It would then be cheaper, quicker and simpler to introduce a three-clause Bill repealing what had become the Act than to have a referendum, and, in the circumstances, perhaps fully justified.
      However, let us assume a fourth event; the referendum is held and not enough people support it. The Bill, or the Act, as it will be, will then become a dead letter.
      There could be all those circumstances in which the agonising reappraisal would not arise. I see this as one of the rare occasions giving justification for the old
      1252
      adage "Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you". Generally, that is a bad excuse for doing nothing, but in my opinion this is an occasion when it is all right.
      However, while hoping for the best, hoping that one of the circumstances which I have described will avoid the need for the agonising reappraisal, we should prepare for the worst with the minimum of embarrassment. In my view, this innocuous option proposed in the new clause put to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) is about as good a way as could be found of raising the issue and of asking Parliament to give it its blessing. No other way is being put forward. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has described this as "an irremediable contradiction" which no kind of device could overcome. But we have to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best, and I think that there is a justification for the idea of a Speaker's Conference.
      In company with the right hon. Member for Down, South, I served recently on the Speaker's Conference on Northern Ireland representation. Naturally, it was not free from some controversy, but a clear consensus emerged both on the principles to be applied and on the factual decision which was reached.
      6.45 p.m.
      I therefore support the new clause. Since it has been deployed so clearly and so well by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), I do not need to go over the West Lothian argument again, but I wish briefly to add one or two points.
      Mr. Dalyell: May we just be clear? The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants a Speaker's Conference, but to do precisely what?—to come up with some form of devolution, or to say that it is impossible to have it? What is the object of the Speaker's Conference?
      Sir D. Renton: Let me repeat what I said just now. It is a matter of preparing for the worst. In the event—the unlikely event, I hope—of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and its being approved in the referendum, the Government of the day will have to face arguments of the kind which the hon. Member for Aberdare has been adducing, that we really cannot have

      1253
      this strange difference with Welsh Members who are precluded from having the kind of say which they would like to exercise in all Welsh affairs but being able to have a say, to vote, to ask Questions, and so on, on English affairs of an equivalent kind.
      That is a ridiculous state of affairs. It would turn the House of Commons into a farcical proceeding, and that is the sort of situation which has to be avoided. What I should expect the Speaker's Conference to go into is, first and foremost, the question of the extent of intervention by Welsh Members. In my opinion, that is the first point. Whether my hon. Friends have that in mind in putting down the new clause, I am not quite certain.
      That point having been settled, there then arises the agonising reappraisal, as I call it, of the number of Welsh Members. In a sense, this is a matter which the Kilbrandon Commission partly ducked. Kilbrandon certainly did not go into detail on it. Having said that if Scotland and Wales had their own legislative Assemblies, there would have to be a reduction of their representation in the House of Commons, the Kilbrandon Commission went on to say, in paragraph 815:
      "the amount of this reduction would be a matter for discussion in the light of the extent of devolution, and it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule."
      One thing which the Speaker's Conference would have to do is to follow up that phrase in the Kilbrandon Report. This is putting down the marker, and the Speaker's Conference would have to take the matter up from there.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in the passage from which he has quoted the Kilbrandon Commission was specifically concerning itself with legislative devolution, and when, in paragraph 905, it talked about administrative devolution, it ended by saying:
      "This question"
      the question of representation—
      "does not arise under exeutive devolution, since Parliament would continue to legislate for all regions"?
      I merely make the point that Kilbrandon was pretty explicit in relation to executive devolution.
      Sir D. Renton: Ever since the Kilbrandon Report was published it is a difficulty that has bedevilled matters that the majority on the Commission wrote the main terms of the report. Those of us who had reservations about the powers of the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales were merely recorded as having those reservations, but we did not attempt to rewrite the report.
      My position—I hoped that it was reasonably clear from the reservations that I made—was that if we have a consultative Assembly we could duck the issue of representation. But if we have a legislative Assembly or an Assembly with executive devolution—that, after all, is not far short, in terms of powers, from the legislative solution, especially as presented in the Bill, with the Welsh Assembly's powers over subordinate legislation—we cannot avoid the West Lothian situation arising. Therefore, we have to face the inevitability that, when the Assembly has been established and Welsh Members elected to the House of Commons, there will be a difficulty over the duality.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the Kilbrandon Commission majority was explicit in its recommendation, which was that the scheme should be applied in a more or less uniform way throughout Great Britain. It was against that background that the majority of Kilbrandon Commission made the recommendation to which the Minister has recently referred, that there should be no reduction in the case of administrative devolution. That is in a wholly different situation.
      Sir D. Renton: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend. What he has said reinforces the case that I was attempting to put. That clarifies the position.
      In order to clarify the position further and put the record straight—there has been some confusion over this—I should say that the members of the Kilbrandon Commission all suggested that if electorates were to be of the same average throughout the United Kingdom, Wales would have 31 members instead of 36. In the past I had a good deal to do with the legislation on parliamentary boundaries and parliamentary boundary commissions, and I am sure that I carry the Committee with me when I say that I hope that

      1255
      the whole of the United Kingdom will never become "average". If so, there will be some pretty impossible constituencies.
      The constituency that I represent is impossible enough. There are 93,000 electors, spread over 80 villages and five towns. I would like that to be averaged, because that would create an improvement for me. But it should be better than averaged. My constituency should be one that has far fewer electors but in which the number of electors should be related to the very large geographical area.
      We should regard the statement of the Kilbrandon Commission about average constituencies merely as a yardstick that was put forward to show a comparison between the Welsh constituencies and and the English constituencies. The latest figures that I have show that at present—I am prepared to leave it as it is, so long as the Bill does not become law—the average size of Welsh constituencies is only 57,000 people. Thas compares with 66,000 in England. However, England has some very concentrated urban areas, and it is therefore right that the average should be greater in England.

      So long as we do not have devolution on the lines proposed in the Bill we need not worry about the Welsh representation, but if the Bill is implemented after a referendum we cannot avoid doing something about it. If and when such an unhappy circumstance arises the holding of a Speaker's Conference will be inevitable.
      Mr. Dalyell: When I listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton), as I have done over the last 42 days, I often reflect that the Kilbrandon Report, in its own words, depended on good will. It is surprising that Lord Kilbrandon is now to head a controversial "Yes" campaign, having said in his report that it all depends on good will. Whatever side of the argument one takes, one realises that this is a fiercely contested issue. There has been demonstrated, unfortunately, a great absence of good will. Lord Kilbrandon should think hard about his position, having, as chairman of the Commission, put forward the proposition on the basis of good will.
      1256
      I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The Committee will be relieved to know that I shall not make a long speech on the so-called West Lothian question. That would be an impertinence after all that I have said. However, there is an Irish dimension. I refer to this only because of the Prime Minister's answer on the matter. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his statement on the Irish seats, I asked in general terms how long a situation could endure in which 71 Scots Members of Parliament—and, indeed, the Welsh Members—could vote on matters in relation to Derry but not Dundee, and in relation to Belfast but not Bathgate. My right hon. Friend is a skilful, consummate, quick and marvellous parliamentary performer. In the way in which I phrased the question, it was easy for him to reply "Almost indefinitely" in a broad tone. Everybody laughed. I do not complain of that.
      However, the question remains. Perhaps I should have asked whether the Prime Minister was satisfied, in a sense of fairness, with the justice of the idea that this should last. That question may be asked in this way: how long can a situation endure in which Members of Parliament for Cardiff can vote on the most delicate issue of politics in Coleraine, but not in Cardiff, or a Member for Ebbw Vale can vote on the most gut issues in relation to Enniskillen but not in relation to Ebbw Vale?
      The question applies as much to Northern Ireland as to Wales. Although The Scotsman said that my right hon. Friend gave a crushing reply, that is not exactly how, in the cold light of day, these matters might be interpreted.
      The analysis of the right hon. Member for Down, South and of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and the statement of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) make it superfluous for me to make a long contribution, though even on day 42 I congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke on introducing a relatively new—at least, I have not tumbled to it before—aspect to the debates.
      I refer to the difficulty of framing future legislation to take account of the variations between Scottish needs and the needs of Wales. This will certainly put

      1257
      extra pressure on parliamentary draftsmen. It is difficult to quantify the amount of extra pressure, but this is a substantial point.
      7.0 p.m.
      Even at this stage, we do not have a clear picture of what Assemblymen in the Coal Exchange or the High School will do. Like some of my hon. Friends, I have spent many hours at the Bar of another place, and last night, during discussion of a seemingly innocuous amendment moved by Lord Gray, I heard the Government spokesman, Lord Kirkhill, say that the Assemblies could set up committees on anything they pleased. My noble Friend went on for about half an hour, and he was repeatedly challenged on the question whether he really meant that the Assemblies could set up committees on foreign affairs, defence, employment and other non-devolved subjects.
      Lord Wilson of Langside asked whether a specific question of defence or some aspect of foreign policy on a United Kingdom basis could be discussed. Lord Kirkhill replied:
      "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."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th April 1978; Vol. 390, c. 1567.]
      That may be the legal position. I am not saying that Lord Kirkhill was wrong. Presumably the Scottish Assembly can discuss anything it likes. However, when committees are set up on particular subjects, such as defence, they raise the expectation that they can do something. The setting up of any Assembly committee will involve the expenditure of some public money, though I do not say that it will be very much.
      I am not exaggerating this matter. I hope that the House will agree that I have never seized just any stick with which to try to argue my case. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh at the suggestion that the Assembly will set up a defence committee, but I did not make that suggestion. I had not tumbled to it, because I did not believe that it was possible. It was put forward by a Government spokesman in reply to an amendment to a clause that was not properly discussed in this House. That shows again the dangers involved in our not discussing every clause.
      Mr. John Smith: Whose fault is that?
      Mr. Dalyell: Not entirely mine, though I shall not be drawn into that argument.
      I warn the Minister of State that if committees on these sort of devolved subjects can be set up, the Assembly's approach will naturally be to go direct to Ministers, bypassing the House and in some cases going straight to Downing Street.
      We have not yet discovered precisely what are to be the functions and roles of Assemblymen. If we are discussing numbers, we must be clear on their roles. If they are to set up seriuos foreign affairs and defence committees—the Scottish Assembly will certainly want to discuss fisheries policy and other EEC policies—they will go straight to the British Government.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I accept that the Assemblies could set up these committees. In many cases, local authorities can set up such committees. However, the Assemblies would not have the power to deal with half the subjects that the hon. Gentleman has referred to and it would be foolish for an Assembly to waste time setting up committees on matters with which it did not have the power to deal.
      Mr. Dalyell: That may be so. That is why I have been careful in what I have said. The Assemblies would have no power at first, but that would not stop the committees being set up, and it is unlikely that a Scottish Assembly would not set up a fisheries policy committee and an EEC committee.
      Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend knows that sea fishing and agriculture are not devolved subjects; they remain the responsibility of the British Government. There would be little point in an Assembly concerning itself with such subjects.
      Mr. Dalyell: All I can say to the Minister is "You tell that to the Assembly". The Assemblymen will not take it. They will see the Assembly as the Scottish Parliament. It is being paraded as the Scottish Parliament and if the hon. Members for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Reid) and Galloway (Mr. Thompson) are Members of the Assembly, it is inconceivable that they would not form such committees. A fisheries committee of the Assembly would want

      1259
      to do things for the Scottish corner which might be to the disadvantage of other areas.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: Has it come to my hon. Friend's ears that during his speech Ministers have repeatedly been saying that the Assembly would have no power in these areas and therefore would not concern itself with them? Does he accept that the defiinitions of power handed down to a subordinate Assembly do not necessarily define the aspirations of the Assembly? If that were the case, we would never talk about EEC affairs in this House, because of the limitation of our power in that respect.
      In the event of Assemblymen feeling that external affairs had a direct effect upon the conduct of matters in their constituencies and on the interests of their consituents, they would, by investigation or analysis, even without the exercise of power and only with the exercise of opinion, want to become directly involved and they would consequently raise expectations and challenge the interpretation of central Government on these affairs to the possible discomfort of Ministers.
      Mr. Dalyell: Furthermore, they might be expected to have opinions on these subjects. People might ask why, if the Assemblymen did not have opinions, were they drawing their salaries. This all comes back, even after 42 days, to a fundamental issue of confusion.
      Sir David Renton: We always listen to the hon. Gentleman with interest. He said that he wanted to make a brief speech and, although I do not wish him to do so, it may help him to shorten his speech if he refers to Clause 18(1) which provides that
      "Without prejudice to its powers to appoint other committees, the Assembly shall appoint committees in accordance with the following provisions of this section with functions relating to all the powers conferred on the Assembly by sections 10, 11 and 12 above and with such other functions (if any) as the Assembly may determine."
      It looks as though the Assembly will be able to choose other functions to exercise.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am not the man to give instant legal opinions. I shall look at that in Hansard. I promised to make a short speech. My condition for sitting down is that we have a speech from my hon.
      1260
      Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on the subject.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: May I try to help the hon. Member further in his scenario of the international relations of these Assemblies? I draw his attention to Clause 29, which provides that
      "The Assembly shall not in the exercise of its functions conduct relations with any country outside the United Kingdom."
      That seems entirely to answer the point. No Assembly can meet in Cardiff and discuss potential relations with Patagonia or anywhere else unless it has the power to do anything about it.
      Mr. Dalyell: I suspect that if the hon. Member became a Member of the Welsh Assembly he would not feel himself inhibited in demanding that the Assembly, if need be, should have precisely the power to do this. I am not quoting some fanciful idea of mine but the official view of the Government spokesman in another place.
      Mr. Leon Brittan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would not require a very ingenious member of Plaid Cymru to say that although Clause 29 prevents the conduct of relations with any country outside the United Kingdom it does not prevent an Assembly from making representations to other countries or to international bodies, sending delegations, and so on. Once that process starts, where does it end?
      Mr. Dalyell: It is not good enough to say that local authorities do this. They do so, but within certain limits. The limits on the Lothian and Strathclyde Regions are there when they go to the Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund to get some kind of grant. This system operates within certain parameters. An Assembly, harnessed as it would seem to all sorts of national aspirations, is a totally different kettle of fish, especially when we would have some Members of the Assembly inevitably claiming that they would want, in Brussels, not only their Minister in the Council of Ministers but their own Commissioner on the Commission, as well as their own officials right down the Brussels hierarchy.
      We are dealing with two different creatures when we talk about local authorities and the Assemblies. I ask my Front

      1261
      Bench one question with regard to the statements made in the other House and the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at Question Time today. Can my hon. Friend clear up the position of Assembly committees on non-devolved matters, since this is directly relevant to the new clause? This issue raises the whole question of the function and burden of work of Assemblymen and, theoretically at any rate, that should determine the number of Assemblymen.
      I have finally to explain that, like the right hon. Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare—this may be a tiny consolation to the Minister of State—I shall not be in the Opposition Lobby tonight because I do not believe in a Speaker's Conference. I said so at length on the Scotland Bill. I think that it is fudging the issue.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) initiated this fascinating debate in a most pertinent way when he described it as being for instructional purposes. I think that that was the phrase he used. A good deal of the discussion has been of a probing nature. He took the view that certain consequences, which he described, would almost certainly follow the enactment of this legislation. Certainly I would tend to agree with him that in the fullness of time, should this Bill be enacted, it is almost certain that at some time or other, a future Parliament here would be obliged by the very nature of things, as the pressure for devolution advances in Scotland and or Wales, to look at the arrangements for representation in this Parliament.
      7.15 p.m.
      This view seemed to be supported not only by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) but by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), although they looked at it from a different point of view.
      Whereas my right hon. and learned Friend was concerned, as indeed many of us are, with the effect of this legislation upon the nature of the United Kingdom Parliament, the two hon. Members were also giving a great deal of attention
      1262
      —I hope I do not overstate this—to the consequences for the Labour Party and for future Labour Governments, which is rather a different thing. They could see that it could be destructive of Labour power at Westminster in future if this sort of legislation were enacted.
      There is a good deal of evidence to support that view. I am not so concerned about the future of particular parties. This kind of legislation is bound to have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke prophesied. On the other hand, I do not see that happening immediately. Some who have intervened in this debate regard it as certain that at an early date these changes would take place. For example, I would have thought there would be a big difference in the consequences in the case of Wales as opposed to Scotland. Obviously, if Scotland were given fairly important legislative powers in its Assembly, one would have thought that the consequences upon representation here would be more severe than those for Wales. I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend would agree with that.
      Sir David Renton: I do agree. I think that this is a matter of degree, as the Kilbrandon Commission pointed out.
      Sir R. Gower: I would certainly have thought that the consequences for Scotland, with its legislative powers, would be much more severe than the consequence, in the first place, for a Welsh Assembly without those legislative powers. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). On the whole, I do not like the detailed prescription for a Speaker's Conference. That is one of the reasons why, in the case of the Scotland Bill, I did not support a similar proposal. I shall not support this one, either.
      I do not think that this is intended to be an important point. I hope that it is brought forward for instructional purposes. I hope that it impresses on all hon. Members the consequences of this legislation. It is not possible to have a situation in which these Assemblies, particularly in Wales, will have been operating for a long time, with wide devolved powers, and with the representatives of the respective countries in this Parliament continuing to enjoy the same position as

      1263
      they do today. On the whole, this debate has afforded us a valuable opportunity of considering all these consequences. I hope that the Government have considered them, too. They may have valid arguments for not taking immediate steps to change the constitutional arrangements here. I would like to hear a Government spokesman say that, in the long run, devolution of this nature must affect the position here. No Government spokesman has gone as far as that, as I understand it. It is unreal to imagine that there can be no effect at all.
      I am inclined to feel that the effect would come sooner than the Government are prepared to admit, although not as soon as some have suggested. I believe that these consequences would occur irrespective of whether this clause were in the Bill.
      If we have this kind of devolution, irrespective of any powers in the legislation, ultimately, a Speaker's Conference would be bound to consider this issue. It could not avoid the problem. Those of us who have had the honour of taking part in a Speaker's Conference, as I have on two occasions, will recall that the conferences were convened by Mr. Speaker himself.
      The new clause states that the Speaker's Conference would have
      "the function of considering and making recommendations to the House of Commons relating to the appropriate number of Members of the House representing Welsh constituencies after the enactment of this Act."
      All Speaker's Conferenecs have the duty of considering and making recommendations as to the appropriate number of Members. The only difference is that here we have the addition of the words
      "after the enactment of this Act."
      Presumably that means that the Speaker's Conference will consider the position in the light of the consequences of the enactment of the Act.
      At all times any such conference has to consider what is the apropriate representation of all parts of the United Kingdom in this Parliament, and the very passing of the Act would alter the basis on which it would establish its judgment.
      I do not consider the passing of the clause tonight as being of any great importance, but the debate that we have had
      1264
      on it has been of tremendous importance. I hope that it will influence the thinking of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and particularly the thinking of Ministers, who have been putting their heads in the sand over this issue.
      Mr. Kinnock: The discussion of the general areas of competence of the Assembly and the matters that it might discuss was of interest earlier in the debate. I think that it is worth pursuing, since it is of direct relevance to the functions that would be exercised by an Assembly and the way in which those functions would later be viewed by the House of Commons, eventually through a Speaker's Conference, such a conference obviously taking into account the powers that an Assembly exercised or the aspirations that it had, and eventually calculating the kind of representations that Wales should have in the House of Commons.
      The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), in an intervention, drew our attention to the wording of Clause 29, which states that
      "The Assembly shall not in the exercise of its functions conduct relations with any country outside the United Kingdom."
      As a consequence of that, the interpretation has been that the Assembly must not, among other non-devolved matters, discuss or express a view upon or lay down motions upon or set up committees about matters which are not devolved precisely in the Bill.
      It seems to me that it is impossible to assume and totally insupportable to think, that any national body elected by ballot of the people of a country—and therefore occupying the position of and endowed with the authority—albeit superficial, of being the voice of the nation—should not seek to exercise that authority in its attitudes expressed towards and conduct with other bodies and subjects that go beyond those which are rather starchily laid down in the Bill.
      It may well be that in the exercise of its functions the Welsh Assembly cannot conduct relations with any country outside the United Kingdom, but its expression of opinion may be in direct transgression of the policies of Whitehall and Westminster, which may or may not be under the domination of my hon. Friends or of the Conservative Party. I do not think that there is anything particularly

      1265
      wrong with this. I think that any radically expressed opinion which exhorts support for human rights, or criticises incompetent or imperialistic foreign policies, or articulates the feelings of people about the way in which foreign affairs are conducted, is to be encouraged.
      It would be totally inconsistent of me to advocate the support of various organisations to which I belong and then to seek to deny the exercise of that function by a nationally elected body in my own country which would, I hope, on many issues utter opinions that were concurrent with mine. I have in mind anything from, say, South Africa to Ethiopia, and from human rights in the Soviet Union to the attitude of the United States of America to the conduct of policies in South-East Asia.
      I recall the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) sharing my opinion in an interjection—albeit from a seated position—when he asked what would be wrong with the Assembly doing that sort of thing. From my point of view, there would be nothing wrong morally—or, indeed, politically—with the Assembly doing that. Indeed, it would probably be more useful to me politically than to the hon. Gentleman. But the fact is that, if we pass the Bill, it would be illegal. That is the problem.
      Indeed, it is a good definition of the whole nature of devolution that the centralised Government have chosen in their wisdom condescendingly to hand down certain powers and then draw a fence round those powers, and to deny by law those matters which are within the legal competence of the Assembly.
      It is impossible to stultify the opinions, the voices and the brains of politically motivated people, who have a strong commitment to political purpose and who embrace the world in their causes. We cannot elect them to a national and responsible body and then expect them to shut up on matters which affect them, as politically motivated people—the condition of the people of Wales, their freedom, their economy and their society—as directly as they affect the rest of Britain.
      What I am saying, as a background to the discussion of the clause, is that, as the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said, whether we have a Speaker's
      1266
      Conference or not, the representation of Wales in this House will eventually have to be considered not only against the background of matters devolved under the Bill but against the background of the reality of the expression of opinion made by the Assembly, and the apparent seeking of power which it will undertake as an inevitable consequence of being endowed with elective responsibility and elective authority. That is an authority and a responsibility which, for an Assembly with the status of the Welsh Assembly—or, indeed, the status of the Scottish Assembly—it is not possible to restrain.
      It is possible, for instance, to restrain or limit the authority and aspiration of a county council or of a borough council, because its responsibility, by definition, is to a parochialised area, a sub-division of an economy or a local government area. That is the only responsibility that it cares to exert and the only responsibility that it exerts in practice. It does not stop a council having opinions about other matters, but it accepts the limitation of their responsibility and authority. Such disciplines do not exert themselves upon a national Assembly. I do not think that that is a bad thing, but it is something to which the Committee should pay attention.
      Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend suggests that local authorities accept this sort of limitation of the area in which they can operate, but that is not quite true. I know that my hon. Friend is aware that within the last two or three weeks the Mid-Glamorgan County Council called and held a very successful all-Wales conference on unemployment. I should have thought that we ought to encourage that sort of thing. I do not think that my hon. Friend can rightly say that local authorities accept a narrow boundary, either geographically or in terms of subject matter.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Kinnock: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was about to draw attention to an even wider exercise of opinion, admittedly in days of yore. I am thinking of the Tredegar Urban District Council, of late and lamented memory. For instance, in the 1930s it frequently used to pass resolutions to send telegrams to Comrade Stalin—as it always addressed him—criticising his

      1267
      particular attitude over this or that, or exhorting him to make a stronger commitment to the cause of the republic in Spain. Certainly, the imagination of local and county councillors goes well beyond the cramped and limited powers which they have been awarded by the statutes of this House. Their responsibilities go beyond that. They also understand the value of the co-ordination of opinion in influencing Government and the co-ordination of policy in implmenting statutes which would be of benefit to a wider area.
      I understand all that, but no one has ever passed a law with regard to local authorities saying that they shall not do this or that, or that in the exercise of their functions they shall not convene national conferences. Yet we are in the process of passing a law in that regard on a national Assembly.
      Perhaps I can put it in proportion. A county council—with my full support and the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—may wish to convene an all-Wales conference for the purpose of discussing a scourge upon the whole country—unemployment—and see that as the fulfilment of its duty to its own people who share a future and a problem with the rest of Wales. That would be accepted by my hon. Friend and myself as not only legitimate but entirely supportable and laudable. But if we change the scale a little into a situation in which an Assembly might see a community of problem and a community of resolution with other countries, it might wish to exercise its functions along those lines. But under this Act it is specifically excluded from doing so.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Cannot the hon. Gentleman envisage a situation in which a United Kingdom Government could enter into a treaty with Poland, as a result of which there would be an importation of coal from Poland? A Welsh Assembly might well pass a resolution condemning that, but it would not have power to upset that treaty or to interfere with the making of such a treaty.
      Mr. Kinnock: I understand that. In the context of this new clause, what is even more important is that not only will the Welsh Assembly not have the power to enforce its condemnation of the import-1268
      ation of Polish coal—or anyone else's coal—but, as a consequence of the inevitable result of demarcating a different system of government and the reduction of political representation in this House that comes as a result of the passage of this Bill—should it survive the referendum—the people of Wales will have even less power than they do now to prevent or impede the importation of foreign coal.
      At the very point at which an Assembly may wish to voice an opinion or exercise its power—this is in the nature of the condescending philosophy of devolution—by the very Act that gave the Assembly life and existence, its alleged freedom becomes a bondage. The alleged loudspeaker becomes a gag. The very thing which is intended to set the people free, or bring decisions a little nearer home, as the 1975 White Paper used to put it—it is now almost part of political archaelogy—may well—I think, in fact—be the cause of their losing even more power.
      The hon. Member for Merioneth mentioned Patagonia. I realise that he has a particular relationship there. On closer examination I think he will find that far from it being a land free of torment, which the settler of Wales went to find. It is in the scale of reaction, if I may put it like that, a little to the right of South Africa. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not have any pride in the way in which events have transpired in Patagonia any more than I do.
      But local authorities have twinning arrangements with towns. I think that Cardiff is twinned with Nantes. There is a street in Cardiff called Boulevarde de Nantes. Someone has crossed it out and in brilliant Welsh graffiti put "Boulevarde de £64,000", which is what it cost to turn it into a dual carriageway. Therefore, Wales might have twinning arrangements with Patagonia, Kurdistan, Quebec or the supreme Soviet of Uzbekistan sitting in Tashkent. If we should fall under Plaid Cymru domination in the Assembly, I am sure that the relationship would be a twinning relationship with whatever democratic Assembly Colonel Gadafi in Lybia has blessed himself with for the purposes of expediting exchanges of sheep and other materials, which were the basis of a magnificent trade agreement that we were promised by the

      1269
      nationalists in Wales a couple of summers ago.
      However, there is a serious point to be made about the new clause. It is a harbinger of an absolutely unavoidable consequence of the implementation of this Bill. I think that it becomes unavoidable in any case. What would make it a speedy prospect would be the unfortunate election of a Conservative Government. One of their first acts would be to suggest to Mr. Speaker that he sets up such a conference and that it can come to only one conclusion. Even in the more fortunate event of there not being a Conservative Government for many more decades—indeed, generations—still the demand would grow that because of the divisions of powers, the way in which Welsh Members of Parliament could exercise definitive power—indeed, deciding what the government should be for the whole of Britain—without this House being able to make important decisions about the conduct of day-to-day life in Wales, the consequence of all that would be inevitable demands for the reduction in representation in Wales.
      This point has been repeatedly made from the outset. It would help us if we understood the various opinions on this matter. For instance, I understand that the Liberals in Wales view such a possibility with equanimity because they see the future of the United Kingdom as a federal structure. Consequently, they feel that a federal Parliament should eventually exist. Therefore, together with their proposals for proportional representation, the actual representation of Wales and Welsh interests in the federal Parliament would in any case be somewhat smaller, numerically, than it is in the non-federal Parliament—in the unitary Parliament that we have at present.
      I understand that the Liberals approach with no qualms such a prospect as the implementation of New Clause No. 2, with its Speaker's Conference and its reduction of representation from the Principality to this House of Commons.
      The Conservatives themselves would not be proposing such a new clause if they had any foreboding about the prospect of a Speaker's Conference recommending that representation from the Principality should be significantly reduced. Indeed, they would be totally
      1270
      inconsistent if they were worried about that. If one looks at the way in which their seats are distributed in Wales, one sees that there are seats to which, even in bad years, they can expect to hang on, seats that they can expect to collect only in good to moderate years, and seats about which they have aspirations. I quite understand that the Conservatives would not anticipate—even with a reduction in the number of seats in this House of Commons—proportionately to lose their influence in Wales. I understand how the Conservatives, without any disloyalty to their Members who have seats in Wales and without jeopardising those seats, can propose New Clause No. 2.
      The nationalists are in a different situation. Indeed, one might say that they are in many respects in a different galaxy and planetary system. They do not want a federal system. They do not want the total union that the Conservatives want, nor do they embrace the general attitudes of the Labour movement. They reject the Bill because they want to go much further. On the other hand, they do not accept the proposition put forward by myself and several of my hon. Friends that in trying to secure the maximum advantage for the people of Wales we have a vested interest in union, albeit in democratising the unelected tier of Government. That does not go far enough for the nationalists. It is in direct transgression of their interpretation of decentralisation or of independence or of whatever particular flag they are flying. One is never sure which flag they are flying.
      My son told me last week that he saw a marvellous pirate film about Captain Henry Morgan, who was from Tredegar, but not an ancestor of mine. Captain Morgan's favourite ploy was to dress up his men as women and haul up a French or Spanish flag. By such use of camouflage he was able to sail alongside his intended victim, fling his enemies into the water and make himself a rich man. With regret, I must inform the Committee that he never returned any of those riches to Tredegar.
      The nationalists have much the same approach to the question of devolution. At times they fly the skull and crossbones of independence and at other times the

      1271
      union jack with the red dragon superimposed on it. It is the flag of devolution. It is difficult to assess their precise attitude. I believe that devolution inevitably will lead to a substantial reduction in Members.
      I take on board the warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). But we are not simply talking about proportionality on the basis of population. We are talking about proportionality on the basis of power. If the Welsh Assembly exercises substantial powers a full equation must be worked out, not only on the average size of the Welsh constituency but on what competence the Welsh Assembly has and what reduced proportion the House of Commons has in the government of Wales. The consequence of that equation is not the reduction of the number of Welsh Members of Parliament by five, but by substantially more.
      That is because the equation of power plus proportionality does not equal a reduction of five. It equals a reduction of far more than that. I must leave it to a Speaker's Conference to guess what the appropriate figure might be.
      Mr. Abse: While my hon. Friend is presenting this grim picture, may I draw to his attention a poll conducted by a local radio station in South-West Wales? This clearly shows that 53 per cent. of the population are against an Assembly and that 33 per cent. are in favour. It shows that in the Secretary of State's constituency, where he has failed signally to persuade his constituents, 54 per cent. are against and 27 per cent. in favour.
      Perhaps it is right that my hon. Friend should speculate in this way. Happily, it seems that political sense in Wales is already making itself clearly felt.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Kinnock: I have never had any doubt about the political sense of Wales. The situation in Aberavon is significant. If one goes one constituency further east, to Neath, one finds that the findings of the poll are even more resounding. Even if one moves to Carmarthen, the seat of the Leader of Plaid Cymru, one finds a balanced situation. There is a 1 per cent. advantage for devolution. This is a seat which returns a Plaid Cymru Member.
      1272
      The support is for a Labour policy and there are many "don't knows". There is confusion in such areas. Where there is clear representation on the issue the confusion is less.
      In the event of a reduction in the number of Welsh Members in the House of Commons the nationalists would be significantly advantaged. If I were them I should vote for New Clause No. 2. I should be hoping that as a consequence of devolution the Conservatives or the Speaker's Conference would do the job of nationalism for me. Reducing the number of Welsh Members at Westminster would dilute or demote the importance of the Welsh voice. I am not talking about my job security or that of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards)—I hope that his security is in any case tenuous; I am talking about the general impression that Wales could make upon the decisions of Government in Westminster and Whitehall.
      If I were a Welsh nationalist I should hope that a Speaker's Conference would cut a chunk—one great branch—off Welsh representation in this Assembly.
      Then, I should be characterising that faithfully—there would be no exaggeration—as the worst and most despicable manifestation in history of overweening imperialistic centralism that had been waiting for centuries to take vengeance on the Welsh people by emasculating them. That would do a good job for nationalism, because it would sign and seal all the ideas that they have been promulgating about the contemptuous attitude in which Wales is held by those awful centralists in Westminster and Whitehall. A reduction of Members would be the most clear and tangible numerical manifestation of that disregard for Welsh interests.
      Mr. Pym: I regret that the hon. Member did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). That was a reasonable speech explaining the background to the New Clause. I am afraid that the hon. Member is wide of the mark on this aspect.
      Mr. Kinnock: I understand. I received a summary from two of my hon. Friends of the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke. I am sure that that summary was faithfully given. I am not pointing out the deficiencies in that argument; I am talking of the construction that can

      1273
      and will be put upon the operation of this new clause by the enemies of both our parties in Wales.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: May I put the hon. Gentleman quickly and easily out of his misery, as I always like to do? We made our position clear earlier in the Committee deliberations, when we stated that while legislative power for Wales as well as England resided in the House of Commons we should oppose any reduction in the number of Welsh Members elected here, and while the block grant was allocated from the House of Commons to Wales we should equally strongly object to any reduction in the number of Welsh Members here. Our position on that is clear, and we shall be voting against the new clause.
      Mr. Kinnock: It would be a very tortuous strategem, but a very wise one, for the hon. Gentleman and his party to support the new clause. I understand that, as long as superior legislative and financial power resides in the House of Commons and the Government produced by it, Plaid Cymru will object to reductions in the number of Members who come here from Wales, or to reductions in the block grant.
      That would not prevent it from profitably exploiting a reduction of the number of Members, not only as a violation of the interests of Wales but as an outrageous confrontation with nationalist policy on the matter. It would not stop it saying "We told you so. Westminster has all along been waiting to take its proportional vengeance on the people of Wales. We can expect no mercy from a Whitehall and Westminster that, as their first act after giving us a measure of independence"—a phrase that is a favourite of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—"a measure of self-determination, delivers that self-determination in the form of reducing our number of Members directly elected to Westminster." To say that, one does not have to engage in political science fiction, exaggerate or use one's imagination. That would be the realistic position in the event of devolution.
      I am not blaming the hon. Member for Pembroke or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for taking the course that they have as a consequence of the Bill. Even if the clause is not
      1274
      passed tonight, we may see a certain convention of government in a future Government or a convention in a future House.
      It follows as night follows day—or day follows night, according to one's attitude to the advisability and desirability of the new clause—that it is impossible for such a Bill or the Scotland Bill, of such substantial import to the constitutional future of the whole United Kingdom, to pass through the House of Commons without having implications for the House.
      It is impossible for allocations of finance to be made under this Bill or the Scotland Bill for the whole of the future to pass through the House of Commons without having implications for the financial powers and competence of the House. It is impossible for a new constitution to be drawn up for the government of two substantial parts of the United Kingdom without being very important for the constitution of this place. It would not make sense. It would not be historically consistent. Indeed, it would not even be fair if such considerations did not arise.
      Therefore, if I were a Conservative I would make no apologies—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not—or seek to hide the purpose behind the clause—I am sure that hon. Gentleman did not—because the two go together like bread and butter. They are inseparable. It is a delusion to believe, if anybody does, that the Bill could become law and be implemented, that an Assembly could come into being, without having these significant consequences for the House of Commons.
      I give the Opposition some credit. Instead of going for the jugular vein they propose to sever a less important artery. They are much more cautions about the whole approach to changing the system of government for Wales and its system of representation. If they had been incompetent and clumsy about it, they would not have been making this proposal. They would have been saying "In the event of the choice of new systems of government for Wales and Scotland the representation from those countries shall be reduced as follows", and at least operating the equation laid down by the Kilbrandon Commission.
      But the Conservatives would not have enjoyed such extended periods in government, and an even more extended

      1275
      period of power, if they had been clumsy in the exercise of such power, especially on constitutional issues. As an admiring politician, although a hostile opponent of theirs, I give them full credit for approaching the matter in this way and saying "Let the Speaker's Conference decide. Let us have a serene council. Let us take all the factors into consideration, in the sure knowledge that at the end of the day Wales will be lucky to finish up with 25 Members of Parliament to discuss and determine the size of the block grant to serve the people of Wales."
      I am full of admiration for the Opposition's political guile. Nevertheless—I think that the people of Wales clearly understand this—the inevitable consequence of the passage of the Bill and its operation, with an Assembly and everything that goes with it, is a reduction in the people's power. That is not because it has implications for the careers of politicians now sitting, but because it has grave implications for the power of the people of Wales to affect decisions that have a direct importance for them, the standard of living that they enjoy and the standard of services that they expect. If the Bill ever becomes operative we shall inevitably see that reduction in power.
      I realise that there are hon. Members and parties outside the Chamber with a different interpretation of devolution and different aspirations for devolution than the Government propose in the Bill. Against the background of the new clause, in the referendum people should regard precisely what the Government propose, not what they might wish to happen or what the organisation to which they belong might have supported. For instance, they might be people closely associated with the Wales TUC who want a legislative Assembly. They might be nationalists who want independence, a Welsh Government, or whatever else. There are other people who think that we should simply democatise the non-elected bodies.
      It is important that people take into account proposals such as the one in the new clause, the implications of a block grant, an identifiable, clearly demarcated Consolidated Fund allocated by the House of Commons, and all the other considerations. Most important of all, they should look at the precise proposals made by the Bill—not what they would like it to
      1276
      be, not what they hope it will become or what they think it should have been, but what is actually proposed in the Bill.
      People will find that the Bill does not serve the interests of nationalists. It does not meet the aspirations of the Liberal federalists. It goes way beyond the hopes of all those who want to unseat the unelected placemen of the various unelected bodies. It certainly has no proposal to meet the demands of the Wales TUC and other bodies for a legislative Assembly.
      In fact, the Bill achives the remarkable gymnastic feat of falling through every one of those stools and not meeting any substantial section of opinion in Wales in favour either of more devolution or less devolution, independence or total union. If we strip away those who believe in much more, those who believe in something different, those who believe in much less, and those who believe that we should not be here in the first place, the numbers of people likely to support the Bill on the basis of a realistic assessment of what it proposes to do for the people of Wales are bound to be such as to mean its rejection.
      What happens if after all that people think that they can see advantages in the Bill? If they look at the political realities of the period immediately following its passage and implementation, if they see what the reaction will be in the House of Commons and the rest of the United Kingdom, and assess whether that will be of advantage to them in claiming their fair proportion, or slightly more, of the total resources, financial and otherwise, of the United Kingdom, they can come to only one answer. It is the answer that I shall give to the new clause tonight, because we should try to keep certain options open to get whatever powers we can in the unfortunate event of the Bill's being implemented. I shall vote "No". I think that Wales will, too. The answer is "No". However, I understand the reason for tabling the clause. I understand the unavoidability and inevitability of tabling it. I understand, too, the inevitability of it becoming law in the event of the other document, the Wales Bill, becoming law.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: At this late stage I intervene to make a

      1277
      few specific points. I begin with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). If I may say so, he ended extremely well although he had us rather confused at the beginning of his speech when talking about Tredegar, pirates, dressed as women in the Caribbean, Captain Morgan and the rest of it. However, at the end of his remarks he was at his very best.
      After a breath-taking analysis of political motivation of all parties within Wales, including the party of which I am a Member, he ended at his best when he said that this measure does not meet the aspirations of any one competing part. That lines up precisely with that to which I draw attention, which is something that arose primarily during the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as regards actual powers and the struggle, perhaps, for more powers. That is aligned precisely with what has been said about the Bill meeting the aspirations of no competing part. It is part of the simple analysis that everybody will be competing—all the competing parts—for more or less power depending on their point of view.
      It is necessary to go one step further. I think it was the hon. Member for West Lothian who said that the proposed Assembly is very different from a county council as it is put forward as a national representative body that has national connotations. That is the crisis of the proposal. The whole matter becomes quite different when we take into account national aspirations and connotations. In that light the Assembly becomes very different from any other body that we know.
      I strengthen the point by saying that even the bodies that we know do not have national connotations and aspirations compete enough for power. We do not have to go back very far in history to see that competing for power. It is happening now. It has taken place after the local government reorganisation. It is happening between metropolitan councils and district councils. It is happening between district councils and county councils. If we create a body of the sort that is proposed in the name of the Assembly it will compete for power.
      I come round to where I started in pursuing this argument. It is all very well for a Welsh nationalist to say "We do
      1278
      not want that or the other. You can have all the Labour Members that you want at Westminster. We shall not deprive you of any of them." The answer is that they know full well that the Assembly, which will be a national body when it gets going, will be in possession of the power to discuss any aspect of national or even international policy, if not actual powers.
      In that respect we do not have to go through the various clauses. We do not have to go through the precise powers to realise that there is no power to limit that which the Assembly may discuss. It may discuss virtually anything. Even if it cannot discuss something, I dare say that with a little nous and political common sense it will be able to raise any matter that it wishes.
      It will be able to discuss virtually anything, even if certain matters are outside its powers. In that way we come to the direct representation that no doubt will be built up between the Assembly and central Government at Westminster. At each stage of the process this place will be suffering.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Assembly will have the power to discuss, and it appears from that which was said yesterday in another place by a Government spokesman that it will be able to set up official committees to deal with such matters. That really is a vehicle for something else.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point quite clear. Clearly it is a serious matter. My hon. Friends and I are grateful for the news that the hon. Gentleman periodically brings us from another place. The news is helpful, and the quality of the various points that have been made in another place is a good advertisement for the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me, although I do not wish to go beyond the limits of the clause.
      I have dealt with my first point, which is a reiteration and development of the arguments that have already been made. However, it is, perhaps, the most important argument.
      It seems that we are to be faced with a struggle, and in that light I come to

      1279
      my second point, which is the argument about the quality of membership at Westminster, which has not been much discussed. The role of Members at Westminster and at Cardiff has been discussed. The diminution and representation of the Labour Party, or any other party, at Westminster has also been discussed. There remains the argument on quality. As the struggle takes place, which I see definitely happening, and I hope that I do not stand alone in taking that view, it is fair comment that the quality of Welsh politics will move from this place. That arises from what the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said. The quality will go more and more to its Welsh base so as to take part in the struggle and to develop something which has been put forward at a national Parliament. That is inevitable.
      I appreciate that those on the Opposition Front Bench fairly, properly and rightly put that forward as being the fault of the Bill, but that is at the end of the day an inevitability that was implicit in the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards).
      That is a problem with which we shall be faced in this place. The problem will not be solved by having fewer Welsh Members. As the struggle takes place on behalf of Wales, and as the Assembly gets more power and has a claim to represent in a greater and greater sense, obviously there will be counter-pressure, which ever party is in control of the House of Commons, There will be a counter-pressure from the national Government to reduce representation in this place. I shall not go into the West Glamorgan question all over again, but one pressure is related very much to the other.
      What will be the quality of membership in the House of Commons? It would be sad to see replacements for the Under-Secretaries of State for Wales, the hon. Members for Bedwellty, and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), or the galaxy of Welsh talent that at present is seated on the Opposition Front Bench. If we are to lose them, or if they are to turn firmly to Cardiff what are we to get in this place on behalf of Wales?
      It seems that Wales cannot win the argument. That argument has already been advanced by the hon. Member for
      1280
      Bedwellty. Wales will not win whichever view we take. There is also the frightening prospect, which has hardly been touched upon, that from the talent, such as it be, that comes to this place the Secretary of State and Ministers have to be provided. It is upon them that we shall have to put the burden and the trust of the day-to-day relations with the Assembly, that will be competing with them for greater powers.
      We shall be faced with a diminution of talent and a grave loss to the House of Commons. We shall have a massive struggle between the House of Commons, central Government and Wales. At each stage the trend will be for the Assembly to compete with this place. Talent will go away from this place, and where that will lead is a matter of which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are fearful. It is for that reason that, fundamentally, we very much oppose the Bill.
      Sir A. Meyer: I have always thought that si vis pacem pare bellum was a rather dangerous motto. I know that the inevitable consequence of the Bill will be to call in question the number of parliamentary representatives at Westminster. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), I felt unable to support a similar new clause that was put forward during our proceedings on the Scotland Bill, if only for reasons of superstition. I feel unable to support such a clause in considering this Bill.
      I recollect the film "Shoulder Arms", in which Charlie Chaplin, confronted by a house that had only the door left standing, would not enter the house except by painfully unlocking the door. I still have a touching faith in the reluctance of anyone to set in train a process that could result in the diminution of Members representing Wales in this place. For that reason I am reluctant to see the matter even raised and, therefore, I find it extremely difficult to support the clause.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The point made by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) none the less does not detract from what could be an interesting debate. This is an exercise in an academic discussion, because most hon. Members on both sides of the House have no real expectation that, in the referendum, the Government's proposals

      1281
      will be carried. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity in the measure and in the new clause to discuss issues which may at some other time be relevant.
      The new clause essentially sets out that there should be a Speaker's Conference because, as a direct result of the Bill, the numbers and composition of Welsh representation at Westminster are put in question. I must beg to differ from that assumption. I see no way in which at present, on the fairly limited form of executive devolution proposed, existing representation is put in question. I suppose that a more respectable argument can be made out in respect of Scotland with legislative devolution—that that by itself means that there should be a consequential change in the numbers of Scottish Members here—but, given the form of devolution proposed for Wales, I do not think that can properly be argued at this stage. That stage may be reached—this point was made by other hon. Members—further along the road if we are carried further along the road.
      Certain arguments have been put forward. One is that there will be a more inward-looking Welshness at the expense of other considerations in the forefront of the Assembly's deliberations and that it will inevitably be pulled along towards a more insular and exclusive view of politics within the Principality. Certainly there are forces within the Principality which now seek to pull us along that road.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: I appreciate the balanced way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting this point. But does he not see that, in the nature of things and in human nature, there will be a struggle for greater power for and coming from Cardiff? Have we not seen it all before in terms of struggle, power and the quality of Members—I do not want to be unfair to anyone—in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Anderson: I think it can be argued plausibly that there is a growth potential in this measure—that, by the very fact of human nature, people will seek extra powers and that there will therefore be greater pressure on the Government to increase the powers of the Assembly.
      This is a major qualitative step in setting up an Assembly which, by its own
      1282
      inherent forces and by the forces of human nature described by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), will inevitably carry us along that road. But, by making that very point he meets my argument that it is premature at this stage to have a Speaker's Conference. One is always reluctant to talk about inevitability in an historical process, but I concede the probability—a probability which is welcomed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)—that we shall be taken further along that road. But currently, on the basis of these proposals, it is clearly premature to have a Speaker's Conference on that which will within the foreseeable future flow from this devolution measure if—it is a very large "if"—it achieves the approval of the electorate in a referendurn.
      One can no doubt, if one likes model building, imagine some time in the future when there will be a neat structure of certain functions in Brussels, in Westminster, in Cardiff in Edinburgh and possibly in the English regions with all the results which flow in terms of quality of representation.
      I am not wholly convinced about there being a limited number of people of talent in Wales. Thank the Lord, Wales is a political nation. It has an apparently infinite number of people—missionaries—who go outside and sit for English seats in this place, achieve the top positions in trade unions and so on. We are an inherently political nation. I do not think that there is a finite well of political talent in Wales which the hon. Member for Leominster seems to accept.
      That may be so at some stage in the future, but on present evidence, given the limited nature of this devolution proposal, it would be wrong to suggest that within the foreseeable future there must be a relook at Welsh representation. That may come. Indeed it will probably come as a result of the forces here at Westminster. But now it is premature. I hope that the hon Member for Leominster, with his Cassandra-like mutterings about what may come, will at least concede that, although it will probably come, it is now premature and that, therefore, it would be wrong to support the new clause.
      8.15 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I must say at the outset that, despite the brevity of our discussions this afternoon and evening and the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been constantly amazed at and congratulate hon. Members on both sides on the ingenuity with which they have been able to introduce such a fantastic array of items and to give the new clause an examination in depth, width, length, breadth, height and every other posible dimension.
      I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is not present, but I understand that he will be back. The only point with which I agreed in his speech was when he suggested that we should discuss what the Bill contains and proposes, not stretch it or develop fairy themes around it. However, it seemed to me that the content of his speech went a lot further than what the Bill proposed.
      It seems to me that attitudes towards the new clause, with a few honourable exceptions on both sides, and the question of Welsh representation in the House of Commons are almost conditioned by the views on devolution held by hon. Members expressing views on the new clause. We had expressions of view on the principle of devolution tagged on to the question of representation here. Those who see devolution as essentially taking powers away portrayed a pessimistic, rather frightening picture, in which Wales would have a less significant voice here.
      I do not think that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) need worry about a shortage of talent coming from Wales. It would be a matter of conceit for Welsh Members to believe that there were not many prospective Welsh Members equally as good as, if not better than, we are, sitting comfortably at home by their firesides at this moment.
      I see devolution not taking away powers but adding something extra to Welsh life. It is an extension of democracy. The people of Wales will have a greater say in the management of their domestic affairs and, at the same time, a rightful say here in matters which affect the United Kingdom as a whole of which they are and obviously wish to remain part.
      1284
      My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), with typical Welsh modesty, said that Wales had humanised Westminster. I think that in a different context hon. Members on both sides might say that Westminster sometimes had a similarily humanising effect upon Wales. But my hon. Friend made play of the fact that in the past great figures had come from Wales. Certainly no one would deny that. Anyone who had the privilege and honour to sit alongside the late James Griffiths in the House of Commons could not deny that.
      My hon. Friend drew from that the conclusion that there would no longer be a place for such giants in the House of Commons. He suggested that the role of Welsh Members of Parliament in the House would be likened to that of pygmies. I thought that was going a bit further than the content of the Bill suggested.
      It seems to me that the present problems facing the people of Wales are principally related to the economy, to industry and to employment. All the major powers affecting those issues remain here in the House. If we, as Welsh Members of this House, can overcome these problems, working in co-operation with our English comrades and our colleagues from Northern Ireland and Scotland, far from being pygmies we shall have become giants.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: By the list that the Minister has given, at least by implication he acknowledges that it would not be easy for another Aneurin Bevan to come to this House and give of his experience on social issues, on which he orginally made his great reputation.
      Mr. Jones: In my limited experience of Nye Bevan—and I accept that the hon. Member has greater knowledge than I have—I would have thought that his impact would make itself felt anyway in whatever forum he found himself. He was not just limited to social services either; he played a role in foreign affairs and other issues.
      There are significant functions here and the exercise of these functions in order to meet people's needs will enable Welsh Members to show that we can be giants in the future just as we were in the past.
      Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend is expressing a hope that Welsh Members will play an important role after devolution but perhaps in seeking to be objective we should look at the only analogy we have—the case in Northern Ireland. That Province with fairly similar powers could not produce any Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, from the middle 1950s to 1974, who achieved even minor governmental office except for the then Mr. Robin Chichester Clark. This gives an indication of the way in which the House regards hon. Members from Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Jones: It is a fact that in the 11 years that I have been a Member of this House there have been Members from Northern Ireland who were members of Government before 1974—and I see no reason for picking that period. But I would have thought that other factors were involved before one can draw such conclusions. Rightly or wrongly, those who have represented Northern Ireland have tended in the main to support one particular political philosophy.
      Mr. Powell: Is the Minister seriously saying that it would be easy or even possible after this Bill for a Member for a Welsh constituency to become Minister of Education or Secretary of State for Social Services?
      Mr. Jones: The right hon. Member must bear in mind the fact that since we have had decentralisation my right hon. and learned Friend who is Secretary of State for Wales is also responsible for education in Wales. I could well understand that any Prime Minister would feel that his Secretary of State for Education should be representative of somewhere else other than Wales in those circumstances.
      The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said that devolution would bring about a devastating change in the role of Welsh Members. I concede the point that it will bring about a change. If it did not, there would be no point or purpose in our talking about devolution. It is the interpretation of the word "change" that counts. I think it is a change for the better and I argue that there is a major vital role for Welsh Members of Parliament under this Bill.
      1286
      I would have thought that in the last few years one of the issues that has brought about particularly devastating changes to the role of hon. Members has been our entry into the EEC, yet I can recall no criticism from Conservatives generally about that.
      Judging by the comments that I hear, there is inadequate time available to discuss EEC matters which arise late at night, and go on into the early hours of the morning. The House has not yet come to terms with that. I have not heard any Back Bench Members express great satisfaction at the way in which the role of hon. Members is being carried out in this context.
      The Minister for Agriculture and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales are in Brussels today discussing agricultural matters. I would have thought that this was the sort of change in the role of Members which has had the devastating effect that the hon. Member for Pembroke seems to imply will come about as a consequence of devolution.
      We made our position on this matter quite clear right from the ancient document—the White Paper of September 1974, Command 5732, in which we said:
      "The setting up of Scottish and Welsh assemblies does not, however, detract in any way from the overriding interest of all the peoples of the United Kingdom in the determination of United Kingdom policies as a whole… For this reason the Government regard it as essential that both Scotland and Wales should retain their existing number of Members of Paliament in the United Kingdom Parliament…"
      The White Paper went on to talk about the important function of distributing resources between Scotland and Wales and the regions of England. This was to be determined by the Government and approved in this House of Commons, with Scotland and Wales being required to be represented fully in this discussion Therefore, it seems that, despite all the arguments, there is no justification whatever for a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs consequent upon devolution.
      The reduction in the number of Members is unjustified because the Welsh Assembly is not being given any legislative powers. All the laws will still be passed here. Parliament itself will play its part in legislation as before. When the hon. Member for Pembroke said that hon. Members would be powerless he is wrong

      1287
      again. In recent years hon. Members have shown that they are able to exercise power to influence and change legislation. I believe that it is the intention of certain hon. Members to do just that to forthcoming legislation. I believe in Parliament having that power and I believe that in that legislative role Welsh Members of Parliament will have a vital role to play.
      8.30 p.m.
      However the hon. Member for Pembroke reads the report of the Kilbrandon Commission—and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is not present in the Chamber—it is quite clear that in its recommendations in paragraph 905 it says, referring to the previous chapter,
      "In the last chapter we examined the case for reducing the representation of Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons if they were given legislative assemblies of their own and Parliament remained responsible for all English legislation. This question does not arise under executive devolution, since Parliament would continue to legislate for all regions."
      All that I am saying is that it seems to me that that was quite clearly the majority view—and I accept that there were minority views—and that certainly one is entitled to pray in aid the words
      "This question does not arise under executive devolution."
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It is also fair, then, I think, to quote another paragraph from Kilbrandon, paragraph 1155, which says:
      "It is an essential feature of the scheme that it should be applied in a more or less uniform way throughout Great Britain."
      We have always made clear that it is the act of separating the treatment of Wales and Scotland that makes the difference on this issue.
      Mr. Jones: I am not denying that there are other quotations from Kilbrandon, but I am pointing out only this one because in the context in which we are talking, Kilbrandon was talking about the implications for central Government of having executive devolution. Quite clearly the argument and the consensus view of Kilbrandon was that as long as one was moving for executive devolution, there was no justification whatsoever for a reduction in the number of Welsh Members
      1288
      of Parliament in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Kinnock: Will not my hon. Friend accept that it is one thing for the Kilbrandon Commission, five years ago, and for him today to say that this question of changing the representation does not arise, in this frozen moment of April 1978, and it is another thing altogether in the practicality of the post-devolutionary situation for the House of Commons to take a different view? Does not this proposal gamble with the future to the extent that under the present system of government there is no justification for reducing the number of Members, but under that future system of government, a different system, there might conceivably be justification?
      Mr. Jones: I believe that there are far greater gambles with the future than that. It seems to me that unless one deals with an aspiration which is showing in Wales and Scotland—we can argue about the extent of that aspiration, and the referendum will show one way or the other—the consequences could be infinitely worse than anything else.
      On this issue I also say to my hon. Friend that there would be nothing to prevent incoming Governments or the next House of Commons, even if nothing were done now on devolution, making suggestions for reducing the number of Welsh Members of Parliament here for a variety of different reasons.
      Mr. Kinnock: They would.
      Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend says "They would", but I, at least, lived through the time when they did, when certain actions were taken which cost my constituency of Rhondda an additional Member of Parliament. That is not so long ago. Those things happen even without any form of devolution.
      Mr. Kinnock: But—
      Mr. Jones: No, let me continue. When I have had a second breath, perhaps my hon. Friend can come back again.
      Therefore, for those reasons, I do not believe that one can justify a reduction. But I say that for another reason, too. I believe that if one were to accept the new clause and the implication behind it of

      1289
      a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament, this itself could well be regarded—I would certainly regard it so—as a threat to the unity of the United Kingdom, since matters which are essential to that unity will be decided here and those matters which are essential to that unity need full Welsh and Scottish representation in the House of Commons.
      I was not quite sure of the purpose behind it, but the hon. Member for Pembroke seemed, to me at least, to be saying that he did not want a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman nodded his head in agreement with me. If that is so, it seems a very odd way of going about it, because if the matter had not been raised in the new clause, it would not have been raised in this debate. Not only has it been raised in a speech which went on for a fairly lengthy time, but it was also suggested that it should be dealt with by a Speaker's Conference. Despite the hon. Member's protestations that he did not want a reduction, the new clause seems to be a vehicle which could bring that about. Indeed, he used many of the arguments used by those who want the number reduced.

      We ignore at our peril those matters which are essential for the unity of the United Kingdom—international affairs, development partnership with the EEC, national security and defence, trade and industry, employment, industrial relations, management of the economy, energy and social security. Do the Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament believe that, even after devolution, Wales needs a quieter, more still voice of representation in this Chamber? If not, it is unreasonable of them to support the new clause. But if they do, many of their tears about industry, employment and EEC problems are crocodile tears.
      These matters vitally concern everyone in the United Kingdom and there is no reasonable argument for reducing representation on these essential interests, even after devolution, of those of us who live in Wales.
      The vehicle suggested is an odd one. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) started this, and some other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) suggested that they did not think that a
      1290
      Speaker's Conference was a good idea. The Government also believe that a Speaker's Conference is not the appropriate forum for legislation. It has always been the practice to regard a Speaker's Conference and the forming of its agenda as a matter of agreement between the parties. I do not see that sort of agreement materialising tonight.
      If a Speaker's Conference were set up, I invite the hon. Member for Pembroke to say what evidence the Conservatives would give it. Would they call for a reduction, an increase or merely the preservation of the status quo? Judging from the new clause, I suspect that they are not sure, because it is permissive and not mandatory. That suggests that they have doubts.
      As for in-and-out voting, I believe that experience, the Kilbrandon Report and plain common sense weigh heavily against any such system.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) brought us posthaste a communication from the other Chamber and a question whether the Scottish Assembly could establish a defence committee. I assume that, to stay in order, he is interested in the Welsh Assembly's powers in this regard. This Bill—I am advised that, apart from the difference between legislative and executive responsibility, the same would apply to the Scotland Bill—devolves executive responsibility for a number of matters to the Welsh Assembly but defence is not devolved and the Assembly will have no powers in this field. However, the Assembly will almost certainly want to discuss all matters of concern to Wales and cannot effectively be prevented from doing so. It can also appoint committees, but such a committee would have no powers.
      I am surprised that the provision is regarded as a revelation of something new. Clause 18 was written into the Bill many moons ago. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian reminded the Committee that we have now been discussing this matter for 42 days and 42 nights. Therefore, it is not a matter which has suddenly arrived because of something that has been said in the upper House.
      Furthermore, in Welsh terms this situation is not new. I remember the

      1291
      Rhondda Borough Council frequently expressing its views on Vietnam and the nuclear disarmament campaign. I know that in recent years there have been representations to the Welsh Office by county and district councils on defence installations and other topics. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), when he was Secretary of State for Wales, received similar approaches.
      This is not a matter of one local authority acting on its own, but we must remember that it was the Mid-Glamorgan County Council that called a conference affecting the whole of Wales. Representatives came to that conference from almost every local authority to discuss unemployment in Wales. I see nothing objectionable in an Assembly having the same sort of power which every district council and county council now possesses.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty thought that this was a desirable feature, and I agree with him. He also seemed to think that Clause 29 would prevent that process taking place. That is not so. The purpose of Clause 29 is to demonstrate that the Assembly cannot conduct relations with another country if we are talking about agreements, exchange representatives, joint arrangements and other matters. However, there is nothing in Clause 29 to prevent the Assembly from communicating its views to another country, and there have been occasions when my hon. Friend's own district council has carried out that role in the past.
      Mr. Anderson: Does my hon. Friend the Minister not accept that there is an essential difference between Mid-Glamorgan calling a conference on unemployment, which is concerned with planning and industrial development in its own area, and a Welsh Assembly calling a conference, say, on an international matter which would be quite beyond the expected competence of the Assembly?
      Mr. Jones: I do not agree that we should take this power away from the Assembly. If one sets up an Assembly and gives it certain powers, one knows that that Assembly will do what it wants to do. But nobody can stop a group of people—certainly not a group of Welsh people, and certainly not a group of
      1292
      elected Welsh people—talking about any subject under the sun. That is the reality of the situation. Therefore the provisions in Clause 18 are quite correct.
      This issue was raised on the Scotland Bill, and indeed also on the Scotland and Wales Bill. In the debate in February 1977 a suggestion aimed at incorporating a provision on the lines of New Clause No. 2 was rejected by 277 votes to 199. In January 1978 a similar provision in the Scotland Bill was rejected by 272 vote to 220.
      I invite the Opposition to withdraw their new clause. If they do not do so, I shall ask the Committee to reject it. However, I shall keep talking for a few moments more since I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty wishes to intervene.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friend has specified the areas which the Assembly might discuss. Do I take it that he is saying that under Clause 29 the Assembly cannot have relations but it can have affairs?—in which case that might make it much more appealing to some of our colleagues and kinsmen in Wales.
      Seriously, I should have expected my hon. Friend to understand the difference between, on the one hand, the profession of an opinion by a local authority, an elected body of people with political opinions, and the way in which that is ignored, taken on board or cast aside by the Government, and, on the other hand, the expression of a similar opinion by a committee or by the whole Assembly, a national Assembly, and the consequences of that being cast aside or ignored by the central Government.
      My hon. Friend is well acquainted with the reality of these matters. Will he understand that there is a qualitative difference between the two affairs?
      The Chairman: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is straying extremly wide in that intervention.
      Mr. Jones: It is a little difficult to reply when my hon. Friend has virtually been told that he is not quite in order, but may I go back to a concrete example? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must have as much patience as I have needed to have in the past few weeks. They also serge who only sit and wait,

      1293
      I commend that as a good motto to hon. Members.
      The Mid-Glamorgan County Council called the conference on unemployment in Wales. There was an expression of opinion. No one can reasonably say that, merely because it was called by a county council, my right hon. and learned Friend would ignore the feelings and opinions there expressed. Such expressions of opinion are made to my right hon. and learned Friend and, I assume, to all Ministers in successive Governments, and from whatever source they come they must receive some attention.
      May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty—with this I shall sit down, though only for the moment, not for good—that I do not think that I can define the difference between affairs and relations. I like both.
      Mr. Pym: In the course of this quite long and interesting debate, the frontiers of New Clause No. 2 have been pushed out for a fairly substantial distance. We have even had a discussion about the possibility of the Assembly considering foreign affairs—so much so, indeed, that the Under-Secretary of State seems to have summoned his colleague the Minister of State at the Foreign Office. I see that the hon. Gentleman has arrived on the Government Front Bench, having heard the news, no doubt, and the message will have travelled fast in Whitehall that perhaps the Foreign Office had better come in and take a watching brief.
      Until the Under-Secretary of State rose to reply, every hon. Member who had spoken, from all parts of the House, spoke against the Bill. Everyone wanted the Bill to be defeated one way or another. Sad to say, by no means all hon. Members were in favour of New Clause No. 2, but practically all said that the thinking behind it and its implications were inevitable. Indeed, the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said in terms that the reduction of the number of Members of Parliament in Wales would be inevitable.
      Our new clause is not designed to do that. Its purpose is to set up a Speaker's Conference to consider representation, and the truth is that everyone would prefer not to face up to what the new clause implies. Everyone would prefer to defeat the Bill.
      1294
      The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) talked about my right hon. and hon. Friends not going for the jugular. The answer is that we are going for the jugular on this Bill. I hope that he and more of his hon. Friends will join us when the crucial Divisions come—certainly on Third Reading and on a number of other rather important occasions yet to come when the jugular will be on offer. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not be making mere pin-pricks. We shall take the knife to it, and, as we are not quite numerous enough to succeed by ourselves alone, we shall look for a bit of assistance.
      I acknowledge that there are certain illogicalities and a certain inappropriateness about the new clause. That derives, at least in part, from the fact that we have had a guillotine. The effect of that upon our debates has been major. We have not been able to debate a great many clauses, including, incidentally, Clause 18. Had we been able to debate in the usual way the very important issues raised throughout the Bill it is possible that the issues that we have discussed today and the thinking behind the new clause would have arisen in another way and in other circumstances, and, therefore, it would not have been necessary to table the clause. We think, however, that in the circumstances facing the Committee it was right to table the clause.
      The main reason we are against the Bill is that we wish Wales to retain its most powerful voice, namely the 36 Members of Parliament representing Wales. That is by far the strongest voice for Wales, and we do not want anything to be done in the Bill—or any other Bill—that will damage that voice. The Bill, if implemented, will damage that position.
      Some Labour Members who feel that the Bill is not right and should be thrown out, but who do not feel able to vote against it, are relying on the referendum. If the Bill becomes an Act, we hope and judge that the people of Wales will take that view. But we have to face the possibility that the Bill will be not only en-enacted but supported.
      The Under-Secretary said that the purpose of the Bill was to have something extra for Wales. That is a very attractive and desirable thought. However, in doing that, we have also to consider the effect

      1295
      of the Bill and that sort of devolution on the rest of the United Kingdom and on the House of Commons. It is that side of the equation that the Government have forgotten to think about.
      The Under-Secretary spoke about the changes that have been brought about on the House as a result of our joining the European Community. He is right about that, but at least it applies to every hon. Member and to every part of the United Kingdom. The Bill, however, would bring about a change that affects Wales—that is to say, one part of the United Kingdom—and a change in the relationship between Members representing Welsh seats and the rest.
      The Minister also said that the Government believed that there was not a case for a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament for Wales. Without the Bill, the Conservative Party emphatically believes that to be the case. But if the Bill is passed, the position will not remain unaltered for long, as everybody has been saying with the inevitability argument, for the simple reason that the impact on England will, in the end, prove to be untenable. It is wrong to describe the future role of Members of Parliament for Wales as that of pygmies, as did the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), but the Bill will greatly change their role.
      If the Bill is enacted, there will be three different roles in relation to Wales. One will be in matters where the Assembly is responsible for executive actions, that is to say, for the issues that will be devolved to Wales. The second role will be in the non-devolved matters, in which the Secretary of State for Wales would be responsible for distinctively Welsh matters. Thirdly, there is the situation in which the role of the United Kingdom is involved and Welsh Members of Parliament will be playing their part in the full United Kingdom role.
      What will be the effect of each of those roles on English Members? On matters affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, there is no effect because English Members—and the English electors who sent them here—will have exactly the same influence and role as a Member of Parliament in Wales or in Scotland. When Parliament is concerned with legislation for England and Wales only, the
      1296
      English and Welsh Member and the elector for English and Welsh constituencies who sent that Member there will have only 89 per cent. of control of that decision, whereas the Scots will have complete control, because they can vote on all matters affecting England and Scotland.
      When Parliament is concerned with executive orders or subordinate legislation for England alone, the English electors will have only 83 per cent. control of their destiny—unlike the Welsh and the Scots, who will have 100 per cent. control of their destinies.
      The Under-Secretary gave the impression that the devolution that was envisaged for Wales was executive only, but it is also legislative. It affects subordinate legislation. That has been devolved, and there is legislative as well as executive devolution for Wales—although on a different basis from that for Scotland. That is what causes the problem.
      The inconsistencies that will flow from the Bill if it is put into effect will not disappear. Everyone has admitted that fact in the debate, and that is why we tabled the new clause. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that it was premature and other Members have criticised it, but is necessary to prepare for the inconsistency that will arise and to write into the Bill this new clause which will force the House of Commons, through a Speaker's Conference, to consider the implications of what has happened.
      It will not be a matter of the Speaker's Conference having to make a decision or of the House shuffling off responsibility for a decision to the conference. We are asking Mr. Speaker to set up a conference in the usual way to consider all the issues involved and to make recommendations. It must be for the House to make the decisions.
      Everybody in this debate has admitted that the people of Wales ought to understand what will be the impact if the Bill is enacted. They ought to understand that the English will take a different view about Wales and about the arrangements for Wales. It appears to me that the Government are trying to put over their case on the basis that everything will go on just the same and that all that will happen is that there will be a new

      1297
      Assembly—something extra for Wales—that everyone will be able to enjoy that, and nothing else will change. We know that it will not be like that. As with the Scotland Bill, this Bill sets up a legislative Assembly, though in a different form from that in Scotland.
      That is why we tabled the new clause. It would be infinitely preferable to defeat the whole Bill. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that if the Bill were enacted there lay ahead an infinite vista of instability. We all feel, certainly on the Conservative Benches, that that is so. We know it is not going to work, that it will have an
      unsatisfactory impact on this House, and that serious adjustments will have to be made to rescue this country, and particularly Wales, from the mess that will follow the implementation of the Bill.
      That is why we would prefer it not to go through. If it does, we must make the best of it, but we think that we shall be forced to take a new view of the consequences of the Bill for Wales and for Parliament.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 160.

      Division No. 190]

      AYES

      [9.00 p.m.

      Arnold, Tom

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gray, Hamish

      Percival, Ian

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Awory, Daniel

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Bell, Ronald

      Hannam, John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Raison, Timothy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hicks, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Holland, Philip

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hordern, Peter

      Rhodes James, R.

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Brooke, Peter

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      James, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Jopling, Michael

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Budgen, Nick

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Bulmer, Esmond

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Burden, F. A.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Knox, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Lamont, Norman

      Shepherd, Colin

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Silvester, Fred

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sims, Roger

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Clegg, Walter

      Lawson, Nigel

      Spence, John

      Cockroft, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stainton, Keith

      Cope, John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Corrie, John

      Luce, Richard

      Stanley, John

      Costain, A. P.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      MacGregor, John

      Tebbit, Norman

      Drayson, Burnaby

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Emery, Peter

      Marten, Neil

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Wakeham, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Farr, John

      Mills, Peter

      Wall, Patrick

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Wells, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Younger, Hon Georgs

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Neubert, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Goodhew, Victor

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Mr. Jim Lester.

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Blaker, Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Atkinson, Norman

      Boardman, H.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Bain Mrs. Margaret

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Bates, Alf

      Bradley, Tom

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Beith, A. J.

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Cowans, Harry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Buchan, Norman

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Cryer, Bob

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Deakins, Eric

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sever, John

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lamond, James

      Silverman, Julius

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dunn, James A.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edge, Geoff

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stott, Roger

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McElhone, Frank

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Thompson, George

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Madden, Max

      Tierney, Sydney

      Flannery, Martin

      Magee, Bryan

      Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mahon, Simon

      Tinn, James

      Forrester, John

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Tomlinson, John

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V>

      George, Bruce

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Golding, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Gould, Bryan

      Meacher, Michael

      Ward, Michael

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mendelson, John

      Watkins, David

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Watt, Hamish

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Molloy, William

      Wellbeloved, James

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Moonman, Eric

      Welsh, Andrew

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Whitlock, William

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Newens, Stanley

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hooley, Frank

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Ovenden, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Padley, Walter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Parry, Robert

      Woodall, Alec

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Woof, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Prescott, John

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hunter, Adam

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Janner, Greville

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Mr. Frank R. White.

      John, Brynmor

      Rooker, J. W.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause No. 9

      PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS
      "The Assembly shall publish daily a verbatim report of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its Committees and shall place such reports on public sale at reasonable prices.".—[Mr. Brittan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As the Committee will be well aware, there is very little in the Bill about the detailed organisation and conduct of the Welsh Assembly. It is understandable that that should be the case. However much one may disagree with the concept of creating an Assembly of this kind, with powers of this kind, if one is creating an Assembly it is right that it should not be tied down in too great detail with regard to its operation. If it has to come into existence, I would not wish it to be unnecessarily restricted.
      1300
      On the other hand, even the Government recognise that certain provisions are necessary with regard to the conduct of the Assembly. There are a few clauses in the Bill dealing with such matters as the first meeting of the Assembly, Standing Orders, pecuniary interests, and so on. We believe that one of the most important requirements, if the Assembly is to work, in any sense—and if it is to do as little damage as possible to the structure of government, not only in Wales but in the United Kingdom as a whole—is that at least every possible step should be taken to ensure that there is public confidence in its operation. It is to that end that the new clause is directed.
      The importance of the Assembly in the government of Wales needs no underlining. Not only is it an Executive—as the Government readily concede and present it to be—it is at least half a legislature, in that it has the power of secondary legislation. Again and again in our debates examples have been given of the far-reaching extent of the measures that

      1301
      can be imposed—and the changes brought about—by means of secondary legislation in areas such as education where, as we know, the whole direct grant system was created and destroyed by secondary and not primary legislation.
      With an Assembly of this kind, it is right that a body which has such a wide ranging variety of powers on such a substantial scale should be one in which the public has confidence. The only way in which the public can genuinely have confidence in what the Assembly is doing is if they know, and have ready means of knowing to the extent that they are interested, what the Assembly has done on a prompt and regular basis. That is why the new clause, in effect requiring a Hansard of the Assembly, is proposed. We believe that the Assembly should sit in public and that what goes on in it should be fully and publicly available. There is no provision in the Bill to ensure that that happens.
      9.15 p.m.
      No doubt if the Assembly is set up the question whether its proceedings should be broadcast will arise. That is a matter that can legitimately be left for Cardiff to decide. Obviously, it is a matter that the Assembly can decide. It is possible for the Assembly to be public without its deliberations being broadcast, but those deliberations must be publicly and readily available.
      There are factors that relate to the operation of the Assembly which make it even more important that its proceedings should be public. I have it in mind that the Assembly will operate a committee system. In that respect—painful as it may be for the Government to hear the analogy—the Assembly will be similar to a local authority.
      I am not clear whether, in the absence of such provisions in the Bill, the provisions governing the admission of the public to local authority meetings and committees will apply to the Assembly. I should have thought that they would not apply. On the face of it, those provision apply only to local authorities. There is nothing in the Bill which directly equates the Assembly with local authorities in that respect. If much of the work of the Assembly, which will operate as an executive, deliberative and legislative body, is to be done in Committee, it
      1302
      is even more important that the public should know what is going on and have a ready means of finding out what is going on.
      If one is concerned about delegated legislation it is not enough to provide that an edict should go"out from Cardiff and a decision should be made known. The public have the right to follow debates in detail. There is no guarantee that even the hawk-like Welsh Press will find the deliberations of such spell-binding interest that it will report automatically those proceedings, if it is allowed into the committees—and there is no guarantee that it will be.
      There will be interested people involved in education, health, housing, and so forth, who will wish to follow in detail what is said in the Assembly. The only way of ensuring that is to provide the type of record that the Official Report provides for the House of Commons. That is particularly true of committees.
      There is also the question of cost. Perhaps the cost of providing Hansard for the Assembly and committees will be substantial. I am not in a position to make an estimate. I imagine that since there is no provision in the Bill for such expenditure, it is not included in the estimate of the total cost of setting up the Assembly which is set out at the biginning of the Bill. That is misleading, because although I expect that the Secretary of State will say that the Assembly will no doubt itself decide to provide a Hansard, my guess is that that cost is not included in the cost of setting up the Assembly. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Secretary of State will deal with it.
      The Assembly should publish a report. Whether it should do so as a result of a legislative requirement imposed by the House of Commons or of its own volition is a matter on which there may be scope for legitimate debate. Either way it should be done, and if it is to be done the cost is certainly part of the cost of the Assembly and should be included in the estimates. If it is included, I shall be delighted to hear it but as there is no response I assume that it is not. If it is not, the money will come out of the block grant that is to be negotiated, which will mean that much less for the people of Wales to have spent on their

      1303
      behalf on education, housing, and so on. If the Secretary of State says that in the calculation of the block grant account will be taken of the cost of providing a Hansard for the Assembly, it should appear as one of the extra costs and should therefore feature in the Bill's preliminaries.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has not costed the operation. He has not mentioned the possibility of a request for a bilingual report, which would at least double the cost. If he is to argue that this cost will have to be met, and could well come from the amount allocated to the Assembly, surely discretion could be given to the Assembly to determine whether it should incur this expense. I imagine that it would be substantial, especially if all the proceedings in committees as well as the main debates in the Assembly are to reported bilingually. Is not that a reason for the Assembly to decide, rather than for us to make it an instruction that it should publish reports of all committee proceedings?
      Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my two final points, to which I was coming next. I have little doubt that the Assembly will want to permit its proceedings to be conducted in both English and Welsh. Whether it does or does not, I have equally little doubt that it will be necessary for the proceedings to be published in both languages, and any estimate of the cost will have to take that into account.
      Whether it should be left to the Assembly to decide must be a matter of judgment. Plainly, some ground rules about the way in which the Assembly operates are set out in the Bill. The balance, the detail, will be decided by the Assembly. In the context of the creation of an Assembly, there is no need for us to get too heated on the question where the line is to be drawn. That, too, must be a matter of judgment.
      But presumably the criteria for what matters are included in the Bill and what are to be left to the Assembly must be that they are regarded as absolutely essential and fundamental to the operation of a democratic Assembly with substantial powers, and that without them an Assembly cannot have the confidence that
      1304
      it should have if it is to be set up at all. Those matters should appear in the Bill, and the rest can be left to the Assembly.
      I am suggesting that today, in a world in which Assemblies of an executive kind, and certainly of a quasi-legislative kind, are dealing with complex matters of interest to outside bodies, which will want to make representations at the various stages of consideration, the question of the report of what is said is not a peripheral question, which can be left as a matter of discretion it is a central question. The Assembly cannot work democratically and properly if people are not in a position to know in detail what it is doing.
      The hon. Gentleman is rightly foreshadowing a situation in which the Assembly may say "The mean British Treasury has not given us enough money, and so, instead of spending our resources on Hansard, especially on a bilingual Hansard, we shall spend it on schools, hospitals, and things that really count."
      That argument would be extremely attractive to the Assembly. It is one that would not, I suspect, lose Assembly Members any votes. No doubt schools and hospitals are popular in Wales, and no doubt Hansards have limited democratic popularity. However such a decision would be fundamentally subversive to the whole concept of democracy as we know it. That would be so because it would deprive others of the opportunity of knowing what was happening and, therefore, reacting in a way to which they should be entitled. The Assembly will operate not in vacuo but in accordance with representations made to it and views put to it. If the means of an informed debate outside the Assembly do not exist, it cannot operate.
      The fact that the hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed and contemplated as a real possibility the Assembly's not wishing to spend money on Hansard underlines the importance of our inserting a requirement that it does so. That should be done not in any hostile sense but to ensure that the basic democratic framework for the operation of a deliberative executive and quasi-legislative Assembly exists.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I merely want to suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that for two reasons it is inconceivable

      1305
      that the Welsh Hansard should not be bilingual. Some of the Members of the Assembly will be from predominantly Welsh speaking areas, and will want it to be printed in Welsh. Secondly, there is the validity of the Welsh language. It has now been accepted and is a part of our law.
      Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My expectation that the Welsh Hansard would be bilingual was made from infinitely less knowledge of the circumstances than that possessed by my hon. Friend. I am grateful to have my assessment of the situation confirmed so authoritatively.
      The cost must be faced, and for the reason that I have put forward I believe that the requirement is one that is not optional but central to the operation of a democratic Assembly. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that it should be put forward in the Bill. It is inconceivable that such a requirement could be re-regarded as any sort of hostile act; it merely buttresses the operation of the Assembly. It no more dictates to it than the insertion of pecuniary interests and standing orders provisions, along with a whole host of other matters that appear in the Bill.
      It is in that sense and in that spirit that I commend the clause.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is in my mind that when we were discussing the Scotland Bill inquiries were made about Hansard for a Scottish Assembly. The feeling was that the cost would not be much less than the cost of the House of Commons Hansard, which is of the order—I stand open to correction—of £850,000 a year. Presumably some preliminary figures have been worked out. There must be some notion of what the cost would be. I ask for the very roundest figures.
      As any of us who are delegates to the European Parliament will know, the cost of translation services is fantastic. Once translator is introduced it is necessary to have skilled translators. The technicalities are mind boggling. Everything has to be translated from one language into another. Translation adds to costs by a factor of two or three. All the typescript has to be reset.
      I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is in the
      1306
      Chamber. My hon. Friend has recently returned from Luxembourg. He will know the difficulties that I am talking about. What are the costs that are involved? It is unthinkable to have any sort of Assembly without having a record.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman said that for any Assembly the costs would be unthinkable. Is he aware that in institutions such as the Gwynedd County Council there are already facilities for simultaneous translation and the publication of all documents in both languages? This is undertaken not to facilitate the Welsh speakers, who make up all but five or six of the council, but to help non-Welsh speakers who otherwise would not understand.
      Mr. Dalyell: I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I did not say that the costs were unthinkable. I said that it was unthinkable not to have a written record.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I am surprised that they have not indicated their acceptance of this principle in some way either by informing my right hon. and hon. Friends or by putting down a new clause of their own, possibly in language which they prefer. I see no objection to the principle. I hope that the Government will quickly signify that they find it acceptable.
      I have no objection to the Assembly working out the details. I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will not be too superior about this linguistic problem. The day may come in the not-too-distant future when there will be a clamour to have the proceedings of the Scottish Assembly in Gaelic. I do not know. It may be a relatively small thing at present, but circumstances change.
      I think that there should be written into the Bill, if enacted, that there must be a verbatim report of the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly. No sensible debate can be conducted in any Assembly without a verbatim report of the proceedings being made available to its Members. We know how difficult it is when industrial or other reasons prevent the publication of Hansard in time for us to refer to the speeches of other hon.

      1307
      Members on earlier occasions—even on the previous day in a continuous debate. Therefore, we want inserted into the legislation, if enacted, that there shall be a daily verbatim report on the lines of the Official Report of the proceedings of the House of Commons.
      The new clause states that the verbatim report shall be
      "on public sale at reasonable prices."
      Looking at a recent copy of Hansard, I noted that it was priced at 33p. I do not know how that is costed. It may be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) stated in his admirable opening, that the bilingual element will demand a much larger cost. But provision for that should be made by the Government at this stage. That is another reason why it should be in the Bill. It is not fair to leave this as an expenditure which would bear harshly on the Assembly. Apparently the Government have so far made no provision for this matter.
      I suggest that not only should the need for and the provision of a verbatim report of the proceedings be in the Bill, but that the Government should make provision for the report at reasonable cost.
      As I intimated in an intervention, it is inconceivable that the report should not be bilingual. It must be bilingual.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. With a bilingual Hansard, which would be the official version if it came to a debate on it?
      Sir R. Gower: I should imagine that in an Assembly of this kind we would accept the law of the country, which is that there is equal validity. I am open to correction by the Secretary of State, but I should have thought that there was bound to be equal validity. This will be a bilingual Assembly in a country where both languages are spoken by significant numbers of people.
      Mr. Wigley: I would have imagined that the principle must be that the language in which the original comments were made would be the valid version. This would overcome the problem if there were any differences in the translation.
      Sir R. Gower: I agree. Where there are idiomatic differences that are unavoidable we must accept the language in which the speaker has spoken. The original English or Welsh version may present difficulties of translation of some exact idiomatic phrase. In such cases it must be inevitable that the words of the speaker, taken in the language that he or she has used,"would be considered as valid for the purpose of any subsequent investigation or interpretation of the meaning of them.
      There will be equal validity, however, which is implicit in any country like Wales where two languages are spoken. There will be a large number of people elected to the Assembly who are more fluent in English and a lesser number who are more fluent in Welsh.
      While I agree that the working out of the details can be properly left to the Assembly, I do not think that we should avoid all responsibility for this task. We must place the onus fairly and squarely on the Assembly of providing a report, but we should make provision to enable it to do this economically. We do not want a daily verbatim report that no one can afford. That is why we have used the words "reasonable prices" in the new clause. I hope that the Government will at least accept the principle behind the new clause.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: I hope that the Government will resist the new clause. While I follow the argument that there should be a verbatim report of the deliberations of the Assembly in its main meetings, I do not take the point that it is essential for democracy that every word uttered in every committee should be known to everyone in Wales.
      If that is what the Opposition are saying, they are arguing that every county council and local authority in Wales should have a verbatim report of all its proceedings. These councils are quite democratic, although the report that is issued is usually just a report of their decisions at the end of proceedings.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: If that is what the hon. Member believes then he is at cross purposes not just with me but with his own Front Bench as well. The whole point of the Bill is that the body that is being set up is not a local authority. It

      1309
      is an Assembly which purports to speak for a nation and to a nation and which has legislative power in the form of delegated legislation. Therefore it is analagous to a local authority.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Member must allow me to develop my arguments. Democratic organisations such as local authorities meet and do not issue verbatim reports of their proceedings. Despite this, the public is aware of their decisions and no one has yet felt the need to call for verbatim reports.
      The Assembly comes somewhere between the House of Commons and local authorities. It may be desirable for the Assembly to determine that it will issue a verbatim report of its main meetings, but this is a decision that we must leave to the Assembly to determine. After all, the whole argument is about devolution. Yet we are trying to hamstring the Assembly by laying down absolutely what it should do in all sorts of cases.
      There is no verbatim report of the proceedings of certain Committees of the House of Commons. I serve on a Select Committee. The Services Committee, for instance, holds certain meetings of which verbatim reports are issued, but holds other meetings dealing with the services of the House of Commons at which Members discuss matters generally. Heaven forbid that we should add to the paperwork of the House of Commons by having verbatim reports of every bit of conversation that takes place in our Committees.
      It is true that with Standing Committees on Bills, when legislation is affected and Ministers' decisions could have a great bearing on the eventual law of the land, one would argue that there is a great case for having a verbatim report. But just imagine if there were an Assembly Committee discussing the question of education allocations, attended by all the Members from various parts of Wales, and a Member from part of North Wales said that he thought that a school in his locality needed new toilets, and so on. There would be a long argument about minutiae in that Committee.
      Opposition Members are saying that from these Committee proceedings, going into massive detail, just as they do now in local government, there should be a verbatim report of that nature, that it
      1310
      should be published, and that it should be published at reasonable prices. That means, of course, that there will be no demand for such a publication and, therefore, that there must be a heavy subsidy. Are Opposition Members suggesting that all the minutiae in Committees should be published in verbatim form?
      Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Member agree that in the House of Commons and in another place all the proceedings are taken down and reproduced verbatim? The proceedings of the House of Commons, in this Chamber, in Committee in the Chamber or in any of the Standing Committees, are recorded verbatim and published in Hansard. Comparably, we say that the proceedings of the Assembly should be reproduced in that way. We are talking not about ad hoc discussions or interrogatory committees analogous to one or two of the Select Committees to which the hon. Member has referred, but about the proceedings.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Member may be talking about that, because his interpretation of what the new clause would do is very different. He has said that we should not decide the details, but as I read the new clause—
      "daily a verbatim report of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its Committees"—
      it seems clear that it is a question not merely of the proceedings of the Assembly but of all the Committee proceedings being published verbatim. I can understand that there would be a good argument for having a verbatim report of the proceedings.
      Mr. Brittan: I certainly had it in mind that the informal discussions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers were not included in the term "proceedings". If I am wrong about that—there is no point in our arguing about it—it is not my intention that the informal discussions should be included in what is published. It may be appropriate to redraft the clause in some other form. It is the intention that the ordinary Committees, which are, after all, debating substantial matters, should have verbatim reports, though not the informal meetings of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If the new clause includes such meetings—frankly, I do not think that it does—I would certainly be happy to have it amended to exclude such deliberations.
      Mr. Evans: I am glad that the hon, and learned Member makes that point. I am sure that he would agree with me that if we were to interpret the proceedings of the Committees and all the informal discussions that they will have as requiring a verbatim report, it would be an absolutely illogical situation because more paperwork would be coming from the Assembly than we get from the Common Market. I presume that the hon, and learned Member wishes to amend the new clause.
      Mr. Brittan: I said not that I wished to amend it but that I wished to do so only if it bore that meaning. I do not think that the term "proceedings" would cover all the meetings to which the hon. Member has referred. However, rather than seek to argue what the word would be held to mean, I readily say that if I am wrong I would wish to amend it. However, I do not concede that that is necessary. I am simply trying to ensure that our deliberations are on the basic point rather than on a peripheral point of drafting.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Evans: The Opposition now take the point that there is no purpose in recording the minutiae of a committee on housing or education which might be of little interest even to other members of the Assembly. We should have simply a report to outline the decisions reached for the benefit of the general public.
      I see that the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby is getting some help on the meaning of the word "proceedings" from the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman should have looked it up.
      Mr. Evans: But the hon, and learned Gentleman has had to get a book to look it up, and he is a practising lawyer.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman can read, I suppose.
      Mr. Evans: Of course I can. I am glad that we are to get a little legal assistance from the Liberal Party. We did not have much help from them in our last day's debate on this Bill.
      1312
      One argument against an Assembly is administrative costs. The Conservative Party say that they are concerned about public expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has estimated that the cost of reporting the House of Commons is £850,000. If the output of publications was the same, the cost of a bilingual system could be double that amount, and then there is the cost of translation.
      Conservative Members may be devious and say that this is another argument against the Assembly. But we need not go into that. It is necessary to have a verbatim record of the main decisions of the Assembly itself, but not the committees. As politicians, we tend to speak at length, and as Welsh politicians we tend to speak at greater length. It would be wrong to give people in the Assembly an incentive to talk longer because their speeches will be reported and read in their localities. In local government, with no verbatim report, people address themselves to the point and reach decisions briefly.
      Perhaps proceedings in the Assembly itself could be reported verbatim. If we are devolving powers to the Assembly, why not let it decide this?
      Sir R. Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the House of Commons should leave the question of what happens to large amounts of expenditure to be decided by the Assembly? Does he propose to curtail the speeches in the Assembly by ensuring that there is not enough money to publish a verbatim report?
      Mr. Evans: It will be for the Assemblymen to determine the length of their speeches. It is a question of our making a definite block grant to the Assembly. There is no provision for the publication of a bilingual verbatim report of all the proceedings. I believe that reason will prevail in the Assembly and that the view will be taken, "There is a need for a verbatim report of certain proceedings, but it will be unnecessarily expensive to publish all the proceedings verbatim."
      Obviously the Opposition are envisaging an Assembly that will be similar to the House of Commons, but I believe that it will be a different type of Assembly, especially if it is intended to undertake

      1313
      its work on a committee basis in determining the various allocations on social services and other items of expenditure.
      The Assembly will not be a fund-raising Assembly. Its main function will be to act as a spending authority in allocating funds. It will be a question of how the Assembly allocates the main block grant to the various committees and how those committees allocate the funds to different parts of Wales. I believe that in the Assembly one will not have the same type of decisions that are arrived at in, say, the Committee system in this House. Indeed, the type of committee in the Assembly will be very different. Therefore, I do not think a verbatim report of the committee proceedings will be necessary.
      There has also been mention of a daily report. Do we envisage the work of the Assembly as a daily occurrence? Surely that is a presumption which we should leave to the Assembly.
      I hope that the Government will resist this clause. It will involve massive public expenditure. If there is to be no additional grant, that expenditure must be at the expense of other forms of public expenditure which are greatly needed in Wales at the present time.
      Mr. Ian Gow: One of the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) in opposing the clause related to the matter of expense. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman hung his whole speech on that aspect of the matter.
      I invite the Committee to consider the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. In that memorandum we are told that the initial capital cost of establishing the Welsh Assembly will be £4 million. That is a once-for-all expenditure. We then see on page v. of the memorandum that the annual costs of running the Assembly will be £12·5 million. I respectfully suggest that that is likely to be a grievous underestimate. It is most rare for Ministers of the Crown to advise Parliament that there will be public expenditure amounting to £x which actually turns out to be £x. It will be £x plus 20 per cent. in the first year, and so the cost will escalate. Therefore, there is no realistic ground for objecting to the clause on account of the proposed cost.
      1314
      In deciding whether there should be a daily verbatim report of its proceedings the Committee should examine the importance of the Assembly. My hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said that he hoped that the Bill would never reach the statute book, but if it does we are entitled to take at its face value the importance that the Secretary of State and the Government attach to the Bill.
      The view of the Treasury Bench is that the Bill is of supreme importance for the future government of the Principality and that the future unity of the United Kingdom will be enhanced by the passage of the Bill. The fact that my right hon, and hon. Friends and I take the opposite view, believing that the passing of the Bill into law will be damaging to the good government of Wales and most damaging to the unity of the United Kingdom, is not relevant when we are considering the new clause, since the new clause is introduced on the basis that the Bill will reach the statute book.
      The Treasury Bench tells the Committee that the Assembly will be of crucial importance and that its deliberations will be of momentous consequence for the government of the Principality, and it is in that context that we have to consider the new clause.
      What is said in the Bill about the Assembly? Is it to be a trifling body, like a county council or district council? Not so, in the Government's view, for although proclaimed in Clause 2(1) we find this stark sentence—
      "There shall be a Welsh Assembly"—
      the powers to be accorded to it under Clauses 10 to 14 are very substantial.
      When a new Assembly is to be set up, at an annual cost of £12½ million, with all the solemnity of an Act of Parliament, we are entitled to say, as did my hon, and learned Friend, that there should be a daily verbatim report of its proceedings, a report for the benefit not only of the Assemblymen but of those—no doubt, the Secretary of State believes that they will be many—who will be queueing up to learn what the Welsh Assembly is discussing.
      I happen not to agree with the Secretary of State when he says that there will be an immense demand for a daily verbatim report of the proceedings of the

      1315
      Welsh Assembly. Indeed, I wonder to what extent there is a great public demand for a daily verbatim report of the proceedings of this Committee and of the House, but we have it as part of our procedure that there is such a daily verbatim report.
      It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdare that under Clause 16 there is power for the Assembly itself to decide these matters, but it is our case that we cannot leave that to the judgment of the Assembly, for it would be open to the Assembly to decide to have or not to have a daily verbatim report of its proceedings, and we wish to write into the Bill a provision that it be obligatory on the new Assembly to have this daily verbatim report. We cannot leave it to the judgment of the Assembly itself.
      It would be incredible if the Minister were to tell us that the Government will resist the new clause. After all, we have heard again and again, notably from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and even from his successor, that
      1316
      the Labour Party is the party of open government. The Government say that they want to give the people of the United Kingdom a greater chance to see how government in its deliberative and executive forms is carried on. How, then, would it be consistent for the Secretary of State to resist a new clause which gives effect to precisely the policy that has been enunciated over and over again by the Prime Minister and his predecessor?
      10.0 p.m.
      We come, as we have so often during these debates, to a clash between the professed policy of the Government and the actual conduct of Ministers. If Ministers are right in believing that the Assembly is of such key importance and that only by the setting up of this Assembly shall we have good government and pre serve the unity of the United Kingdom—though that would be a profoundly mistaken belief—the Treasury Bench ought to accept with acclamation and enthusiasm the new clause, and the Minister should clasp my hon, and learned Friend to his bosom.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has demonstrated again the ambivalent attitude of the Conservative Opposition towards the Bill. He has said that we must adopt the Government's assessment of the importance of the Assembly and that we must therefore have daily reports of its proceedings. I think that he is right. It is important that the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly should be reported.
      The Assembly will be a valuable step for Wales. I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough. It does not sufficiently divide the powers between the Welsh Assembly and the House of Commons. We are debating the first step in devolution. I totally disagree with the nationalistic approach. There is no point in having separate nation States in the latter part of the twentieth century. I view the devolution movement as being complementary to a much greater movement towards European unity and so on. The day of the nation State is already over. We go through the requiem masses in the House. We did so on the EEC Bill and we are doing so on the devolution Bills.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes rose—
      Mr. Hooson: The new clause says:
      "The Assembly shall publish daily a verbatim report of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its Committees and shall place such reports on public sale at reasonable prices".
      Nobody can quarrel about the term "reasonable prices". I am sure that even the Government will agree with that part of the proposition.
      The question is whether they should accept the proposition in the new clause that the House of Commons should lay down that the Assembly should publish its proceedings. I think that it should be a requirement. One of the key functions of the Assembly will be educative. We have not had a popular Assembly in Wales. Many people over the centuries have dreamed of an organisation representing Wales as a whole. If the Assembly comes into effect, it will be the first such organisation. It is important that the proceedings of the Assembly should be properly reported. I give way now to the right hon. Member for
      1318
      Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who tried to intervene earlier.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon, and learned Gentleman is kind to give way, but the relevant moment has passed. I am intervening to say that requiem masses in Wales finished in 1735.
      Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman has an unrivalled knowledge of Welsh history and Welsh spirituality. I was addressing my remarks to whether the House should lay down that the Welsh Assembly's proceedings should be reported. I think that its proceedings should be reported, because it would be a very bad day for Wales if the Assembly decided in its earlier meetings either that it could not afford to publish or, for other reasons would not publish its proceedings. This would be a retrograde step and the Welsh Assembly would start off on the wrong foot. It may do so from ignorance rather than any intention to prevent the people of Wales or elsewhere knowing of its proceedings.
      The objection of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) to the new clause was based entirely on the cost. He relied on the practice of this House and said that certain proceedings, for example, in a Select Committee when the public is excluded and the Committee discusses various important matters before going on with its formal proceedings, were not reported even to the House. He is correct, but "Erskine May" includes a definition of the term "proceedings in Parliament". It says:
      The primary meaning, as a technical parliamentary term, of "proceedings" (which it had at least as early at the seventeenth century) is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. This is naturally extended to the forms of business in which the House takes action, and the whole process, the principal part of which is debate, by which it reaches a decision.
      Normally, the informal discussions to which the hon. Member for Aberdare referred are not proceedings of the House. He need not worry on that point.
      The reporting of Parliament by way of Hansard evolved during the 19th century. No formal decision was taken to achieve this end. Even the Manual of Procedure of the House says:
      "A record of the proceedings of the House each day, compiled mainly from the minutes taken by the clerks at the table, but containing

      1319
      in addition a record of the public petitions and papers presented to the House, is distributed in a printed form next morning and is entitled the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons."
      Whereas there is formal provision for that, Hansard has evolved naturally and I am not aware of any formal provision concerning the production of Hansard.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon, and learned Gentleman is quoting "Erskine May", which defines the proceedings for this Assembly. The Welsh Assembly has not yet formulated its standing orders and it could define its proceedings in a different way from our definition.
      For example, Committee proceedings in local authorities are regarded differently from our deliberations. The new clause could be taken by the Assembly to provide that reports of all its deliberations should be published. The Minister tried to clarify this point and if the Opposition want the new clause to be passed, it will be necessary, for the benefit of the Assembly, for us to define "proceedings".
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman takes a dim view of his countrymen. He seems to think that members of the Assembly will be stupid. Even if we passed no amendment, the Assembly would regard the interpretation of the word "proceedings" by this House at least as a strong persuasive authority. It would be equally possible, if the amendment were accepted, for the Government to include a definition of "proceedings" in the Bill. That may be a consequential amendment. There is no difficulty about that.
      Mr. Brittan: Would not the hon, and learned Member agree that no problem arises, because what we are enacting is a measure of this Parliament and therefore the definition of proceedings of an Act of the Westminster Parliament must incorporate the practice and definitions used in the House of Commons which would therefore be binding on the Welsh Assembly.
      Mr. Hooson: I am not sure that I would go along with the hon, and learned Gentleman on that matter. His argument has great persuasive authority. I come to the central point which is whether the House of Commons should lay down that the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly
      1320
      should be reported verbatim. I think that we should do this. We should give the Welsh Assembly complete guidance on this. It is important that the Assembly should not start off, as a few people might be tempted to start it off, as a rather secretive body. It is important that its proceedings be open and reported for all to see.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I do not disagree generally with what the hon, and learned Gentleman is saying. There is one important aspect in all of this which he has omitted to mention—namely, the last few words of the clause:
      "on public sale at reasonable prices."
      I wonder whether he has discussed this with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), to whom this would be a pertinent and central aspect.
      Mr. Hooson: As the right hon. Member well knows, what is a reasonable price in Montgomeryshire is always regarded as an unreasonable price in Cardiganshire. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman has got himself beyond the early eighteenth century. I am sure that he agrees that it is right that the Welsh Assembly proceedings should be reported daily. I am glad to see him nodding assent. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he is in favour of the new clause or something along these lines.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It may not be appropriate for anyone who does not speak the language of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to intervene in this debate. I regret to say to my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)—whom I congratulate on reaching the same status as myself and the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery—that I could not support this new clause.
      The hon, and learned Member for Montgomery began by telling us that he did not approve of requiem masses. I would have thought that they were something about which the Liberal Party knew a great deal and represented a subject which should not be mentioned by it. He told us that his party was in favour of nation States, a subject which it keeps raising. He also told us, I think, that it was important that we should know

      1321
      what has happened in the Welsh Assembly.
      If there is one thing that the broadcasting of Parliament has demonstrated it is that a little ignorance of what is happening in these Assemblies might be preferable. A verbatim report of the proceedings of the proposed Welsh Assembly could never be on sale to the public at a reasonable price unless the public were charged an unreasonable price to produce it by way of taxation. It would cost a great deal of money to produce. We have to be responsible in Parliament if we are not to engage in humbug. If we were to produce all the verbiage which would come out of the Welsh Assembly—and the Scottish Assembly, God help us—it would cost a great deal of money. Presumably, in a mixed economy and with this Government, people would have to pay about one and a half times the cost of the publication so that there could be a profit.
      I should have thought that it would be a very expensive document to produce. I do not want to insult the Welsh but I cannot imagine that even those who are sitting on the nationalist Benches will be queueing up at Her Majesty's Stationery Office with a £5 note and saying in Welsh "Please may I have a copy of yesterday's proceedings in the Welsh Assembly?".
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the hon, and learned Gentleman think that the verbiage which is now issuing from him, and which will be published tomorrow, will be worth buying?
      Mr. Fairbairn: No, I do not think it is worth buying, and I am trying to illustrate the absurdity of compounding the felony in Wales.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon, and learned Gentleman's accent was pretty poor.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Let us be absolutely clear. This will be a very expensive, unnecessary and absurd operation. That is what I worry about, and I am sorry that I cannot support my hon, and learned Friend in this proposition.
      The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I shall not follow in detail the remarks of the hon, and learned
      1322
      Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).
      When the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) began his speech, I had a measure of sympathy with him when he spoke of what he was seeking to do and sought to explain the need for it. The basis of his case is that we should ensure that there is public confidence in a democratic Assembly of this kind, and that the publication of a verbatim report of the proceedings would be a material factor in relation to that confidence.
      That is not really the issue before us tonight. We are concerned here with whether we should insert into the Bill a provision for the reporting of the proceedings of the Assembly and its committees. It is not a question whether it should happen but whether we should provide for it. That is the issue.
      The hon, and learned Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that some ground rules are set out in the Bill, but in fact there are very few, indeed. It is important to get the Assembly going. It is important in regard to the involvement of Members. But one is seeking to provide the bare minimum for the Assembly by way of our seeking in the House of Commons to write into the Bill and to anticipate how the Assembly should conduct its business. I shall put the Committee out of its misery immediately by saying that very shortly, having heard the argument, I shall be advising the Committee to resist the amendment.
      The hon, and learned Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that the Assembly will not operate in vacuo. The basis of my approach is that we should not legislate for this in the House of Commons but that it should be left to the Assembly. I have never in my experience known politicians to hide their lights under a bushel. That may be the experience of some other hon. Members but it is certainly not my experience in this House. I believe that hon. Members are delighted to be recorded in Hansard and elsewhere as fully as possible so that the whole world will know of their good deeds and activities. I believe, therefore, that it is right to take into account—adopting the words of the hon, and learned Gentleman—that the Assembly will be operating not in vacua but in the full glare of the public eye. Members of the Assembly

      1323
      will want to ensure, within reasonable bounds, that the maximum number of people are aware of what is happening in the Welsh Assembly. That is my approach to the problem.
      The hon, and learned Member was also right when he said that where the line should be drawn is a matter of judgment. That is where my judgment lies. I believe that we should seek to write in the bare minimum of requirements.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) demolished the argument about other democratic Assemblies with substantial powers in this country. Some of them are very large, indeed. I do not know the exact figures for the Strathclyde Regional Council in Scotland, but I suspect that the population there is very significant and, perhaps, not too far removed from the Welsh position. It does not render an Assembly undemocratic if there is not a verbatim report of its proceedings.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Does the right hon, and learned Gentleman recall that at one time a number of local authorities up and down the country intended to keep the Press from their proceedings? It was necessary at that time for a private Member to introduce a Bill—which was passed through this House and enacted—making it compulsory for all local authorities to allow the Press into their proceedings, unless they passed a special resolution for some special reason. If it was necessary in the case of local authorities at that time, I submit with great respect that it is just as necessary now.
      Mr. Morris: Given that local authorities are now obliged under that particular enactment to conduct their proceedings in public, I should have thought it inconceivable that an Assembly of this kind—with regard to the majority of its deliberations—would seek to behave in any way whereby its proceedings were not carried out in the full glare of publicity. I would expect that argument to be untenable in this day and age.
      Fortunately, it is not for me to define the words contained in the new clause. I am grateful to the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for his help with regard to the word "proceedings". It is for the Conservative
      1324
      Party to seek to define what it means, If I am wrong, I can be corrected but it was not my impression that the Conservative Party was seeking to contain the need to publish to merely a collation of the decisions of the Assembly.
      Mr. Brittan: That is not what the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was saying.
      Mr. Morris: No, that is not what he was saying. He was giving assistance to the Committee on the basis of his understanding of what the proceedings in Parliament, as a term, meant. The new clause contains the words "verbatim report of proceedings". It was not my impression that that was the intention of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery, but I thought it was the intention of the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby that there should be a verbatim report of, I presume, every word uttered, certainly in the formal part of the Assembly.
      But there is a difference between the technical word "proceedings" and the words "verbatim report of proceedings", as I understand them, which are contained in the new clause.
      Mr. Costain: I am sure that the right hon, and learned Gentleman will appreciate that a new Assembly of this sort will have to build up a series of orders and regulations. Is he suggesting that, rather than have official proceedings which are published, it should rely on the Morning Star, the Cardiff papers, or the Welsh papers? Who will be the official reporter who will build up the precedents on which the Chairman of the Assembley will make rulings in future? Is it not absurd that we should rely on the Morning Star to give Socialist Members a good write-up?
      Mr. Morris: I have not suggested that. I have said that it would be unreasonable in this day and age to propose that the Assembly would not wish to have its proceedings reported with the maximum possible publicity. I say that it is for the Assembly to decide the form and the manner in which its proceedings should be reported.
      It has not ben suggested that we should lay down that the Assembly should broadcast its activities. Why draw the line there? The hon, and learned Member

      1325
      for Montgomery said that this was a matter of judgment. Why not provide in the Bill that if the House of Commons decides to broadcast its proceedings, the Assembly should be obliged to do the same? Why not write into the Bill the provision that if the House of Commons decides to televise its proceedings, the Assembly should do the same? Why not write the whole lot into the Bill if that is regarded by the House of Commons as right? It is a matter of judgment.
      These matters should not be inserted in legislation. They should be left to the Assembly. It will be comprised of politicians with the strength and possibly the failings of politicians generally, and they will seek the maximum possible publicity for their remarks.
      As I understand the new clause, it requires that there should be a verbatim report of all the proceedings of the Assembly's Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare was right to say that a line might have to be drawn. It is no good relying on the technical meaning of the word "proceedings". I am sure that the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery would not wish to do that. If the words
      "verbatim report of its proceedings"
      mean anything, they mean that whenever a Committee is properly called and meets, it must be reported, even when the occation is trivial. They mean that every word of the proceedings should be published.
      It is not for me to define the words "verbatim report". What on earth do they mean? To me they mean putting down, presumably in some document, every word that is uttered in any Committee which is properly constituted. There is no other meaning.
      Mr. Hooson: The Secretary of State surely is wrong about this. If the term "proceedings" does not include the informal discussion that takes place in the course of a meeting of a Committee—certainly in this House it does not—the verbatim report of proceedings cannot include informal discussions.
      Mr. Morris: It is not for me to define "proceedings". We have not heard a word about the meaning of "verbatim report". Frankly, I do not know what is meant by "informal proceedings". When
      1326
      a Committee, whether it deals with a major or a minor subject, is properly constituted and has a chairman, it has discussions. Where does one draw the line? A Finance Committee which discusses the Budget is a Committee of this House. Is anyone to suggest that one can draw the line in legislation between informal proceedings and the proceedings of the Committee? There are no such words in the clause.
      10.30 p.m.
      The impression I gained from the way in which the hon, and learned Gentleman opened the debate was that he wanted the maximum publicity and believed that to that end words uttered in the course of a Committee's proceedings should be recorded verbatim and published. In my view, it would be wholly wrong for us to seek to crib, cabin and confine the Assembly in any way over such matters, whether over its reports, broadcasting, television or whatever. We should leave it to its good sense.
      I shall not enter into the argument over what is a reasonable price. I come from the county of Cardigan, like the hon. Member who represents it. Our understanding of a reasonable price might well differ from that of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery, who is a more generous and fairer man in all these respects. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and I take a more narrow, restricted and realistic view. The hon. Gentleman also has his roots firmly grounded in a most important part of Wales. Is a reasonable price to be the economic cost of the publication, or the price the average consumer is likely to be willing to pay? There would be a statutory obligation to publish daily, whatever the printing or other difficulties that may occur, as we have seen from time to time here.
      One accepts that the Assembly and its Committees will be operating in the full realisation of the need to ensure that the public know what they are doing, so they will seek as best they can to see that as many as possible of their debates are reported. My advice to the Committee is that it is best left to them.
      Mr. Brittan: The Secretary of State made much play in the middle of his

      1327
      remarks with the fact that I had said in opening the debate that the question of a verbatim report was a matter of judgment. The rhetorical flourishes with which he thought it appropriate to garnish the latter part of his speech suggested that he was trying to persuade the Committee that when he himself said it was a matter of judgment his judgment must be right and everyone else's wrong. That is a most unsound proposition to rely on, to judge by what has been said.
      I am not pretending that a deep question of principle arises as to the precise point at which we cease delimiting how the Assembly should operate and leave it to the Assembly. But although I have said that it is a matter of judgment, the debate has brought out, as so often such debates do, one of the central features of the Bill and the problems relating to it—that the Secretary of State and the Government are trying to have their cake and eat it.
      The problem arises most often in the analogies with local government. On the one hand, the Secretary of State wants to say that the Assembly is like local government but, on the other hand, he says that it is not. In minuscule, a charming little vignette of an illustration of exactly this ambivalent attitude was displayed here in relation to the reports. On the one hand, it is like local government in that a local authority decides whether reports of its proceedings should be published and in what form—whether verbatim and whether contemporary, and whether they should be full. In that respect the Secretary of State is content to regard the Welsh Assembly as if it were an arm of local government which was to be given the authority to decide how important it was to publish what was going on in its deliberations and in what form.
      Another analogy with local government turns out to be less convenient and, therefore, less welcome to the right hon, and learned Gentleman. Local government is by law required, except in prescribed circumstances, to have its deliberations open to the public. That sort of provision does not appear in the Bill. There is no legal requirement on the Assembly to sit in public. There is no legal requirement on its Committees to sit in public. Is the right hon, and learned Gentleman prepared to be consistent and
      1328
      go the whole way, saying "The local authority must decide how much to publish of its proceedings; so shall it be with the Assembly. On the other hand, the local authority is obliged to sit in public except in certain prescribed circumstances; so shall it be with the Assembly"? If the right hon, and learned Gentleman, whose Bill it is, had procured within it a clause requiring the Assembly to sit in public, it would lie in his mouth to say that with that protection there is no need for any detailed legislative requirement as to reports. However, he has not done that.
      I cannot answer a hypothetical question, but it may be that if the right hon, and learned Gentleman had procured a clause requiring the Assembly to sit in public, we would not have thought it necessary to table a clause of this sort. However, he has done no such thing. He cannot come along and with one eye shut and the other open tell us that the Assembly is like a local authority that decides how much of its proceedings should be reported and how much should not and completely to fail to say that it is totally unlike a local authority because there is no requirement that it should sit in public. That seems sufficient in itself to demolish in principle the case that he was making against the substance of the clause.
      The rest of the right hon, and learned Gentleman's remarks consisted of nitpicking of a rather unworthy sort when it is borne in mind that I made it clear to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) what was intended by the clause, and that if it were thought in any way not to convey that intention, I should be happy to take it away and to accept from the parliamentary draftsmen, who are employed in droves by the Government, a better version of it. If the right hon, and learned Gentleman had accepted the argument but added "I am unhappy about the definition of 'proceedings'; let me see whether I can do something better". I assure the Committee that my pride of ownership and authorship would not have been so great as to withstand such an alluring invitation. However, instead we have had nitpicking on the meaning of "proceedings".
      The hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has performed a service to the Committee by making it

      1329
      clear that there is authority for the meaning of the word. That authority is to be found in "Erskine May". If a statute talks about the "proceedings" of an Assembly, any body that has to construe the meaning of the word would do so in the context of the proceedings of the House of Commons as defined by "Erskine May". There would be no trouble about that.
      If there is thought to be any difficulty about it, I shall be happy that there should be a further refinement in the form of an definition clause stating that for the purposes of the new clause "proceedings" shall have the same meaning as the proceedings of the House of Commons. That would leave it without any doubt that"Erskine May was the authoritative source to consult for that definition.
      It is slightly unworthy of the right hon, and learned Gentleman behind the rhetoric and verbiage to take refuge with such an argument. However, he does so and we have to take it seriously. At this stage I shall seek leave to withdraw the clause in its present form, remaining wholly unconvinced by the spurious argument put forward against the substance of it, but recognising the need to ensure that if the Committee is to be invited to enact it, it should be in a form in which it cannot be challenged beyond peradventure. It is in that spirit alone that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. I reserve the right to return to the matter at an appropriate time.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause No. 10

      ASSEMBLY'S FURTHER EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS
      '(1) In addition to those functions which it shall exercise by virtue of section 10 above, the Assembly shall exercise as regards Wales such other functions given to Ministers of the Crown by or under Public and General Acts, as the Secretary of State may by order specify.

      (2) An order under this section may contain such consequential, incidental and supplementary provisions (including provisions for the exercise of the powers with the concurrence or subject to the consent or approval of, or after consulting with, a Minister of the Crown) as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

      (3) A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Wigley.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause deals with the question of the transfer of functions, particularly the transfer of activities within functions, to the Welsh Assembly at points in time after it has been set up. The question of transferring areas of competence to the Assembly is likely to face us after the Assembly has come into existence.
      We can draw on the analogy of what has happened in the history of the Welsh Office over the last 14 years since it was set up. The Welsh Office started with relatively few areas of competence. Gradually, over the years, functions have been transferred to it. The most recent was on 1st April—the transfer of responsibility for agriculture and for colleges of education in Wales. Devolution in terms of the Welsh Office has been an on going process.
      I should not imagine that anyone on the Government Front Bench would think that the powers that have been given to the Welsh Assembly and the spheres within which it can use those powers have been defined categorically once and for all and that there may not in future he any need to consider whether other powers need to be transferred. I am sure that within the first two or three years of operation of the Assembly a number of such instances will arise.
      It is interesting to note that the Government are to move that a number of powers and spheres of responsibility be included in the Bill. Clearly, they have come across these amendments in the time since the first draft of the Bill was drawn and the latest point at which they had the opportunity to consider these matters. In other words, the more attention that is given to these questions, the clearer it becomes whether some activities are needed and others perhaps are not. I should have thought that the Government needed to have this type of responsibility, and the new clause attempts to define the mechanism by which transfers can take place.
      We note that the Government have already built into Clause 14 a mechanism whereby powers under local Acts can be transferred. We have suggested in the new clause that the mechanism for the transfer of public and general Acts should be similar. We have built in the same provisos, safeguards and courses of action

      1331
      as the Government deem necessary in Clause 14 for the powers under local Acts. Therefore, I should have thought that the mechanism for undertaking these transfers would be acceptable to the Government in the form that we have proposed in the new clause.
      I can think of some areas which perhaps very early on the Assembly and the Government—this Government or any other Government—might feel they would need to transfer. Earlier we discussed the question of the Boundary Commission in relation to local government. At the moment, responsibility for that remains at Westminster. But many forceful arguments were put forward for the transfer of that function. I should have thought that in due course the Government would feel that that was likely.
      There may also be omissions which the Government stumble across quickly. For instance, the Government indicated that they would accept amendments that we put forward relating to the Dinorwic hydro-electric scheme. I am sure that other such instances will come to light as experience takes us along the road. Therefore, I should have thought that the Government will need a mechanism of the sort that we are putting forward.
      10.45 p.m.
      I imagine that the alternative must be the need for a Wales Act (Amendment) Bill every time this type of transfer is required. I suggest that this is a rather cumbersome way of trying to facilitate the transfers of what may be non-contentious issues and that it would be more easily undertaken in the manner proposed in the new clause.
      The new clause allows for continued control by Parliament. Subsection (3) provides that in the same way as for the local Acts. It says:
      "A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament"
      —as in Clause 14. We have taken the same wording there, although we have reservations about the House of Lords, to make sure that that in itself is not the stumbling block on this question.
      The new clause is to some extent a probing clause in that looking at Clause 80 we see certain provisions for the transfer of certain realms of activities. But
      1332
      Clause 80 suggests that these are confined to those defined in Schedule 11, and I should have thought that that does not go far enough to meet the examples which I have given.
      For that reason, I should be grateful to the Under-Secretary if he could indicate whether it is the Government's thinking that there is already a mechanism in existence for such transfers within the Bill, or whether, if such transfers are to be required in the future, the matter would be handled, as the Government see it, by means of a Wales Act (Amendment) Bill.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: I hope that the Government will resist the new clause, although the hon. Member has said that it is just a probing clause. The fear that we have in Wales relates to the slippery slope theory—that whatever is done to create an Assembly in Wales, there will never be satisfaction on the part of Plaid Cymru until we have established a separate political and economic Wales.
      Therefore, I look upon this so-called probing new clause with foreboding, because we have not yet put the issue to the people of Wales in the many powers that have been devolved already in the Bill, under which numerous powers which are exercised by Welsh Members in the House of Commons will no longer be exercised by those Members and are to be devolved to the Assembly. Yet before the issue has been put to the people of Wales, here we have a new clause which states that, in addition to those functions which the Assembly shall exercise by right, as laid down in the Bill, other powers may be transferred to it.
      My fear about the Assembly is that as soon as it is set up and starts to deal with those subjects that have been devolved by this Parliament, we shall encounter the slippery slope. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about so much, but he said that there would be no stopping the Assembly talking about foreign affairs or defence and setting up Committees to go into a whole range of subjects. I thought that Members of this House would be dealing with certain subjects that would not be dealt with by the Assembly, but during the course of the proceedings this evening we have understood that in Wales Committees will be dealing with a number of

      1333
      subjects and that their deliberations will range far and wide.
      When we were dealing with the previous new clause, I wondered whether Opposition Members took on board the fact that there would be long debates on foreign policy in the Assembly, and long debates on whether we should have the neutron bomb in Wales—and there we would have the best seller on the bookshelves in Wales, "What Shall We Do With The Welsh Neutron Bomb?", and there would be arguments as to that.
      The Government might have been thinking that their devolution proposals would be enough, but already Plaid Cymru is preparing for the devolution of additional powers. I hope that the new clause will be resisted: enough is enough. The Bill as it stands is too much, in my view, and we must prevent further encroachments. I am beginning to wonder what hon. Members representing Wales will do if the Bill goes through, but if any further powers are devolved, we shall be like representatives in another place. There will be hardly any matters to deal with concerning the people of Wales. I hope that the Government will tell the nationalists clearly that this is not on.
      Mr. Brittan: It is apparent from the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that the innocent presentation of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has failed totally to convince the Committee that this new clause is innocuous. I endorse what the hon. Member for Aberdare said. This is a dangerous proposal which should be resisted. It would permit the Secretary of State to transfer powers to the Assembly well beyond anything proposed in the Bill, the only check being the negative procedure. With the difficulties of praying against any Statutory Instrument, that would provide little protection.
      We have enough difficulty in reaching agreement on whether there should be an Assembly and on what its powers should be. To suggest the transfer of further powers on these terms is a fantastic proposition which should be resisted. If the Welsh nationalists wish to persuade the Committee and the country to grant further devolution, they will have to do so openly. There is no chance of the Committee being taken in by sleight of hand in this covert way. It is wholly to be resisted and deplored.
      Mr. Alec Jones: I am surprised to be in the same bed as the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). This is practically the only time throughout the Committee stage that I have been in that company. The Government certainly would not recommend accepting the new clause. Whatever one's views of the proposal—whether it is called backdoor devolution or the slippery slope—it does not commend itself to the Government.
      The functions to be devolved were not chosen at random. All the functions of government which affect Wales were examined in depth, after consultation with a variety of bodies throughout Wales. The Bill is the result.
      We believe that the Bill provides the most workable arrangement because the transfer of functions is a matter of major significance. Therefore, it was essential for there to be primary legislation. We believe that that will be the case in future if such circumstances arise.
      It is true that it is possible to envisage circumstances which might arise in future whereby the Government of the day, whatever Government that may be, might wish to confer additional ministerial functions on the Assembly. But that would be a major decision and on those matters Parliament would be handing over its control to the Assembly. Therefore, we believe that if there were to be any such extension at all, it should be implemented only by primary legislation so that Parliament would have the opportunity to consider the issues more fully than would be the case under a ministrial order.
      We are not prepared to accept new Clause No. 10. I appreciate that the nationalists, having lost the amendment seeking to grant legislative powers to the Assembly, may regard this clause as a consolation prize. I am delighted to say to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that that sort of consolation prize will not be offered this evening.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister clarify one matter? If under the powers of Schedule 2 it is found that there is some enactment that is needed to be included, or some excluded function that is not intended to be excluded by the nature of the way in which the provision is drawn up, is there any mechanism which the

      1335
      Government can use to overcome the fact that that provision is not contained in the Bill, other than by introducing an amending Bill?
      Mr. Alec Jones: I understand that there are a number of subsequent Government amendments which are of a technical drafting nature—for example, Government Amendment No. 109, which deals with the Burial Acts, and others which deal with a limited number of Orders in Council. We have sought to examine all those matters and we believe that we have many of them "in the net" as it were. We believe that the transfer of functions is so important that it should be discussed by Parliament and that it should not be tucked away in a miniserial order.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I hardly believe that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) expected the clause to be accepted, because it goes greatly beyond the present Bill. It would mean adding some vital functions which the Government have deemed necessary in connection with the economic unity of the United Kingdom. The functions which have been devolved go a very long way as it is. The fears expressed in many parts of the Principality and elsewhere about the Bill would be exacerbated if the public in general thought that there was power in this Bill to slip in new functions without any further legislation.
      The functions that remain would be vital and connected with the economic unity of this country. If purely by ministerial order we could add those functions to those which have already been devolved, we should be on the slippery slope described by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I am glad that the Government and Opposition take this view about the proposal.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is a piece of fortuitous good luck that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is here to discuss the Phillimore Report, is with us tonight.
      Last week he told us how we were dealing with reasonable people, people who behave rationally, people who would act within the limits of the Assembly.
      1336
      I ask him to examine New Clause No. 10. Let him consider from the Temple, or from wherever he operates, how an Assembly would work legally. My right hon. and learned Friend is the fount of all wisdom, but when it comes to politics, we have only to examine the matter to realise that the Assembly will want more and more and more.
      The clause reveals yet again that there are people who would go to the Assembly and who by definition could never be satisfied—
      It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.
      Question negatived.
      The Chairman: I am now required under the allocation of time order to put the Question on all Government amendments to Schedule 11. These amendments are numbered as follows: Nos. 109, 298, 207, 299, 362, 363, 211, 110, 113 and 114.
      Unless there is objection, I propose to put the Question on all of them en bloc.

    Schedule 11

      AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 109, in page 71, line 21, at end insert—
      'THE BURIAL ACTS 1853, 1855 AND 1857
      (1) The powers conferred on Her Majesty in Council by—

      (a) section 1 of the Burial Act 1853;

      (b) section 1 of the Burial Act 1855;

      (c) section 10 of the Burial Act 1857;

      (d) section 23 of the Burial Act 1857;

      shall as regards Wales be exercisable instead by the Assembly by order made by statutory instrument; and except where the context otherwise requires references in any enactment to Orders in Council made under any of those sections shall be construed as including references to orders so made by the Assembly.
      (2) The provisions of section 1 of the Burial Act 1853 and sections 10 and 23 of the Burial Act 1857 concerning representations shall not have effect in relation to orders of the Assembly; but the like notices shall be given of a proposal that an order be made by the Assembly under any of those sections as is required in the case of a representation under that section.'.
      No. 298, in page 71, line 21, at end insert—
      'THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT ACT 1913
      The powers conferred on Her Majesty in Council by sections 14(4) and 15(2) of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act 1913 shall in relation respectively to monuments in Wales and the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales be exercisable instead by the Assembly by order made by statutory instrument; but the Assembly shall not charge a committee with the exercise of its powers under section 15(2)'.
      No. 207, in page 71, line 25, at end insert—
      "THE ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) ACT 1946
      1A. In paragraph 7B of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946—

      (a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (3)(a) after the word 'powers' there shall be inserted the words 'in respect of land in England'; and

      (b) in sub-paragraph (6), the words 'or Wales, as the case may be' shall be omitted.".

      No. 299, in page 73, line 4, at end insert—
      "THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS ACT 1953
      8A. Section 1(3) of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 shall have effect in its application (by virtue of section 3(2)) to the Historic Buildings Council for Wales as if the second reference to the House of Commons included a reference to the Assembly".
      No. 362, in page 73, line 16, at end insert—
      "THE OPENCAST COAL ACT 1958
      11A. After subsection (1) of section 2 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 there shall be inserted—
      '(1 A) The Minister shall not give a direction under this section in relation to land in Wales unless—

      (a) he has, at least 28 days previously, given notice of the proposed direction to the Welsh Assembly, or

      (b) the Welsh Assembly has informed him of its agreement to the giving of the proposed direction or to the giving of directions of a class that includes the proposed direction'.".

      No. 363, in page 73, line 16, at end insert—
      "THE PIPE-LINES ACT 1962
      11 B. After subsection (1) of section 5 of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 there shall be inserted—
      '(1A) The Minister shall not give a direction under this section in relation to land in Wales unless—
      1338

      (a) he has, at least 28 days previously, given notice of the proposed direction to the Welsh Assembly, or

      (b) the Welsh Assembly has informed him of its agreement to the giving of the proposed direction or to the giving of directions of a class that includes the proposed direction'.".

      No. 211, in page 73, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
      '13. Section 54(4) of that Act shall have effect as if it provided for the appropriate Minister alone to determine the question whether land in Wales of excepted statutory undertakers in operational land.'.
      No. 110, in page 75, line 26, at end insert—

      '22A.—(1) The powers conferred on Her Majesty in Council by sections 17 and 18 of that Act shall in relation to establishments in Wales be exercisable instead by the Assembly by order made by statutory instrument.

      (2) The Assembly shall not charge a committee with the exercise of its powers under those sections.

      (3) Those sections shall have effect in relation to orders made by the Assembly as if—

      (a) references to the Wales Tourist Board were substituted in paragraph (a) of section 17(3) for the references to the British Tourist Authority;

      (b) the consultation referred to in that paragraph did not include consultation with other Tourist Boards; and

      (c) the provisions of section 17(4) relating to regulations, and the provision for annulment made by section 17(6), were omitted.'.

      No. 113, in page 76, line 16, at end insert—
      'THE FINANCE ACT 1972
      26A. In section 19(4) of the Finance Act 1972 before the words "and any part" there shall be inserted the words "or of the Welsh Assembly".'.
      No. 114, in page 81, line 9, at end insert—
      'THE FINANCE ACT 1975
      69A. In paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975, before the entry beginning "Any university" there shall be inserted the words "The Welsh Assembly".'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]
      Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
      Whereupon The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended to the House, pursuant to Order [16th November].
      Bill reported, with amendments: as amended, to be considered tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

  COMMUNITY SERVICE BY OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  The following motion stood upon the Order Paper:
  That the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I think that the House is entitled to some explanation of this motion, as it relates to an important Bill and to the fact that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is objecting, because the Question must be dealt with forthwith.
  Mr. Rhodes James: Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House is entitled to some brief explanation of the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been agreed."] It has not been agreed with me. I wish to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not entitled to ask the Government for some explanation, however brief, of why the motion is moved?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is, in fact, objecting to the motion.
  Mr. Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I allowed to object, or am I allowed to ask for some explanation, however brief, from the responsible Minister of why the motion is being moved? That is my point. In my view it is quite improper that important motions of this kind should be pushed through at this time without explanation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It now remains to be seen whether there is any reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. If there is not, it will be presumed by the Chair that what the hon. Gentleman has said amounts to an objection. Objection taken.

  COMMUNITY SERVICE BY OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for second Reading read.
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

  CONTEMPT (PHILLIMORE REPORT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman), it might be helpful if I reminded him and the House that, while Standing Order No. 16 permits incidental reference to matters requiring legislative remedy, it is not in accordance with the practice of the House for an Adjournment debate to be founded entirely on such matters. I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will address himself, in the main, to the administrative aspects of the Phillimore Report.
  In view of recent events, I am sure that no hon. Member will need reminding that references to actions for contempt that are at present before the courts will not be in order.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Ryman: I wish to raise the subject of the Phillimore Report on the law of contempt. I am grateful that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is here to explain the Government's position on this important report. As is well known, the eminent committee under Lord Justice Phillimore presented its report on the law of contempt of court in December 1974 and the Government presented a discussion paper last month inviting public and parliamentary discussion of this topic.
  In the short time available for this debate, it is impossible to deal with many of the aspects of the Phillimore Report. To summarise, it is a difficult and technical subject of law which has troubled the courts greatly for many years. Lord Justice Phillimore's committee investigated the matter thoroughly, received oral evidence from many eminent persons and came to certain conclusions.
  Those conclusions affect both civil and criminal law and reveal certain difficulties and deficiencies in the operation of the law of contempt as it stands. The Green Paper recognised this fact and said, in effect, that it was a difficult subject which

  1341
  required discussion and careful examination, that the law of contempt was necessary for all sorts of very good reasons and that the freedom of the Press, while paramount, involved a measure of restraint. The Green Paper said:
  "As Phillimore pointed out, the crucial question is what measure of restraint is required. In all evidence received by Phillimore and others, there was no suggestion that the law was wrong in principle. Anxiety was, however, expressed about the uncertainty of its scope and application."
  The heart of the matter appears to be, as the Phillimore Report said:
  "Our review of the law of contempt made it clear to us that in some important areas it fails short of the certainty it ought to have. This is especially true of these parts of the law which affect the Press."
  It went on to give the explanation for this state of affairs.
  One of the most serious aspects of the law of contempt that the Government must consider is that it operates in such a way that in certain cases, particularly civil cases, the Press is unfairly muzzled and prevented from commenting on matters of legitimate public interest.
  It is highly significant that we are debating this topic while the court in Strasbourg is hearing an important appeal on contempt in what is colloquially referred to as the thalidomide case. This was a piece of litigation which occupied the time of the courts in this country for a long time and raised many important points of public policy.
  What I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to do tonight is to say what view the Government have formed initially of this report. We have had now a period of three and a half years for this report to be considered, but the discussion document which has emerged—an excellent document and I congratulate its authors—gives no lead as to what the Government's thinking on the law of contempt is. It states the position accurately and succinctly and says, for example, in paragraph 5 on page 2:
  "The main issues arising from the Phillimore recommendations concern:—

  (a) the starting point for strict liability for contempt in both criminal and civil proceedings;

  (b) certain proposed offences against strict liability;

  (c) the extent of liability for prejudice intentionally caused; and

  1342

  (d) the extent to which litigants may be subjected to pressure and influence."

  It adds two additional factors which will have to be taken into account. The first is the case at the European Court of Human Rights, which started yesterday and to which I have referred, and the second is the Law Commission's report on offences relating to the administration of justice. All of these are highly significant matters.
  The Government, in the course of the White Paper, having stated that the Phillimore recommendations are not seriously objected to in any substantial way, although individual criticisms could be made of one or two—I am abbreviating this for the purposes of the debate—put the alternatives which could exist instead of implementing the proposals made by Lord Justice Phillimore. In paragraph 15, on page 6 of the White Paper, the Government say:
  "Among the possible alternatives to the Phillimore recommendations are:—"
  then there is a list of five specific courses of action which would be open to those seeking to reform the law.
  Against that background I have a question to put to the Attorney-General. The Government have considered this report for three and a half years. Do they in principle accept the report of the Phillimore Committee? Do they agree in principle that it is necessary to reform the law of contempt, difficult and technical though this is? Do the Government agree with Lord Justice Phillimore that the present law of contempt is not precise enough in the sense that there are technical difficulties which may arise in individual cases which make it uncertain whether contempt arises at all?
  I apprehend that the Attorney-General has many cases referred to him complaining of alleged contempt and may or may not take up individual complaints referred to him according to whether he and his advisers consider that contempt has been committed. I respectfully suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that the present law is unsatisfactory and, above all, particularly in civil cases, the borderline of what is contempt and what is not is not sufficiently clearly defined.
  That point was stated very succinctly and graphically by an eminent Law Lord, Lord Diplock, in the thalidomide case

  1343
  which is referred to in paragraph 6 of the Phillimore Report. Lord Diplock said:
  "There is an abundance of empirical decisions upon particular instances of conduct which have been held to constitute contempt of court. There is a dearth of rational explanation or analysis of a general concept for contempt of court which is common to cases where it has been found to exist. This is not surprising since, until the Administration of Justice Act 1960, there was no appeal in cases of criminal contempt against the decisions of those of the courts of first instance whose main function is to reach decisions upon the particular facts presented to them in the particular case with which they are dealing."
  Putting it another way, what the noble Lord was saying was that there are many examples of the courts having decided that certain facts constituted contempt but that there are no overall, guiding definitions and precise principles which make it clear to newspapers, reporters and all concerned in the media with reporting events exactly where freedom of speech ends and contempt begins.
  In my respectful submission, that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I fully recognise that it is both a difficult and a technical subject, but the Government must grasp the nettle and give a lead in the discussion which they have now invited. I hope that the Leader of the House will enable a full day's debate to take place on the subject. It is quite impossible in the space of half an hour to deal with a report as comprehensive and as detailed as this or with a subject as complex as this. The time has now come when the Government, having invited public and parliamentary discussion, should state clearly and unambiguously what their feelings are about the matter.
  We are aware of the difficulties, but despite those difficulties the Government should give a lead in the matter. Having stated in this excellent White Paper the pros and cons of the Phillimore recommendations, and having put forward alternative suggestions, the time has now come when the Government should say clearly where they stand on these important matters.
  11.16 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I have listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) and taken careful note of what he has had to say on this, as he
  1344
  rightly says, difficult subject. He has performed a particularly useful service, because the Government are most anxious to get a debate started on the Phillimore Report.
  As my hon. Friend knows, many have criticised the Government for not having legislated, but few have, like my hon. Friend, actually initiated debate, and informed debate is much needed if we are to reach the right answers. I assure him that the Government agree entirely that it is necessary to reform the law of contempt. The Government agree entirely that the present law is not precise enough.
  As for the many cases which my hon. Friend rightly says are referred to me, in only a very small proportion of them do I decide to bring the matter before the court, although some of those seem to raise a great deal of controversy. But I suspect that that discretion will still be needed and will still be difficult, however much the law may be made certain and changed.
  The Government have welcomed the proposals of the Phillimore Committee as a useful survey of this difficult branch of the law. The House would want me to thank those who, under the late Sir Henry Phillimore, have produced so valuable a survey. Many of the Phillimore recommendations are relatively uncontroversial. There are altogether 35 recommendations, but, as I explained in reply to my hon. Friend's questions on 10th April, the report raises certain points of particular difficulty upon which we are not yet satisfied that the Committee struck the right balance. Indeed, there have been several cases decided in the courts, since the Committee reported, which might well have affected its thinking on some of these issues if they had occurred before the Committee reported. In Scotland, the important case of Hall, which is to be considered by a full bench of the High Court of Justiciary, may well provide further help.
  There is a tendency in some quarters to regard contempt of court as a sort of Establishment weapon for silencing the free flow of comment and information, and for making the task of the media more difficult. It is said "If only Phillimore were implemented, all would be well". I wish it were as simple as that. In this field there is always a difficult balance to strike. The freedom of the public to be

  1345
  informed is, of course, a vital freedom, in which the Press and the other media play a vital part, which I applaud. It is an essential part of democracy. But the right of the citizen to a fair trial is also vital and, of course, essential in a democracy.
  It is my duty, and that of the other Law Officers, to safeguard both freedoms. Indeed, they should be complementary and not antagonistic. I make no apology for approaching the subject with special care and caution. The central Phillimore recommendations raise difficult and important issues on the delicate balance between these two public interests. We have heard much from the media, and it is right that we should, about the public interest in freedom of information. But, as yet, there has been too little explanation of the needs of the other major public interest involved, the fair administration of justice. That is why the Government decided that the right course was to place the central issues before Parliament and the public in a Green Paper for informed discussion. That is what we have done. We are not, as some suggest, seeking to make the law more restrictive. We keep an open mind, but the basic question to which we seek an answer is whether the central Phillimore recommendations go too far in favour of free Press to the detriment of fair trial.
  The Green Paper raises four main questions for discussion. I should say a word about each. But I must first emphasise an essential aspect of the Phillimore Report, since it affects them all, especially in relation to strict liability. Phillimore recommended a new definition of contempt. It is, I believe, generally accepted that the present test of contempt is whether the words complained of create a serious risk that the course of justice may be interfered with. Phillimore changed the emphasis. It recommended a new test—whether the words complained of create a risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or or prejudiced. This change in definition alone would significantly shift the balance in favour of freedom of information. It alone would markedly reduce the area of uncertainty to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. That is the background against which the four questions must be examined.
  1346
  The first question is when the law of contempt should begin to impose strict liability for publication in criminal and civil proceedings. The present rule in England and Wales, which differs somewhat from the Scottish position, is that liability for contempt begins when proceedings are "imminent". This was criticised by Phillimore as being unacceptably uncertain and, because of that uncertainty as unnecessarily inhibiting the freedom of the Press. I do not think that there is dissent about that. The Committee was attracted by the logic of the view, expressed by an Australian judge, that
  "contempt of court is historically and by its name and nature concerned with the position of courts, with proceedings in court and with the protection of parties to proceedings in court ".
  It therefore accepted a simple test. Conduct prejudicial to the course of justice should be regarded as contempt of court only if the proceedings to which the conduct relates have formally started and have not been completed. It followed that in criminal proceedings the starting point for strict liability should be the moment when the accused man is charged or a summons served. It took the time of charge as the most readily identifiable point of time and, therefore, the most acceptable.
  The Committee fully acknowledge that there were strong arguments the other way. It has often been said that there is no logical dividing line which determines when prejudice may start to arise. Examples arise of the truth of the well-known saying, that
  "it is possible very effectually to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow".
  Should then the pursuit of certainty carry greater weight than the risk of serious prejudice to a subsequent trial?
  Therefore, the question here is whether Phillimore would swing the pendulum too far. To an accused person it may be just as important to be protected from prejudice during the period immediately before he is charged, when public interest in the crime is strong, as it is after a charge has been formally laid.
  There is another public interest here, apart from that of the accused person. It is important also that the guilty should not go free because the prosecuting authorities do not believe that a fair trial can be guaranteed. It is important that

  1347
  a guilty man's conviction is not set aside on the grounds that he did not receive a fair trial; and it is right that the innocent should not be denied the opportunity to clear his name.
  The Government, as I have said, keep an open mind. But we are not yet satisfied that a starting point as late as the formal charge is fair to the accused person. Some recent cases have shown that where there is a substantial delay between the commission of an offence and the time when a person is charged with it, widely published material, whether fact or comment, can seriously prejudice a subsequent trial.
  I shall leave this aspect of the problem by putting a hypothetical case by way of illustration. Would it be right for a dramatised mock trial of an actual murder case to be shown on television when it is known that the police are seeking to find and arrest a particular person, not yet formally charged, with a view to his subsequent trial for murder?
  The problems of prejudicial comment do not apply so acutely in civil proceedings. The Government are not opposed in principle to the majority recommendation of the Phillimore Committee that the starting point for liability should be the stage of setting down. There are, however, practical difficulties about the application of this recommendation. It is not altogether easy to determine an equivalent stage to setting down in the High Court for civil proceedings where there is no setting down procedure. Our aim is clear. It is to devise a rule which will confer the benefit of both simplicity and certainty in its day-to-day working.
  The second main question is about defences. Phillimore considered that a publication which creates a risk of serious prejudice to legal proceedings can yet be justified if it is a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in open court, or if it is part of a legitimate discussion on a matter of general public interest. The Government have serious doubts about whether all the problems involved in these defences have been fully appreciated.
  The proposal exempting fair and accurate reports of court proceedings was prompted by doubts which had arisen in the Poulson and Kray cases where there were widespread reports of proceedings against persons who were likely to be tried
  1348
  on other charges in the near future. The proposal broadly corresponded with what the law had previously been thought to be. But it has turned out to be by no means entirely straightforward. An accurate report of legal proceedings may include matters discussed in the absence of the jury which ought not to be reported in newspapers whilst the trial is in progress.
  The Border Television case earlier this year provides an example of this. The accused pleaded guilty to some counts in the indictment and was tried on others of a similar nature. The pleas of guilty were reported. The judge stopped the trial and sent it elsewhere. He thought that essential for a fair trial. The Divisional Court agreed and found a contempt established.
  The proceedings in 1975 against the Socialist Worker newspaper for disclosing the names of witnesses in a blackmail case were another example. In commenting on that case Phillimore proposed that the judge should be given a statutory power to prohibit, in the public interest, the publication of names or other matters arising at a trial. But such a power would have to be framed in the most general terms if it is to ensure that in all cases of genuine need a judge's request for non-disclosure would always be heeded. This is a very difficult problem. The Socialist Worker case came too late to receive more than passing reference in Phillimore. Its implications deserve serious study.
  The proposed defence of general public discussion is intended to preserve the public interest in uninterrupted discussion of the issues of the day. All would agree that public discussion of important issues should not be stifled, perhaps for years. But, given the new test of serious prejudice, this seems unlikely to occur unless the discussion focuses closely on particular features of the litigation in question. Even with the present test, public discussion on the safety of drugs continued unabated throughout the thalidomide proceedings.
  The third major question concerns the Phillimore proposal that it should not be contempt to bring influence or pressure to bear on a party to legal proceedings unless that pressure goes as far as intimidation or unlawful threats to his person, property or reputation and this, of course.

  1349
  was one of the issues which arose in The Sunday Times case.
  The Phillimore recommendation makes no distinction between Press comment and criticism which is fair and temperate and that which is unfair and intemperate. The recommendation would permit both. The Government doubt whether that is right. We are all conscious of the great pressure which, as Phillimore acknowledged, the media can bring to bear on a litigant. Even a really virulent campaign of execration by the media against a litigant, designed to induce him to abandon his claim, would not necessarily be a contempt of court under the rule proposed by Phillimore. It is not entirely easy to follow the basis for this proposal, if it is accepted as a general principle that there is no contempt unless the publication creates a risk of serious prejudice.
  In considering this question we shall need to take into account the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, to which my hon. Friend referred—the case which commenced yesterday. We hope to have the judgment during the course of this year.
  The fourth main question concerns the Phillimore proposal that conduct which is deliberately intended to prejudice legal proceeding should be treated as contempt only if it relates to specific proceedings, as distinct from the administration of justice generally. The Committee took the view that conduct of the latter type should normally be dealt with as a criminal offence. But it may not be possible for the criminal law always to provide effective remedies. Parliament rightly insists that criminal offences must be framed in specific and restrictive terms. Again, I refer to the Socialist
  1350
  Worker case, where the newspaper published the names of blackmail victims who, by order of the judge, had not been named in court. The publication could not have prejudiced the particular proceedings, because the witnesses had already given their evidence. Publication was objectionable mainly because if permitted it would tend to deter blackmail victims from giving evidence in future cases. This could, without doubt, prejudice the course of justice as a continuing process.
  It is for those reasons that the Government have so far been unable to arrive at firm conclusions on the implementation of the Phillimore proposals. It is for those reasons that before reaching our final decisions we have felt it important to bring these issues into the open by means of the Green Paper so that they may be widely discussed, and so that the Government may have the benefit of informed views upon them.
  We are anxious to have the views of all those who are concerned with both freedom of information and fair trial. Both are fundamental human rights. The problem is to reconcile them. I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss these difficult issues in this House, and I hope that this debate—I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising it—will stimulate further—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Lambeth, Central By-election
  Lambeth, Central By-election
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Isle of Man (Birching Case)
  Isle of Man (Birching Case)
  BIRMINGHAM BOMBINGS (TRIAL TRANSCRIPT)
  BIRMINGHAM BOMBINGS (TRIAL TRANSCRIPT)
  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (NEWSPAPER REPORTS)
  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (NEWSPAPER REPORTS)
ENVIRONMENT
  Injurious Substances (Control)
  Injurious Substances (Control)
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Animal Skins
  Animal Skins
  Cadbury-Schweppes Factory, Bordesley
  Cadbury-Schweppes Factory, Bordesley
  Aerosols
  Aerosols
  Rents
  Rents
  Trade Refuse Collection (West Lancashire)
  Trade Refuse Collection (West Lancashire)
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  Water Boards
  Water Boards
  Building Contracts (Counter-inflation Clause)
  Building Contracts (Counter-inflation Clause)
  Weather Damage (East Anglia)
  Weather Damage (East Anglia)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  BERKSHIRE
  BERKSHIRE
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  YORKSHIRE
  YORKSHIRE
  BURY ST. EDMUNDS
  BURY ST. EDMUNDS
  SCOTLAND (REFERENDUM)
  SCOTLAND (REFERENDUM)
  CHILE
  CHILE
  THORNABY
  THORNABY
  ABERDEEN
  ABERDEEN
  KENTON, MIDDLESEX
  KENTON, MIDDLESEX
  CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT
  CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT
  ARMED FORCES (PAY)
  ARMED FORCES (PAY)
  FRANCE (PRESIDENT)
  FRANCE (PRESIDENT)
  NEUTRON BOMB
  NEUTRON BOMB
  WALTHAM FOREST
  WALTHAM FOREST
DEFENCE
  RAF Stations (Landing Systems)
  RAF Stations (Landing Systems)
  Neutron Bomb
  Neutron Bomb
  Nuclear Test (Nevada)
  Nuclear Test (Nevada)
  Service Families (Housing)
  Service Families (Housing)
  Cruisers
  Cruisers
  RAF Pilots
  RAF Pilots
  Horn of Africa (Port Facilities)
  Horn of Africa (Port Facilities)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  NATO Defence Ministers (Meeting)
  NATO Defence Ministers (Meeting)
  Recruiting
  Recruiting
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Jaguar and Harrier Aircraft (Replacement)
  Jaguar and Harrier Aircraft (Replacement)
  Civilian Jobs (Dispersal)
  Civilian Jobs (Dispersal)
  RAF Greenham Common
  RAF Greenham Common
  Officers (Retirement)
  Officers (Retirement)
  BAOR
  BAOR
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  NATO (Meeting)
  NATO (Meeting)
  European Programme Group
  European Programme Group
  Arms Trading Fair (Aldershot)
  Arms Trading Fair (Aldershot)
  Exercise Clockwork
  Exercise Clockwork
  Widows' Pension
  Widows' Pension
  Royal Marines
  Royal Marines
  "Globe and Laurel"
  "Globe and Laurel"
  Hawk Aircraft
  Hawk Aircraft
EMPLOYMENT
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Training Services Agency
  Training Services Agency
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Weather Damage (East Anglia)
  Weather Damage (East Anglia)
  Fisheries Protection
  Fisheries Protection
  Footpaths (Urban Areas)
  Footpaths (Urban Areas)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  St. Lucia
  St. Lucia
  Thailand (Arms Supplies)
  Thailand (Arms Supplies)
  Mr. Alexander Hamilton (Abduction)
  Mr. Alexander Hamilton (Abduction)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Staff (Dispersal)
  Staff (Dispersal)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Tendering Requirements)
  Universities (Tendering Requirements)
  Student Union Finance
  Student Union Finance
  Arts, Crafts and National Collections (Expenditure)
  Arts, Crafts and National Collections (Expenditure)
  Independent Schools (Manchester)
  Independent Schools (Manchester)
ENERGY
  Gas and Electricity (Security Deposits)
  Gas and Electricity (Security Deposits)
  Coal
  Coal
  Sewage (Energy Potential)
  Sewage (Energy Potential)
  Waste Heat Utilisation
  Waste Heat Utilisation
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Projects (Japanese Investment)
  Industrial Projects (Japanese Investment)
  Industrial Development Certificates (East Midlands)
  Industrial Development Certificates (East Midlands)
  Regional Aid (EEC Policy)
  Regional Aid (EEC Policy)
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  National Enterprise Board (Investments)
  National Enterprise Board (Investments)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Herbert Limited
  Herbert Limited
  Mount Wellington Mine, Truro
  Mount Wellington Mine, Truro
  HS146 Aircraft
  HS146 Aircraft
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Family Income and Taxation
  Family Income and Taxation
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Disabled Drivers)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Disabled Drivers)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Building Allowances (Hotels)
  Building Allowances (Hotels)
  Married Women (Taxation)
  Married Women (Taxation)
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Age Reliefs
  Age Reliefs
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Code
  Price Code
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
SCOTLAND
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Glasgow, Garscadden By-election
  Glasgow, Garscadden By-election
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Expenditure)
TRADE
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Cornwall Tin and Mining Limited
  Cornwall Tin and Mining Limited
  Air Canada
  Air Canada
TRANSPORT
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Motor Car Insurance
  Motor Car Insurance
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Cross-border Schemes
  Cross-border Schemes
  RUC and UDR (Offences)
  RUC and UDR (Offences)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Gas Industry
  Gas Industry
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Frauds
  Frauds
  Institute of Child Psychology
  Institute of Child Psychology
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Nottingham Hospitals (Day Nursery Facilities)
  Nottingham Hospitals (Day Nursery Facilities)
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Ealing Hospital
  Ealing Hospital
  Hospitals (Common Services)
  Hospitals (Common Services)

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.

RADIO FREQUENCIES: CITIZEN'S BAND
Lord TORPHICHEN Lord TORPHICHEN: 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 intend to allocate radio frequencies for citizen's band use in this country, and whether this is to be included in the brief for United Kingdom delegates to the World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) in Geneva in 1979.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we have no plans to introduce Citizen's Band radio in this country. The World Administrative Radio Conference to be held in Geneva in 1979 is concerned with the allocation of frequency bands in broad terms. International radio regulations do not distinguish Citizen's Band radio as such; it is just one of the services coming under the general category of mobile radio, and the allocation of frequencies for such a service is therefore a matter for national action.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has given a rather depressing Answer? May I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that Citizen's Band frequencies that could be made available are lying unused already in this country? Secondly, would the noble Lord not agree that Citizen's Band radio could make a great contribution to civil defence in times of national emergency?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding is that there are no bands which are available. Some of the bands that noble Lords may well think available are used, I am informed, for
1608
important and essential Government purposes. Perhaps I had better leave it at that. With regard to the other comment made by the noble Lord, it is a matter of opinion whether Citizen's Band radios would serve the useful purpose they are alleged to serve. If one looks at what is happening in the United States of America, one can recall that not so very long ago one of their major motorways was held up and all the traffic diverted because somebody using a Citizen's Band radio gave an instruction that it was dangerous to go along there. It could be used for all sorts of purposes. His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent was responsible for a committee which has sent a report to the Government. The Government are looking at that report, and if it has anything to say that will be helpful they will say so in due course.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the United States. Is he also aware that the chief of police in the State of Ohio admitted publicly that through the use of Citizen's Band radio at least 500 lives were saved during the great blizzard?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are a much smaller country and there is no reason to suppose for one moment that the facilities we have at present and those which we use in times of national disasters are not adequate. We think they are.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord said that certain wavelengths were being reserved for essential Government purposes. Are they being reserved unused, or are they being used? Are they used for rehearsals or for practice in case an emergency arises, or are they being just left and not used at all?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not say thay are used for 24 hours a day, but they are in fairly continuous use.
Lord TORPHICHEN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the problems in parts of Scotland this last winter was lack of communications? Some farmers were reduced to making signs in the snow in order to attract the attention of

1609
helicopter police, because the telephones were down and they had no other means of communication.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I support my noble friend on this—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, would the noble Earl be good enough to give way? I have to follow the Rules of the House, which means that I have to reply to one noble Lord at a time. What the noble Lord said may well be so, but I think we have seriously to consider the enormous disadvantages of having a vast army of people who can communicate with each other very easily, given perhaps the hoaxes which are known to exist in America and on the Continent in regard to all sorts of other things. We have to compare those disadvantages with the advantages to which the noble Lord has made reference.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that during the recent blizzard British Rail lost two trains? Luckily, there was no loss of life, but had they had these communications they would have been found. The second train was sent out to look for the first.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if British Rail with its vast network of stations can lose two trains, I do not think anything can help them.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a point of liberty in this and that there ought to be freedom to communicate? Is it not better to go into the matter and see what happens and then, if there are some evil results, to do something about them, rather than stopping our liberty now?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that society takes very kindly to people who feel that they have liberty to rob, plunder, rape and do all kinds of things.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that British Rail have very considerable experience in losing trains?

SERVICEMEN'S FAMILIES: HOME LEAVE
2.43 p.m.
Lord SEGAL Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage the granting of home leave to wives and families of British troops in Germany to enable them to stay with relatives in Britain during such periods as their husbands are serving in Northern Ireland, provided that no charge is made upon public funds.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there is nothing to prevent the wives and families of British Servicemen in Germany from returning to the United Kingdom at their own expense while their husbands are serving in Northern Ireland, if they so wish. Indeed, they are allowed one return journey a year at public expense and many families already take advantage of this concession. However, I should add that the decision as to whether to return to the United Kingdom must rest with the family concerned. They will, for example, have to take into account possible disruption of children's schooling and the availability of accommodation with relatives in the United Kingdom.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that very helpful reply. Would my noble friend agree that, in view of the fact that many of these wives are young and have families of very young children, this concession goes a long way towards relieving the present anxieties of many of these serving families? But could not still wider facilities be afforded for certain very deserving cases, certainly where welfare officers in Germany recommend them, and where families are not fully able themselves to meet the costs of travelling?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall bring the recommendation of my noble friend to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, do these people lose their overseas allowance?

1611
What allowances, if any, do they get if they stay in this country?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, separation allowance is paid when a soldier is on an emergency tour in Northern Ireland, whether his family is in Germany or the United Kingdom. For families entitled to local overseas allowance, it ceases if the wife's absence is extended beyond 30 days.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that many of our serving men are in Northern Ireland for a continuous period of at least four months, could not a longer period than 30 days be allowed in certain deserving cases?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that question, but I shall bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State.

CHILDREN ACT 1975: S.65
2.45 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to implement Section 65 of the Children Act 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this provision came into force on 26th November 1976. As the noble Baroness will know, it enables a court to order legal aid for parents where a separation order has been made under Section 32A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. A separation order may now be made in unopposed proceedings for the discharge of a care or supervision order.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. My Question is really directed towards granting custody of a child to a local authority in care proceedings in court. Is the noble Lord aware that the child and the local authority are now by law enabled to be represented in court, but that the parents who are opposing the application of the local authority are not granted legal aid?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand the Act, what it was really designed to do was to prevent the situation which arose in the Maria Colwell case. In that case, the girl was in the care of the local authority and the mother wanted to have the child back. The result was that the child was returned to her, because, if my memory serves me correctly, the local authority was not opposed to the child going back. The whole purpose of the section which the noble Baroness is talking about is that, when that situation arises, the court shall have power to grant a legal representative to act for the child, to see whether or not it is desirable that the child should go back to the parents. As the noble Baroness knows, that section of the Act has not yet been implemented.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that further reply. It is specifically in the case where a local authority is requiring to take a child into its care, and where the parents are opposed to that application, that I want this part of the Act to be implemented. Can the noble Lord tell me when this part of the Act will be implemented?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness when it will be implemented, and at this moment I do not think anybody else can do so.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But, my Lords, what is holding up the implementation of this section? Am I not right in thinking that it would require a very small infrastructure, and practically no additional expense? Can the noble Lord say why it has not been implemented and what is holding it up?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding is that it is a question of expense. The legal representation which the parents would have would mean further responsibility and work for the local authority and, at the moment, that is something which they cannot undertake.

AIRPORT LANDING SYSTEMS
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the recent decision announced in America to adopt internationally the American landing system at airports is binding on the United Kingdom and European airports in view of the technical doubts about which system to adopt; and whether information as to names of the countries voting and which way they voted is available.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Question refers to a recommendation by the International Civil Aviation Organisation's All Weather Operations Division meeting last week in Montreal. It was that a new precision approach and landing guidance system for the world's airports should be based on a time-referenced scanning beam or TRSB system. This system has been developed by the United States. The United Kingdom has consistently supported the Doppler Microwave Landing System or DMLS, which we believe is infinitely superior. The decision is subject to ratification by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The decision is not binding on member States, but the interests of international civil aviation will be best served by the universal adoption of an internationally agreed system. The decision was taken by secret ballot.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that fairly full reply and while I am sure that the House shares her disappointment that the American system was adopted, may I ask whether she could say if that system is now fully developed and tested?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my information is that the American system consists of several experiments. There now has to be a further period of experiment and research over future years in order to adapt this system to the one which is to be used. It is not anticipated that the new system will come into force before 1995, and it is hoped that the British industry will be playing quite a big part in the development of the system. At this point it is the principle of the system which has been agreed.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell
1614
us whether she has any information as to who managed this rather surprising vote on behalf of the Americans, and also whether she has any information as to whether it was Lackheeds who masterminded, from the American point of view, this highly successful operation?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have no information, other than that 39 countries voted for, 24 countries voted against, while there were eight abstentions. Therefore it was not a close result, although for the United Kingdom it was a disappointing one.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, if the American equipment is still experimental, which is the word which the noble Baroness used, was not the decision taken a little early, in view of its importance?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand that tests were carried out in the full knowledge and in the sight of all of the countries who were concerned with it, and that they were satisfied when they took their vote after their long discussions. They were very long discussions and I guess that at times they were perhaps acrimonious. The decision has now been made and it will be ratified, or otherwise, when the full committee meets.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, perhaps it is an embarrassing question to ask the Government, but is the noble Baroness aware that a great number of people are extremely concerned about the methods which American industry sometimes uses to obtain orders? Are the Government altogether satisfied that the methods employed by the American industry were such as would not merit investigation?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, a Congressional sub-committee inquired into the conduct of the debate. It is not for me to comment upon whether another country's ways of doing things are proper. All I can say is that, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we carried out everything in the proper way. We hoped to influence all of the other countries, but we were unsuccessful.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the wholly objective advice of the technical experts which was available to Her Majesty's Government clearly indicates that the Doppler system is technically superior? In those circumstances, can one be wholly free of the suspicion that economic and industrial considerations rather than a completely single-minded desire to provide the world with the best system affected the decision of the technical committee?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think it is safe to say that, so far as this country is concerned, all of our technical advice pointed to the view that ours was the best system. We do not deviate from that opinion now. However, the fact remains that the TRSB, the American system, was the one which gained support at the meeting.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, in view of the fact that this system will not be introduced for a period of at least 15 years, may I ask my noble friend whether or not it is extraordinary that a decision should be reached at a time when it is not possible to say which will prove to be the best system? Therefore, would it not be sensible for the matter to be kept open? Is it possible for Her Majesty's Government to do something to ensure that the matter remains open until the systems have been fully tested?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, all that the decision has done is to determine the type of system which will be used. In fairness to all of the airports, we have to give a time during which they know that their present system will still be able to be worked and be used. We cannot leave them in a state of chaos. Therefore 1995 has been fixed as the date by which we hope that the new system will be introduced. Having fixed the type of system there will be, we are satisfied that the world's electronic industries will be competing for the manufacture and installation of the equipment. Because of the record of the British electronics industry, I have no doubt that we shall look forward to gaining quite considerable contracts when that development goes ahead.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Baroness on
1616
this Question, but could she tell the House how a technical judgment can be made between a system which is developed and a system which is not?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think that the United States would claim that their system is developed, although it has been developed in parts instead of as a whole. It is now a question of amalgamating the parts into one whole. There were long discussions about it in meetings, and the vote was taken. We lost that vote and we just have to accept it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the members of the enlarged European Community presented a united front on this matter?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords; it was not possible to mount a united European policy because we were not the only EEC country which sought permission and approval for a system to be developed.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, since there is considerable evidence of American corporation pressure being used to bring about this result, may I ask the Minister whether it is possible to publish in the Official Report the names of those Governments which supported the majority view, those which opposed and those which abstained?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords; as I said earlier, there was a secret ballot. While I accept that it was a robust contest —that is perhaps the easiest way to describe it—there were many controversial features in the debate, including the use of computer simulations which were not fully validated against the system which we were proposing. However, the final decision was taken on a secret ballot in order to ensure a free vote. I hope that with our democtatic system we can accept a secret ballot.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, secret vote or no secret vote, that this is another case where it pays to be considered to be a significant Power, and that the sooner this country becomes significant again in political terms it will reflect some advantage on our industry and our general technical development?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I would not accept that argument. The system which we put forward was at a much more advanced stage than was the American development that was put forward. We owe a considerable debt to our electronics industry for the way in which they have proceeded. Regrettably the vote went against us. We cannot win all the time, much as we should like to do so.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we have an enormous programme in front of us, and I am about to announce that there is to be a Statement as well. Feeling runs very high on this subject, understandably, but we had better leave it now.

ARMED FORCES: PAY REVIEW
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, repeat a Statement on the review of Armed Forces pay.

FILMS BILL [H.L.]
Lord BTRKETT: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 6 of the Films Act 1960. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.— (Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SCOTLAND BILL
3 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.
1618
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 34 [Potter to make changes in law consequential on Scottish Assembly Acts]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 16, line 17, leave out ("or expedient").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to Clause 34, upon which there was a discussion in your Lordships' Committee last night. Taking the matter briefly, Clause 34 gives the Government of the day powers to make changes in the law of any part of the United Kingdom consequential to a provision made by or under a Scottish Assembly Act. I suggest that this is a fairly novel way of changing the law in this country, that is to say by Order in Council in this manner, although I think it is true to say that similar provisions appear in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and the Local Government (Scotland) Act, both of 1973, to name but two. However, I do not think the cases are exactly parallel and there is the further matter that, although the system as proposed in this Bill is safeguarded to some extent by the fact that the order has to be approved by the Affirmative Resolution procedure, as is the invariable case with these orders they can either be approved or not approved but they cannot be amended.
So far as the Amendment is concerned your Lordships will see that it seeks to delete the words "or expedient" from subsection (1). The first question I wish to put to the noble and learned Lord who I anticipate will reply to the debate is this: What circumstances does he foresee which will lead to the Government wishing in the future to make changes in the law by Order in Council under this procedure? I will say at once that there was a heated debate in the other place on a subject which was not entirely similar to this. Nevertheless, I hope that by now the noble and learned Lord will be in a position to give illustrations or at

1619
any rate to describe the sort of Acts which will make the Government feel that this provision should be used in certain circumstances.
So far as the words "necessary or expedient" are concerned, I wish to say only that in the Local Government (Scotland) Act I think the words necessary or proper "are used, and that seems to me to be a better way of describing it. If the Amendment were approved I suppose it would infinitesimally fetter the discretion of the Government in that an order could only be placed for Affirmative Resolution if what it did was necessary rather than convenient. I beg to move.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): I think it would be best to begin by reminding the Committee that we had a discussion on a related matter when we discussed Schedule 2, and in particular paragraph 8 of that Schedule. Your Lordships will recall that following that discussion I undertook to look again at the wording of paragraph 8, which was similar in some respects to this wording although the context is rather different, and as I intimated last night in the course of another debate, we are making progress with our further look at that wording and we hope to bring forward a satisfactory solution. That has some bearing upon this because in order to answer the noble Earl's question I have to turn to the circumstances in which the Government envisage that Clause 34 might be used.
I explained this in the earlier debate, but perhaps I may do so shortly again. The exercise of ordinary legislative competence by the Scottish Assembly will inevitably entail consequential amendment to legislation about non-devolved matters. But we accept that particularly in the other place there was some alarm about the apparent possibilities of Clause 34. The Government have looked at the matter again closely but remain of the view that Clause 34 is in a well precedented and acceptable form.
The wording of the clause is very limited indeed. The principal limitation of the power conferred by Clause 34 lies in the legislative competence of the Assembly itself. Far from having unrestricted com-
1620
petence, the Assembly can only legislate within a very precise definition of devolved matters and beyond this, to a limited extent, allowed as the Bill now stands by paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. This restriction, taken with the provisions of paragraph 7 of that same Schedule, which prevent an Assembly Act from amending the Scotland Act, makes it apparent that the Assembly could in no way legislate to affect the main constitutional provisions on which the devolution settlement is constructed. Since an Assembly Act is thus expressly prevented from amending the Scotland Act, consequential changes in United Kingdom law—if the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will forgive me for using that expression as a form of shorthand—would arise from the need, for example, to substitute statutory references in Part III of Schedule 10 or to insert or amend the names of Scottish bodies. Because the competence of the Assembly is limited in this way it must follow that the ambit of Clause 34 powers which are expressed to be consequential—and I emphasise the word "consequential"— on provisions made by an Assembly Act, must be even more restricted.
I will now turn to the wording. The Amendment would cut back the powers of Clause 34 by preventing provision which is expedient. The only test left then would be that of necessity and that could be a very high and difficult hurdle to cross on its own. As the noble Earl pointed out, the term "necessary or expedient" is not wholly unprecedented. It is a precedented provision for making a multitude of Amendments to United Kingdom legislation which the Bill could not encompass without growing to enormous size. As he has indicated, it has a respectable ancestry to be found in Section 254 of the Local Government Act of 1972. That Act empowered a Minister to make such consequential provision as appeared to him to be "necessary or proper", and I suggest that the difference in wording is not of any great significance.
Section 254 of the 1972 Act referred to the power of the Minister to make such consequential provisions as appear to him to be "necessary or proper" in consequence of the Act or in giving full effect to it. The same words are to be found in the corresponding provision; namely,

1621
Section 215 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Again, the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which the noble Earl mentioned and indeed which I quoted in the Official Report at col. 1030, contains similar wording. The breadth of those powers seems to be indistinguishable from the breadth of the powers now sought and there is no evidence that they were criticised as being too wide at the time. Indeed, if any narrower powers had been provided they could have been criticised as being inadequate for the purpose. Breadth is particularly necessary in the present context when the operation is so very much wider than, say, local government reorganisation and this particular operation in which we are engaged, namely devolution, lacks any precedent other than the Northern Ireland precedent in 1973.
So we regard Clause 34 as being an essential provision to enable any necessary tidying up to be done in consequence of the passing of Scottish Assembly Acts. If the ability to do this were curtailed in the way suggested by the Amendment a good deal of Parliamentary time could be spent discussing minor consequential matters for which the Scottish Assembly was primarily responsible.
I would remind your Lordships that there is the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I accept the general observation about it which the noble Earl has made, but in this kind of case where what we should be engaged upon would be simply a tidying up matter it is difficult to see that any amendment to the order would ordinarily be expected. In relation to the word itself, I would remind your Lordships that when the use of the same word "expedient" was criticised in its context of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 by, among others, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, they said that in that context the word was used objectively and it was not a suitable word for a court to construe, and they desiderated using it in a context where there was an element of political judgment and an element of subjective judgment.
That is the context of Clause 34. 1 really cannot, in their absence, say what they would say, but it would appear from what they said on that occasion—in column 1023 for the noble and learned
1622
Lord, Lord Diplock, and column 1030 for the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—that they would not criticise the use of the word "expedient" in its context in Clause 34. 1 hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Earl will not wish to press this Amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Did I understand the noble and learned Lord to say that there were precedents for the word "expedient" or did he say it was necessary or proper and that "proper" in that sense was the same as "expedient"? If that is what he was saying I cannot accept that. "Expedient" has a meaning of its own; it is rather loose. It can mean what you intend it to mean in many cases. would imagine that that was why the noble and learned Lords questioned it at an earlier stage. I should not have thought that the altered circumstances surrounding this clause in any way weakened the arguments which they put forward then. "Necessary" is definable in law; that has been laid down. "Expedient" is not, and I doubt if "proper" is either.
I should have thought that this Bill was not one in which to experiment or to start giving legal meanings to words that have not had legal meanings before. If it is that we want "expedient" to have a legal meaning, let us have it properly examined and defined in an area which is perhaps more identifiable than this Bill can be. The question I am putting to the noble and learned Lord is this: did he say that in fact in Bills similar to this "necessary or expedient" had been accepted and that this therefore seems to have worked in practice, or was he saying that in previous Bills the words are "necessary or proper" and was he then arguing that "proper" was the same as "expedient"? If that was his argument, I do not think I can accept that, and nor, I imagine, would the noble and learned Lords, who are very learned in definitions in law.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: wonder whether I may follow up Lord Harmar-Nicholls' point by asking the noble and learned Lord what he takes to be the meaning in this context of the word "expedient". It has been said that it has several meanings, but one which immediately comes to mind is something which is politic or useful but not necessarily

1623
right or just. It seems to me that a provision which on the face of it extends to an extraordinary extent, not, of course, the power of the Assembly, but the power of what can be done by Order in Council, and which is an extraordinary extension of administrative power, should not be left in this uncertain state. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can enlighten us on that.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: May I make a further comment, which I hope will not delay the Committee very long. I reflected about it on Schedule 2, and I am reflecting about it still. I doubt whether there is any difference in this context between "necessary" and "expedient", because I cannot conceive of a thing being necessary which was not also expedient, and in this context I cannot conceive of anything being expedient which was not expedient because it was necessary. Having said that, I wish to draw a general moral. The verbosity of the Parliamentary draftsmen is almost that of the late Archbishop Cranmer, who used to dissemble and cloak things from the face of Almighty God. They will always use two words where one will do. I must add that every time two words are used when one will do the poor Houses of Parliament in Committee have to spend about a quarter of an hour discussing what is the difference between them.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I may, I shall remind the noble and learned Lord of what he said on the last occasion—and I quote from column 1034:
"So that, if the word 'expedient' is required, I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that some machinery should he discovered to make the Executive responsible for deciding what is expedient, so that they may be answerable to Parliament, and not the courts".—[Official Report, 18/4/78, col. 1034.]
I think the noble and learned Lord will recognise that, at least in Clause 34, that criticism which fell to be levelled at Schedule 2 does not fall to be levelled here.
To take the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Lang-side, he asked me to define the word "expedient". I think the correct answer is that one should not take that one word; one must look at it in its context. The wording is:
1624
"necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act".
In that context, I would suggest that the word "expedient" has its normal meaning in this kind of context, to which I shall come in a moment. It simply means, in relation to a provision, a provision which expedes.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Is "expedes" in the dictionary?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Look it up. If it is not in the noble Earl's dictionary, it is certainly in any dictionary that I would consult. Accordingly, looking at it in its context, one would look at the provision which it is proposed to put in the Order in Council and say, "This is one which facilitates the putting into operation of the provision contained in the Scottish Assembly Act and is a consequence of it". That would be the ordinary meaning, in my submission.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, a question which he asked me the last time we came to this. I shall endeavour, in order to be consistent, to give the same answer. On that occasion I quoted the wording of Section 5(7) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, introduced by a previous Government, where, in a context similar to this—namely, where the judgement was to be made by the Secretary of State—the wording was:
"For the purposes of this section, a provision is ancillary to other provisions if it is a provision which is necessary or expedient for making those other provisions effective".
So it is very similar. The noble Earl and I both referred to the Local Government Act. Curiously, when I was looking through Schedule 4 yesterday, I found the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1945, and I find that that Act, which was passed in December 1945, contained in Section 1 —one of the provisions referred to in Schedule 4—the following provision, which I read short, but I hope not unfairly:
"the Secretary of State may … make regulations …
(c) for preventing the spread of infection by means of any vessel or aircraft leaving any place, so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out any treaty, convention, arrangement or engagement with any other country ".
So I think it has a respectable and ancient ancestry. I would defend it upon all these grounds. I hope I have answered

1625
all the questions, and I would hope that the Amendment will now be withdrawn.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: There is nothing like a good discussion on semantics to excite your Lordships. I do not intend to prolong the agony any further, except to ask that, if the Government—should we be so unfortunate as to see them in power for much longer—make up any more of these Bills, the word "expedient" should be left out as being surplussage, or alternatively the word "proper" put in so that everybody understands what it means. But, for the present purpose, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Power to move rejection of certain Assembly Bills]:
3.20 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 16, line 24, after ("State") insert ("in the case of any Bill passed by the Assembly which does not fall within section 19(1)(c) or 19(4) of this Act").
The noble Earl saidWe now pass to a matter which is of very much greater consequence, both in the context of this Bill and much more especially to the citizens of the United Kingdom if this Bill should become an Act and pass into law. I suggest that we deal with Amendments Nos. 129 to 134 in one debate. I shall speak to all my Amendments in one speech because it seems to me that different considerations arise on Amendment No. 253, which no doubt the noble and learned Lord will move. Further and still different considerations will subsist when my noble friend Lord Ferrers moves Amendment No. 330. It may be convenient if we consider Clause 35(1) and the Amendments thereto at this time.
The drafting of the Amendments is perhaps a little complicated. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I read how the clause would read if the Amendments were accepted, because then, in my submission, the whole passage falls into place. I shall then try to explain
1626
why it came about that my noble friend and I tabled them. Clause 35(1) will read:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State, in the case of any Bill passed by the Assembly which does not fall within Section 19(1)(b) or 19(4) of this Act that the Bill contains any provision which would affect directly or indirectly any reserve matter, or that the enactment of that provision would not be in the public interest, he shall lay the Bill before Parliament with …"
Then it goes on. I shall come back to that point.
The first part—this is the first Amendment—writes into the clause that, in effect, the first matter that the Secretary of State must take cognisance of is whether the Bill passed by the Assembly falls into Clause 19(1)(b) or Clause 19(4) of the Bill as it stands unamended. One can see the point of that. If it falls into Clause 19(1)(b), then the Secretary of State will have already formed the opinion that the Bill is not compatible with Community obligations or any other international obligations of the United Kingdom, or that it provides for matters which are, or ought to be, provided for in legislation passed by Parliament and implementing any such obligation. So the Bill will have failed to surmount that preliminary hurdle.
Turning to Clause 19(4), the Bill will have failed at the second hurdle, because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will have decided that the Bill is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Therefore we are talking in this clause, as will be agreed, about Scottish Assembly Bills which have got through that first test; that is, whether they come within the ambit of Clause 19.
We now come to the next part of this subsection—the fact that a Bill contains any provision which would affect, directly or indirectly, any reserve matter. That is perfectly easy to comprehend. This clause is a safety net. It comes in, as it were, after the Secretary of State has considered any other reserve power that he may have. What we have done in Amendment No. 130 is to change the emphasis. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State, first, must determine that the Bill, as passed by the Assembly, contains a provision which would, or might, affect a reserve matter. Then, under (b), he has to go on and say not only that he is satisfied, so to speak, on (a) but that the enactment of that provision would not be

1627
in the public interest. He could, as the clause stands, say that the Bill offends against Clause 35(1)(a), but because it was in the public interest he could, as it were, let it go through at that stage.
Amendment No. 130 gives the Secretary of State—I want to make no bones about this— a new and much more sweeping reserve power, because it says that not only can he act if he is of the opinion that the Bill offends under (a) but that he also must—not may or shall—act if he is of the opinion that the provision of the enactment would not be in the public interest.
This merits a debate almost by itself. It may well be—and we are only peering into the future at this moment—that the Scottish Assembly will act in a way that will be entirely constitutional, sensible, and beneficial according to its lights, and for and in the best interests of the citizens of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. We must say to ourselves that there could be circumstances when the Assembly will not so act; it may well act in a way which would not bring the Bill that it seeks to pass before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but which is nevertheless not in the public interest.
One may scratch around and find a number of examples which, in effect, are matters which are purely devolved under the terms of Schedule 10 but which nevertheless might be, in the opinion of the Secretary of State and indeed of Parliament, not in the public interest. One example that immediately springs to mind is if the Assembly proposed a far-reaching and swingeing change in the criminal law. We have only to think of what is happening at the moment in Europe in relation to the Isle of Man and its habit of birching young men in certain circumstances.
I do not know whether, for instance, the Scottish Assembly would reintroduce corporal punishment. I think that it certainly would have the power to do so, unless I am mistaken. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will pull me up if I am wrong. I think that the Scottish Assembly would be quite entitled to restore, as I said on Second Reading, corporal punishment or capital punish-
1628
meat. That is a situation which Parliament at Westminster might well find was intolerable. I do not know. It might, I suppose, be held to be against our international obligations, but I think that is rather far-fetched. What is to happen? What is the Secretary of State to do about that? When I introduced one Amendment in this Committee some days ago, I mentioned the word "ping-pone". I was ill-advised to use that phrase. It resulted in a debate which had little to do with the Amendment but a lot to do with the powers and duties of the respective legislatures.
This is what I foresee. If there is no provision such as is contained in Clause 35, that would be the only action that the United Kingdom Parliament could take. If we continue to use my example—it may not be a very good one, but it is the only one I can think of on my feet—the United Kingdom Parliament could say, "No, you will not restore corporal punishment: notwithstanding that it is a devolved matter, the sovereignty of Westminster is such that you will not restore it." The result of that would be that either the Scottish Assembly would have, as it were, to "re-pass" its Bill, which again it would be entitled to do, or it would accept the position.
In either case, it would not be satisfactory and it would not be for good relations between the two legislatures. In those circumstances, it seems that something like Clause 35 would be beneficial but I think it would be expedient—and I use the word—for the Secretary of State to be able to move in a situation like this although the Bill passed by the Assembly is perfectly proper in that it does not affect a reserved matter. That is the second limb of the argument.
The Third Amendment which is of consequence is No. 132, where the word "may" in line 30 is deleted and for that is substituted the word "shall". We say here that, if the situation is such that the Secretary of State is satisfied in the way I have previously outlined, it is not the case that he,
"may lay the Bill before Parliament",
but,
"he shall lay the Bill before Parliament",
for its consideration. I think that is something which may well commend

1629
itself to the Committee. It takes away the discretion and it might take the political heat out of the situation because it might well be that the Secretary of State would consider the Bill was odious —and I use that word in its political sense—because, politically speaking, he did not want to lay it before Parliament. We have there taken away the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Then we come to the final Amendment. It enjoins the Secretary of State to,
"lay the Bill before Parliament together with a statement that in his opinion it ought not to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council or
(b) a statement of the amendments necessary in his opinion to correct the defect in the Bill".
It might be that one had a large Bill, perhaps a Criminal Justice Bill. Many of the provisions might be sensible and would not cause any offence—if I may use the word—to Her Majesty's Government at Westminster. There might be only one or two provisions, clauses or even subsections in the Bill which were complained about. In those circumstances, it seemed to us that the last part of Amendment No. 134 would, as it were, enable the Scottish Assembly to cure the defect comparatively quickly—and, dare I say, comparatively painlessly—without having, for the purposes of its Bill, to go back to square one.
I have spent a little time in outlining Amendments Nos. 129 to 134 which my noble friend and I have tabled. Of course, there are a great many other arguments to do with this clause—for example, whether there should be a clause at all—but I have tried to confine myself to this first part of the argument which seems to fall neatly into these Amendments. I beg to move.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we debate with this Amendment Amendments Nos. 130 to 134, as suggested by the noble Lord.
3.34 p.m.
Lord BROWN: I have not been able to be present at all stages of the Committee debate, but it struck me that a number of Amendments moved have displayed a
1630
rather profound lack of confidence in the future behaviour of the Assembly if and when it is set up. It strikes me that these are in the form of self-fulfilling prophecies. If in a business organisation you doubt the sense of responsibility of your employees and design rules and procedures based on that lack of confidence, some psychologists have noted that you probably generate the very behaviour for which you are legislating. A lot of the Amendments seem to have this character.
I should like to ask the mover of the Amendment a very direct question—not as an attack on the Amendment but because I want to understand it better. Would it not in fact be a result of this Amendment that the Secretary of State would be placed in a position where, on the basis of his own opinion, he could override any legislative act of the Assembly or seek to have it overridden by Parliament? Is that not a straight result of this series of Amendments?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I think the answer is yes and no; no, because he could not, and yes because in any event he could since this Parliament is always sovereign. It is just shortening the procedure.
Lord BROWN: May I put it another way? Is it not a fact that if in the opinion of the Secretary of State something as passed by the Assembly is not appropriate, he can at least insist that Parliament itself looks at it, and whether or not the legislative act of the Assembly invaded the reserved area Parliament would then have the right to take away from the Assembly the legislative right which other clauses of the Bill have apparently given?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Yes. That is putting the matter much too baldly, which I am sure that the noble Lord would not seek to do. It would be quite an unfair expression of how the Secretary of State would act, but within those terms 1 agree with the noble Lord.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to clarify one small point in the Amendment. It seems to me that the noble Earl is missing out the subsection about enactment not being in the public interest.

1631
I think I heard him say something about it, but I did not hear it clearly.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I really cannot repeat myself. I hope I am not being offensive to my noble friend. He could look at it in Hansard tomorrow. I am beginning to regret that I tried to save the time of the Committee by, as it were, moving all these Amendments en bloc. I think I have been rather foolish.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question of the noble and learned Lord as to the construction that would be put on the words,
"the enactment of that provision would not be in the public interest"?
As I understand it the change of the word "and" to "or" might make a difference in the construction of what is in the public interest. In other words, it is, so to speak, changing the venue from Scotland alone to the United Kingdom because the Secretary of State for Scotland is the United Kingdom Minister.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I do not think the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, really reflected what would be the view of businessmen. The point he put to my noble friend was that if you are giving the impression that the Assembly would not be responsible and would not do things objectively and impartially, it might well undermine its powers. He said that in business you would not do that because it would foul the atmosphere. But in business we do do that, and the noble Lord knows it. When one puts conditions down an accountant has to check, and somebody else has to check on that accountant. You have to set down your framework on the basis that there are cheats about.
If people are handling money in my business, then I want to put them in a position where they can feel that the framework that I have created is safe enough to prevent them from being falsely accused at any time. Therefore, I think that I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, had in mind, but it is not true that businessmen do not put up a framework because the people who have to work within that framework may feel insulted.
1632
In this particular clause we come across something that is quite vital. The Assembly may pass laws or commit acts which will affect not only Scotland, which is the object of the Bill, but the United Kingdom. In order to provide protection as regards them being able to alter the laws of the United Kingdom, this Amendment is being inserted as a safeguard.
The words that are contained in the Bill at present are not all that bad. I read with great care the debate that took place on this matter in the other place. However, I think that the alternative words which have been put forward by my noble friend are better, set the case more clearly and make it easier for the provision to be administered later.
The reason why I prefer the clear words of my noble friend to the ones contained in the Bill is that the safeguard is supposed to be that regulations must be laid and affirmed. Those of us who have had some experience as regards the affirmation of a regulation know that that puts too much power in the hands of the Whips. They are able to get things through without the matter being properly discussed and without being able to amend it.
Therefore, I rose only because 1 should not like to have it on record that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was reflecting the reaction of normal business houses as I know them, because frankly I do not think that that is so. In my view, the words of my noble friend are clearer, better and more likely to give satisfaction when they are passing matters which are not within their full power—reserve matters, which affect the United Kingdom. It would be better if the words suggested by my noble friend were included in the Bill.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in order to hear the Statement at present being made in another place, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly, and, on question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ARMED FORCES: PAY REVIEW
3.42 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the

1633
House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about the pay of the Armed Services.
"The 7th Report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body is published today and copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are most grateful to the Review Body for all its work in producing this report.
"The Review Body has concluded that the pay of the Armed Forces has fallen seriously behind in the period since April 1975 and the Report states that increases in pay of between 19 per cent. and 38 per cent.—averaging 32 per cent. —are now required to restore the full military salary. It recommends that the full military salary should be restored at the earliest possible date, but it recognises the Government's expectation that increases which exceed the guidelines would need to be staged. It has recommended that this staging should be completed not later than 1st April 1980.
"The Government accept the Review Body's recommendations on the levels of the military salary. These will be fully implemented to the current levels for 1st April 1980 in two approximately equal stages after this year and, as the Review Body recommends, the Government give a firm commitment to that effect.
"In considering the levels of the military salary, the Review Body has had regard to the element which recognises the balance of disadvantage of Service life by comparison with civil life, known in the Services as the X Factor '; it has also taken into account allowances and charges.
"The Government have reached conclusions on these various elements in the light of the Review Body's conclusions and the following arrangements will apply for the year from 1st April 1978. There will be an increase of 10 per cent. in the military salary together with an increase in the X factor within the amount recommended by the Review Body, which
1634
will add 3 per cent. in total. The extent to which these percentages will be implemented will vary from rank to rank as differentials are restored. In addition, the rate of Northern Ireland pay will be doubled to £1 per day. There will he certain changes in allowances and a standstill in charges for accommodation pending a further examination by the Review Body. These together will add a further 1 per cent. to the net bill.
"My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is arranging for a summary of the new pay scales to be placed in the Vote Office.
"These arrangements now secure for the Armed Forces a firm assurance about their future conditions of service and will meet, 1 believe, the view expressed by the Review Body that their particular problems should be recognised.
"The men and women who serve in the Forces have many diverse and difficult roles, and they have undertaken a number of additional tasks, some of them very dangerous as in Northern Ireland. The country is grateful to them and I should like to pay tribute once again to the professionalism and dedication with which they carry out their many responsibilities."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, good manners and the customs of this House compel me to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I think that the only other kind thing that I can say is that the Statement at least fulfils one promise made during the wind-up of our debate on Thursday last.
In view—and I am sorry to say this—of the grave discourtesy to this House of arranging a defence debate when this Statement was clearly imminent within days, I hope that the Leader of the House will also feel able to undertake to fulfil an implied promise made by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, in the wind-up last Thursday when he said:

1635
"The convention is, as far as I know it, that the Commons first of all debate the White Paper and, about a week later, we do the same". —[Official Report, 20/4/78; col. 1420.)
I think that that is what the House would expect.
I can certainly welcome one statement which I found in the five-minute perusal that I made of the White Paper, because the Review Body says on page 31:
"In our view it is essential and equitable to ensure that Servicemen are no less favourably treated in the current cycle of pay restraint measures than other members of the community.".
As for the Statement itself, welcome though some of the crumbs are, I must ask the Government: do they seriously imagine that the promise of jam tomorrow will do anything to staunch the flow of personnel from the Forces? On Thursday last, I said that death by arterial bleeding is infinitely faster than death by starvation, and more irreversible. I should like to repeat that again today. The Government say that payments will be staged. I think that perhaps "stage-managed" would be a better expression to use about them. Will not this treatment call into question and undermine the vital confidence of the Forces in the value of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body itself?—indeed, it is clearly worried about this as can be seen from the opening paragraph of the White Paper.
It is all very well for the Government to mouth platitudes about recognising particular problems and expressing the country's gratitude, but that does not pay the bills. I can only say that the Statement leaves us, on this side of the House, with a profound sense of alarm and despondency, allied to a feeling of shame that Parliament is failing those from whom it demands both devotion and trust.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, there are one or two significant aspects to the Statement. It is rather unfortunate that the Statement says that between April 1975 and the present day the Forces have averaged 32 per cent. lag behind average pay in civilian life and that this is not to be corrected until 1980. I am still very doubtful whether 14 per cent. now will stem the disastrous flow of very skilled people from the Services. As I said in the debate last week, the rise in the cost of the various outgoings of
1636
the Forces, particularly rents, has been disastrous. We welcome the fact that the Statement said that, at any rate for now, the cost of accommodation is to be frozen; I have not seen the White Paper, but I should have thought that it needed to be reduced.
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether any effort is to be made to retain in the special categories the highly special skills which many members of the Forces have and which are in great demand outside the Forces. Unless that is done, the drain of these essential middle-rank people may well continue and get worse. It also appears to me that there should be some back-dating, although I see no mention of this in the Statement. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House can tell us whether that is so.
Lastly, we have had this enormously serious drain from the Services. There has been a lag of 32 per cent. behind average salaries, and we are in a position which the Government recognise as serious. I do not think that any steps can be taken to stop this unless the Government agree to index Forces pay so that this does not happen again. Certainly, the highly-skilled people who are now leaving all three Services will not stay unless some definite promise is given that this situation will not occur again in five or 10 years' time, when it will be too late for them to start a new career.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I welcome the constructive approach of the Liberal Party. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to flying pay in last week's debate; yes, there will be a 50 per cent. increase in that. However, before noble Lords criticise I ask them carefully to read the White Paper. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, that no discourtesy was intended when we arranged the debate we had last week; after all, we had discussions through the usual channels. I give him my personal assurance on that. There was no discourtesy.
I thought that we had a good debate. In fact, I did not think that we would be in a position to make a Statement today, but we have rushed it through. I am prepared to consider a debate, but that will have to be discussed through the

1637
usual channels. I know that my noble friend mentioned this in his winding up speech. I do not accept that we are mouthing platitudes. These are not "crumbs", as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, said. After all, we must bear pay guidelines in mind.
This is a considerable increase. I have before me a list of what it means to officers and to the rank and file; considerable increases are involved. I do not think that we should spread despondency. Noble Lords opposite are very responsible on these matters, and I understand that they appreciate the importance of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, as I do. We, too, care. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will look carefully at the White Paper before they make extravagant criticisms.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peart could do some elementary sums for me; I am not very good at them. The White Paper says that the differential in living standards was between 19 per cent. and 38 per cent. between now and 1975. It was widely leaked that there would he a 14 per cent. rise. In fact, it seems to be a 13 per cent. rise. However, am I right in understanding that that 19 per cent. to 38 per cent. differential will be made up between now and 1980? That would put a further large amount on to the Estimates.
Will that also take into account projected inflation of, say, 15 per cent. over the next two years? Presumably, that is 15 per cent. plus 6 per cent. of the 19 per cent., which is 21 per cent., or 22 per cent. plus 15 per cent. of 38 per cent. I am doing mathematics on my feet and I quite concede that it is difficult and that I may get the sums wrong. I am simply trying to underline the desperate falling away that has happened in Service pay. Will the noble Lord give a copper-bottomed guarantee that this will be rectified by 1980?
Lord PEART: My Lords, in my opening remarks I said that increases in pay of between 19 per cent. and 38 per cent. and averaging 32 per cent. were now required to restore the full military salary. It is recommended that it should be restored at the earliest possible date. However, the Review Body recognises that the Government have to bear in mind increases which exceed the guidelines. Therefore,
1638
this would have to be staged. The Review Body has recommended that this staging should be completed not later than 1st April 1980. I give that assurance.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although the guidelines relating to civilian pay have been generally accepted, differentials have applied to a large number of civilian workers, for example, the miners? They can work overtime, for which they receive increased remuneration; productivity applies, particularly in the case of the miners, as a result of which they receive a very substantial increase in their remuneration. That does not apply to the men in the Forces. They receive nothing extra for overtime, special duties or anything of that sort.
I should like to ask this question. After my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had made his Statement in another place, was there any demand for a debate? Secondly, in the circumstances and whether or not there was a demand for a debate in another place, can we have a debate in this House? In that way, our views can be expressed, not so much on the Government's decision on the recommendations of the Armed Forces Review Body, but on the implication of the decision and on whether we can afford to have reduced Forces, because there may be resignations. Incidentally, it would be of great benefit if my noble friend could deal with the rumours about resignations. Do those rumours contain an element of truth? Can we have the facts?
Lord PEART: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Shinwell is talking about resignations of those who are involved —the leaders in the Army—I would say that they are just rumours. I have answered the question of a debate. If there is a wish to have another defence debate, certainly I should not resist it because the White Paper is important. But I say to my noble friend that there has been an increase of 10 per cent. in the military salary, together with an increase in the X factor within the amount recommended by the Review Body which will add another three per cent. in total.
The extent to which these percentages \Nal be implemented will vary from rank to rank. In addition, the rate of Northern

1639
Ireland pay will be doubled to £1 per day. There will be certain changes in allowances, and a standstill in charges for accommodation pending a further examination by the Review Body. These together will add an even further 1 per cent., so it is wrong to assume that nothing has been given. cannot understand such language.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord really answered the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Onslow. As I understood it the point was this. Over the time to 1980 there is to be this increase of 32 per cent. In the meantime the probability is that other earnings in other spheres will be rising. Will the corresponding figure for those rises be added to the 32 per cent. by 1980? I think that is the point.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have assumed that it will go up in stages. However, if there is any doubt about this I shall certainly look at it carefully, but that is my impression and that is the advice I have been given. I am certain that there should be no worry on this at all.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say more about the standstill on charges to which he referred? As comparability, as I understand it, is not to be restored until 1st April 1980, it would seem reasonable to ask that he should give an assurance that the standstill in charges will also last to that date. He referred to a standstill on accommodation charges: does that standstill apply to other charges?
Lord PEART: My Lords, no it does not. It is a separate item. Other charges I shall look at. I do not know the answer. I have only just recently seen the detailed Statement as such, but I shall look at this and answer the noble Lord.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether this increase—and I do not think that it is a very great increase—applies to the largest regiment in the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment? Does not this Statement slightly question the independence of the Review Body, which I feel should have
1640
recommended to the Government that parity should have been restored, and it then should have been the total responsibility of the Government to take into consideration the recommendations and the question of the national pay policy? Will they look at this question of the independence of the Review Body?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot say that there has been any interference with the independence of the Review Body. On Ulster, of course it applies to all of the defence forces.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I, in a slightly different way, press the noble Lord about one aspect of what my noble friend Lord Onslow asked him? I think it is a different point from that put by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. The 32 per cent. is going to be restored, so we hear, by an early date in 1980. However in the meantime, assuming Government plans go right, inflation itself is running, so far as I know, at 71- per cent., even if their plans are fulfilled. That means that 15 per cent. will be taken off the value of the concessions by 1980, so far as I can see. How do the Government intend to recoup that additional 15 per cent.?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot give a firm assurance on that. It will have to take note of this, and this is something which the Review Body, which will still be sitting, will have to consider. No doubt this will be raised. These are the figures which have been given for this period, the targets.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the Review Body will resume its annual reporting, instead of doing so more spasmodically?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that that should be the situation, but that is my personal view. I think that the period is too long in view of changes which have taken place. This is a matter which I think should be considered.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question regarding the cost of accommodation? I ask this question in my capacity as Honorary

1641
Treasurer of the all-Party Group on Defence of this House. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to take steps to assure members of the Forces not only that the costs of accommodation will be frozen but that they will be reduced? Is the noble Lord aware that when I was visiting a defence establishment recently, the Commandant entertained me in a house and pointed out to me that the Commandant's house was empty because he could not afford the increased charges in relation to the rent and ancillary matters? May I ask the noble Lord to consider carefully reducing the cost of accommodation to members of the Armed Forces in this country?
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is another question. The Government policy is to freeze, and I think that that is right in the circumstances, but I am prepared to ask my colleagues to look at it.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I believe that in accordance with the Rules of the House I am not entitled to make a speech but merely to ask a question, and so 1 do that feelingly, as one who was soldiering in 1914 for a shilling a day and only got five shillings a day as a company sergeant major a few years later. Can my noble friend tell us how much is the increase that a private infantry soldier will get, and what will be his pay and allowances after that increase has been granted? Furthermore, can he tell us what the cost this year will be and what the cost next year will be to the national budget? Finally, why cannot we have the whole two instalments phased into one and paid this year?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think for guidelines reasons, and my noble friend knows that. I have figures here which deal with the impact on the ordinary private soldier. It varies from that. There is a series of bands, as my noble friend understands. Private soldiers on Bands 1 to 3 will get an 11·6 per cent. to 14·3 per cent. increase, which will mean from £5·08 to £8·47. That is a considerable increase.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House who is responsible for the lack of the pay going up over the last two to three years? is it the Army Pay Review
1642
Board?—in which case perhaps it ought to be reviewed itself. Secondly, could I ask the noble Lord who is actually responsible for the quality and quantity of the Armed Services? Is it the Army Pay Review Board or is it the Government? I believe that the Government ought to look at the Army Pay Review Board findings much more carefully than they do, in order to see that the quality and quantity of our Armed Services is maintained.
Lord PEART: My Lords, irrespective of the status of the Review Board, the responsibility must be the Government's. If there are to be any changes, then this should be addressed to the Government, and no doubt the noble Lord will pursue this.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I understand that it is the Government's responsibility. I may have misheard the noble Lord, but I gathered that he could not answer my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter because he said that he had only just had the information. Has not this been in front of the Cabinet? Is not the noble Lord a member of the Cabinet? If this is not a Cabinet matter, then it ought to be. Did the noble Lord discuss it in Cabinet so that he knew what it was that he was giving in the Statement?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that my responsibility is for many matters. Naturally I do not know every item of detail in my head. I have tried, as always, to speak in defence debates in this House because I, like many noble Lords opposite, believe that we should have adequate defence forces. I am a strong Army man myself. I was in the Army, like many noble Lords, so I do not want the noble Lord to be offensive, because he is such an agreeable chap.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be aware that it is almost impossible for anybody like myself to make a comment now on what has been done according to the Statement which the noble Lord has given. Is he aware that what worries a great many people is the effort that has had to be made to get the Services at any rate

1643
some improvement in their pay and conditions? All I would ask is for us to have a little time to consider this properly. I was glad to note that we should have another defence debate. Will the noble Lord consider with the Cabinet, before a further debate takes place, whether we shall then be able to have adequate treatment on the points of view that are put forward by people who want to see the Services always properly and adequately treated, so that we never have to have this terrible pressure to get this Government to do something!
Lord PEART: The last remarks of the noble Baroness were uncalled for, my Lords. This is a positive Statement and I am as anxious as she is to see that our Servicemen are adequately paid.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Then let us discuss the matter, my Lords.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will listen to my reply; we have been discussing this matter for over half an hour. I have given an assurance that I will look at the possibility of having a debate on Army pay or defence, if the House so wishes—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord PEART:— and we will meet through the usual channels. I suggest we now proceed to other business.

SCOTLAND BILL
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 129.
4.10 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: It is a little difficult to follow this Amendment because the purpose of the clause we are discussing is not entirely clear to me. It appears to be a device for enabling legislative effect to be given to something which is not within the competence of the Scottish Assembly; I gather that because it deals with matters—this is stated expressly—which are not within the legislative competence of the Assembly. I should therefore like to know what is the justification for this, because if this
1644
sort of thing is going to happen frequently there will be a constant interaction between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Assembly which seems highly undesirable. More matters of conflict or disagreement should be avoided; the two bodies should try to proceed independently of each other, and it seems particularly undesirable that the Scottish Assembly should be invited, as this clause would allow, to pass measures which are beyond its competence in the hope that the Secretary of State will take the step of submitting the matter to both Houses of this Parliament in order, it may be, either to refuse or to agree to accept this deviation of the limits of the legislation laid down in the Bill.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will think very hard about Amendment No. 134, since I believe the words proposed would be an advantage, particularly to improve relations between the two Assemblies and make that relationship rather smoother. It would enable a Bill passed which might overstep the lines of a reserved subject by a small degree to be put right without throwing the whole Bill back. I am, however, rather doubtful about Amendment No. 131 and the word "or". This becomes a subjective matter as to what the public interest is, and I must say that the Assembly in Scotland must be its own judge of what the public interest in Scotland is; if it is not able to do that, then I agree it must be an incompetent body. While, therefore, I am doubtful about Amendment No. 131, I think No. 134 would be a valuable addition.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I have only one question to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on this issue, and perhaps his answer will expede us; since Lord McCluskey used that word I have looked it up in the dictionary and I see that it means to get one out of a difficulty. How and what will happen in the event of the Scottish public interest clashing with the English public interest? It is no good the Government saying that cannot or will not happen; the moment we enter into any form of devolved Government we break away from what many of us—perhaps our voice has not been heard—believe to be sensible unitary government and there can be clashes of

1645
interest. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, and I have been sitting on a Committee where there was a public interest clash, or so it was claimed, between two boroughs and a certain county council. If that sort of situation can arise, how on earth will the Secretary of State make a judgment on the difference between the English, Scots or Welsh public interest when he comes to interpret this clause? This seems to be full of dangerous and foreboding consequences.
Lord McCLUSKEY: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, I do not think he has followed the clause, which is not there to allow the Scottish Assembly to legislate outwith its legislative competence; the reference to legislative competence in the clause he will find in subsection (2)(b), and that term is used there in the Bill as it stands in relation to the definition of a reserved matter. I should explain, therefore, that what the clause does is to enable the Secretary of State to invite Parliament to reject an Assembly Bill—which would normally be a Bill which is infra vires—on grounds that have nothing to do with legislative competence, but on grounds which must concur first of all that there is likely to be or may be an effect on a reserved matter (and for the definition of that we must look in subsection (2)) and, secondly, that in his judgment the public interest is likely to be adversely affected by the passage of the Bill. Therefore if these two conditions are satisfied, then he over-rides a Bill which usually will be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. That is the state of the clause as it stands and is slightly different from the construction placed on it by the noble Lord.
Coming to the other point raised on this matter, I agree with the noble Earl's second thoughts that this is a bit of a ragbag we now have by cobbling together all these Amendments; many of them, as he will recognise, cannot stand together in that they are inconsistent one with another, and I shall endeavour to point that out as I go through. First, on Amendment No. 129, which seeks to insert the words appearing on the Marshalled List; in our view it is quite unnecessary to do that. Consider the situation envisaged by the Amendment, and one must go to Clause 19 to see what the situation is or what the two situations
1646
are; to begin with, under Clause 19(1)(b), which is the first subsection referred to, we have a Bill which the Secretary of State has certified is incompatible with certain Community and other international obligations, and the Secretary of State says that that Bill has not to be submitted for approval.
In regard to Clause 19(4) we are concerned with the case where the Judicial Committee has considered the Bill on vires grounds, and has ruled that it is ultra vires. In neither event has the Secretary of State the slightest interest in overruling upon policy grounds Bills which he does not have to submit to the Assembly because they have not passed the test specified in the two subsections.
Therefore, to put into Clause 35 the words proposed in Amendment No. 129, is, in our judgment, unnecessary.
There is another criticism, and here I invite your Lordships' attention to some of the words in the second line of the Amendment; namely,
"… which does not fall within Section 19(1)(b)…".
I do not want to be unduly critical upon technical grounds, but we do not really understand precisely what is meant by those words. The other general point I should like to mention is that Clause 19(1)(b) deals with Community obligations. For reasons about which we may hear the noble Earl did not mention Community obligations at all, and so I am not sure why he referred to Clause 19(1)(b). That was not explained.
With regard to Amendment No. 130, I think I must look at it separately from the earlier Amendment because it involves a different matter. It should be taken along with Amendment No. 131. This is an example of two Amendments which cannot run together, because the effect of the first Amendment, if considered on its own, is to delete lines 25 to 29—I am now informed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that they are alternatives. Therefore let me look at them.
The effect of the first Amendment is to delete lines 25 to 29. That means that the second condition in the clause, which has to be fulfilled before there can be override on policy grounds, goes out. The second condition is that the enactment of the provision in question would not

1647
be in the public interest. Accordingly, the effect of this Amendment is that the clause would now read:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State … that a Bill passed by the Assembly contains any provision which would or might affect a reserved matter … he may "—
or, if one takes the other Amendment—
"he shall lay the Bill before Parliament …".
In other words, the public interest goes out of it, altogether. This Amendment, No. 130, with Amendment No. 132 (which substitutes the word "shall" for "may") simply means that if there is any provision in a Bill, albeit that that provision is within legislative competence, and if it appears to the Secretary of State that that might indirectly affect the matter which is a reserved matter, as defined in the clause, then he has no alternative but to ask Parliament to override it. That seems to be an extremely heavy hammer indeed. Furthermore, it is contrary to the whole scheme of devolution which is contained in the Bill.
The main point of Amendment No. 130 taken on its own seems to be to drop the word, "might". Let us look at the context of the word "might" here, which appears in line 26 on page 16 of the Bill, where it is stated,
"… which would or might affect a reserved matter …".
The Government do not think that it would be wise to take out that word. The conditions precedent for policy override must be based upon the judgment of the Government exercised through the Secretary of State, and this judgment must be, in some degree, subjective. In the Government's view, a test that an Assembly Bill would affect a reserved matter directly or indirectly is too narrow to be reasonably effective.
4.25 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not want to interfere here, but is the noble and learned Lord right about that? I thought that the subjective element was inserted by the first words of subsection (1); namely,
"If it appears to the Secretary of State …".
I thought that that adequately introduced the subjective element.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes, that is certainly the function of the words,
"If it appears to the Secretary of State …".
What I was saying was that the judgment must be subjective, and that is why those words appear in the clause. But if the Secretary of State were to be called upon to answer for the exercise of his judgment, and if he had to demonstrate that an Assembly Bill would have repercussions, that might be rather difficult for him to demonstrate—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Does that not really introduce the subjective element twice? To say, "if it appeared" to him that it "might" gives him an immense gate through !which he can drive the proverbial coach and horses.
Lord McCLUSKEY: In another place it was "a coach and four" actually, but doubtless we are a more poverty-stricken lot here. The purpose of the clause as drafted, containing both elements to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention, is to make it as clear as it may be that this is a matter for the Secretary of State, and not a matter in which the courts will be invited to challenge the Secretary of State at every turn. That, I believe, is a policy which the Committee will accept in relation to this matter where the ultimate judgment is the judgment of Parliament itself.
I was asked some questions about the public interest here, and as I have just indicated, Amendment No. 130 would omit the reference to the public interest. In my submission, that would not be satisfactory. The Government consider that subsection (1)(b) of Clause 35 is a necessary and useful requirement in the overall balance which they are aiming to achieve in the clause. It is not inconceivable that an Assembly Bill which it was considered could have an indirect effect upon a reserved matter, might nevertheless be acceptable, and not against the public interest. Accordingly, the Secretary of State might wish to say that the public interest was not affected, and he should not, therefore, be required, as he would be by one of the later Amendments, to submit the Bill to Parliament. That relates to the substitution of "shall" for "may".

1649
I was asked what the "public interest" meant. This is a rather difficult question to answer, because the public interest really cannot be defined. It becomes a question of the circumstances and context in which it is sought to be exercised, but what we are seeking to do by using these words here is to give an indication of the kind of criteria which the Secretary of State will seek to apply. But the true judge of what is the public interest is Parliament, and Parliament will look to the public interest—that is what the clause envisages—and will judge what the public interest is in the United Kingdom context, because it is the United Kingdom Parliamentx2014;
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: If we read the Amendments as a whole, we see that Amendment No. 134 says that the Minister would have to state what were the defects which caused him to return a Bill, and, in his giving that statement, Parliament would be able to see whether he was taking the public interest into account.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall come to Amendment No. 134 in a moment. I should like to deal with the particular questions which the noble Earl asked me. He said that one could think of circumstances in which it might be desirable to override, yet under the clause as it stands one could not override. He specifically mentioned the two cases of corporal punishment and capital punishment. In both cases I accept that Clause 35 does not bite. In other words, Clause 35 could not be used by the Secretary of State, and by Parliament, to prevent the enactment in Scotland of a provision which introduced capital punishment, or corporal punishment, or both.
Your Lordships would be entitled to ask what could be done about it if Parliament regarded a provision as wholly wrong. The answer is that Parliament can always introduce legislation which itself overrides anything that is done in Scotland. So, if the United Kingdom Parliament, and particularly the United Kingdom Government, came to the view that there should be no capital punishment in Scotland, and if the Scots took the intention that within their legislative competence they were going to introduce a measure which would bring in capital
1650
punishment, then we could not use Clause 35, but there could be legislation which would prevent that happening.
The second point is that, if the Scottish Assembly passed a measure which introduced capital punishment and then sought to apply it, it would be found that the prerogative of mercy is reserved under Clause 60(1).
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: If you had Amendment No. 131, however, I think it would be possible to override it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes, I fully accept that. Amendment No. 131 would enable legislative override under Clause 35 to bite in relation to a matter of that kind. 1 do not dispute that for one second, but I submit that, on general grounds, that is unnecessary; one really ought to have both matters before legislative override is brought in. It must be recalled that the whole scheme of devolution envisages that we give control of certain devolved matters to the Scots and leave them to get on with it. The fact that the United Kingdom Government do not like what is happening in Scotland is, as I said yesterday, neither here nor there under a scheme of devolution of this kind.
I think I need say nothing further about these particular examples, but I was asked specifically in relation to Amendment No. 132 about the removal of the discretion of the Secretary of State. This is a rather different matter, in the context of this clause, from overriding an Assembly Bill on policy grounds. A decision which is based on policy considerations, even where the public interest is also in point, must he based on the judgment of the Government of the day, expressed through the Secretary of State, but this judgment would, as we have indicated, be in some degree subjective. It would therefore, in our view, not be wise or realistic to place on the Secretary of State a mandatory duty to act. Where the conditions precedent contain such a subjective element, it is in the Government's view much preferable to allow reasonable flexibility by giving the Secretary of State a discretion. In practice, of course, override is unlikely to be used without collective ministerial consent.
Again, in relation to that answer, noble Lords may say, "Suppose many people

1651
feel that the Secretary of State ought, in the circumstances, to use the power he has under Clause 35 and he does not do so?" The answer is that there are many ways within normal Parliamentary procedures to put pressure on the Secretary of State, and, if there are circumstances in which he comes to a judgment, within the area of his discretion, that he is not going to put a Bill of this kind before Parliament with a view to its being struck down although he could do so because it fulfils the conditions laid down in Clause 35, his critics and those who think otherwise will be able to use ordinary Parliamentary procedures to challenge him and put pressure on him to get him to change his mind.
In relation to the other Amendments, Nos. 133 and 134—and there is another one, Amendment No. 136, which I think has not been dealt with and which I believe the noble Viscount is indicating goes with the others—as we have said, Clause 35 is concerned with override on policy grounds; it is not concerned with the detailed drafting of the Bill. It is not the detailed drafting which will be objected to, but the policy underlying the Bill; and, in those circumstances, it does not seem to us appropriate to require a statement of the detailed Amendments which would make the Bill acceptable. This is a provision which could be more apt in relation to a question of vires than in relation to a question of policy.
Now, if I may try to enlarge upon that answer, it is argued here that the Secretary of State ought to include a statement of the Amendments which are, in his opinion, necessary to correct the defect in the Bill, but it must be remembered that, when the Secretary of State comes to exercise his override power under Clause 35, this is not going to be sprung unsuspectingly upon the Assembly. There will have been consultation beforehand and there will have been clear indications to the Assembly that this policy or these provisions or whatever it may be—perhaps the whole Bill—are objectionable on policy grounds and will be overridden. It is quite clear that, in the course of these discussions, it will be made plain to the Assembly what it is they will have to delete from the Bill in order not to encounter this difficulty.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: It may not be news to anyone else in the Committee, but it is certainly new to me that at every stage of the Scottish Assembly legislation, as each Amendment is moved or is accepted by the Executive in Edinburgh, there will be a telephone call from London saying, "This one is all right but that one is wrong". Is there really going to be minute by minute consultation at each stage of a Scottish Assembly Bill, assuming it has more than one stage? Is this thing really going to be dealt with on that sort of basis? 1 should have thought that, if anything was an apron string, it was that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I did not say that. What I indicated was that there would be consultation, and what I envisage is that as each Bill is printed in Scotland, and as the Amendments are printed, they will be looked at by those who advise the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate, or both; that they will have regard to the terms of them; and that they will draw attention to any clauses or provisions in any such Bill which would seem to fit within the four corners of Clause 35. If the Secretary of State comes to be of the view that the provision in the Bill is one which he may have to override, then in these circumstances I would expect him to get in touch with the Scottish Assembly and say, "Do you really want to push on with this measure?—because I am afraid I shall have to override it".
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: There is one other thing, then. I do not want to hold up the Committee on this, but where we have the sort of case which the noble and learned Lord has just mentioned—where, unless we amend Clause 35, the capital punishment case, the Assembly cannot be overridden under Clause 35 but Parliament may be invited to legislate later expressly to repeal the Scottish Assembly Act—are they also going to be told about that?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should have thought certainly. Where the Assembly introduces a measure which is so unacceptable that the Westminster Parliament is going to have to introduce Westminster legislation in order to repeal, in effect, or render ineffective, that Scottish Assembly Act, of course they will have to be told about that. Otherwise,

1653
relations between the Assembly and the Westminster administration will become impossible. There has to be consultation all the time. We are not dealing with a foreign Power on the dark side of the moon; we are dealing with an Assembly in Edinburgh, which is about a 55-minute flight away and easily obtainable on a telephone or by other means of communication which were mentioned yesterday.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether these consultations will be made public, or will they be subject to the normal leaks? If so, what does he think the reaction will be to influence being brought to bear on the Assembly all the time so as to make it change its mind?
Lord McCLUSKEY: In the first place, we do not think there will be many circumstances in which the Clause 35 machinery will be likely to operate. We do not think there will be many circumstances at all, and we can conceive of very few in which we would expect there to be legislation at Westminster to override a provision of the Assembly. Accordingly, this is not going to be an everyday thing. There may be everyday consultations in relation to a particular Bill or set of Bills, and there is no special reason why these should be made public. It may be that there is a misunderstanding, and that that misunderstanding can be clarified by consultations. 1 would not expect these to be publicised. But, of course, when it comes to a point where the Assembly is set upon one course and the Secretary of State is determined that it shall not pursue it, then one would expect that to become public, and it would become public through the normal political processes, both within the Assembly and at Westminster.
The Earl of PERTH: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would think a little further about his objection to Amendment No. 134? He said he thought it was unnecessary because there would be continuous consultation. I think the idea of continuous consultation is a negation of what the Assembly should have; namely, a degree of going on its own way. I can see the advantage, on the other hand, if something has gone wrong, in the Secretary of State, when he puts before Parliament the whole matter to
1654
which objection is taken, issuing a statement saying, "But for this one particular thing, all would be well". I think this helps. In other words, it seems to me that there is an advantage in this Amendment because it avoids the sort of apron string view which otherwise might be held about all the legislation which is going before the Assembly, and yet it makes it easier for everybody in the event that there is something to which the Secretary of State objects.
The Earl of SELKIRK: 1 hope the noble and learned Lord will think further on this. I think that a lot—
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the noble Earl will allow me, I have not really finished my reply yet. I am not only thinking further; I am in fact thinking while I stand here. What I was thinking was - -and perhaps I should disclose it to the Committee—that one of the difficulties, to be frank, is that some of these Amendments which are taken together will not stand one with another as the noble Viscount acknowledges; some of them are really much more serious and less acceptable than others.
Take the first Amendment, which I deemed to be unnecessary. That would not be objectionable. I have no particular objection to that, except that I am not happy about the wording. If the noble Earl and the noble Viscount wanted to press it, that would be one which, I daresay, we could accept. This last one is one which I should be content to look at. But it is difficult, when the whole subsection is attacked by a series of Amendments—some of which are possibly acceptable and some are not —to know what to do. I should like to suggest to the movers of these Amendments that they take them away and I will take away the discussion that we have had. if they would like to be in touch with me and tell me what they regard as really important and what they can throw away, we might solve the matter between ourselves and present a unified front to the Committee. That would save time today and on another occasion.
4.41 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am afraid that it is my fault and my fate, whenever we start one of these

1655
Committee stages, that mine are always the first Amendments and I am always in court and therefore I can never get here until 4 o'clock. If it were any other day it would have been all right, but it happened to be Monday and Tuesday. I was not going to move these Amendments all together and I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Mansfield for doing it at all without much chance to discuss them with me. I think the noble and learned Lord has made a good suggestion.
The Amendments raise points, some of which are probing, some of which are alternatives and some of which raise really different matters from others. He has explained the position of the clause in the scheme of things—I think he has—because he has been talking about political over-ride rather than vires over-ride (and I wanted that explained) and he has commented on some examples on the way in which it might be applied in given circumstances. That, too, is something that I wanted. It was very helpful.
I agree with him that there are many different classes of Amendments here which we ought to think about separately. I should like to take up his offer to read and think about what he has said and perhaps, if some of the thinking behind my Amendment was not immediately clear to the Committee, and conceivably not to my noble friend, I could explain those matters further and we could come back to a good deal of this later. I think that Amendment No. 134 could be helpful. If, as I understand it, there is no procedure in the Bill for a Scottish Assembly Bill —having got to the stage of being presented to the Queen or being vetoed under this provision, it can go back again to Edinburgh for a further stage of amendment at the moment—it does not follow that standing orders made by the Assembly would not allow this sort of thing. However many consultations you may have, it may be that the Assembly in Edinburgh would wish, for some point of principle, to insist as far as it could on two clauses in a Bill which is otherwise wholly acceptable and harmless. They might want to get to the stage where they force the Westminster Government to take a stand on it, but, in the end, they would —as your Lordships sometimes do—be prepared to back down. Then there could
1656
be a provision whereby, if the exact point of defect or clash was pinpointed and the way in which it would be acceptable is set out, it could go back to Edinburgh and they would not have to start all over again; for that is what they have to do at the moment. I was trying to make a constructive piece in machinery out of what at the moment is, I think, something of a blunderbuss nature.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I accept that his approach is constructive and valuable. We shall see when we come to the next Amendment. I cut short my own answer in relation to this last point, because I am impressed by the matter. In any event, the Secretary of State when he comes to Parliament and says, "1 want to use my override power", is going to have to give reasons and to specify to Parliament what is wrong with the Bill. Therefore, it may be that no harm is done if he puts the matter forward in this way. I will look at the matter. I believe it is constructive.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Can the noble and learned Lord help me on two points arising out of what he said in answer to the noble Earl? I am sure that the necessity for asking these questions derives either from my own obtuseness or, possibly, from a stubborn refusal to see anything good in the Scotland Bill. The first point I would wish to ask about is this. He said—and he has said this before in the course of these debates while the House has been in Committee—that whatever was felt here in Westminster about the legislation of the Assembly was neither here nor there. That was a matter, he said, for the Scots. How does he find consistency between that and the constant denial of the claim that what this Bill does is to set up a rival Parliament? How does he find consistency between the assertion that what the Scots do in the Assembly is neither here nor there and the denial of the accusation that at the heart of this Bill is an attack on the sovereignty of Parliament? It seems to me that, in this kind of context, the noble and learned Lord and the Government are trying to ride two horses throughout these debates. I suppose that is why they do the splits every now and then.
The second point I wish to make derives from what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas

1657
of Barloch, said—and I am sorry he is not here. I found myself in agreement with what he was saying. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord's answer really met the point he made. I look at this clause and I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell me if I am wrong in thinking that, in effect, what it says to the Assembly is this: "You may pass a Bill and that Bill may contain a provision which directly affects a reserved matter; but that is all right unless the Secretary of State thinks it is not in the public interest." Of course, if he thinks it is not in the public interest, the matter will go to Parliament here; but if he thinks otherwise it is a matter for the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the Bill passed by the Assembly may have an effect on directly reserved matters. Does that have no effect at all on the sovereignty of the Mother of Parliaments?
I believe that the Government will have to face up to this. I think it goes to the heart of the whole matter; and it goes to the heart of many of the other criticisms which have been directed against this Bill. It is clear from everything that has been said that government in Scotland certainly is not going to be simpler with provisions such as those in Clause 35. For my part, I should have been disposed to support this Amendment and I await the answers of the noble and learned Lord to the questions I have asked.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could help me too. It crosses my mind that this clause might be better re-written as a whole to say: "Her Majesty may veto this Bill with the advice and consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland." That would be much easier. These Assembly Bills would be much easier and we would not then get ourselves into muddles in consultation over what is the English public interest. That is very indefinite and smacks of smoke-filled committee rooms and of "leaning on", and private pressure. There is none of the open Government which we are now supposed to like and to pay lip service to. In fact, this country is about the worst in Western Europe for private government and private influence.
I am not in this particular context accusing only the present advisors to
1658
Her Majesty. This is a habit which is deeply ingrained. I am afraid that anybody who gets within a million miles of advising Her Majesty on policy matters always want to keep it quiet, by the back door, so it does not come out—Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, and all the rest of it. There is that overtone to it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has not answered my question about the difference between Scottish public interest and English public interest. When we were a unitary State, the two were the same. This Bill introduces difficulties which are going to produce two different public interests. The English are not going to like that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Assuming the noble Earl is trying to be serious, may I ask him, if he thinks that the public interest of one borough can be different from the public interest of another borough, how is that consistent with his suggestion that the public interest of Scotland is always the same as the public interest of England?
The Earl of ONSLOW: What I was trying to say was that the two borough public interests only think they have different public interests in the case about which I was talking. In fact, I foresee that people are going to say there are two public interests. This is the worry I have about it. The third point I wanted to ask was this: Is it not bad law or bad practice to say: "Well, use automatically something like the prerogative of mercy"? This is using a prerogative automatically. Is that not a bad thing to do?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I suggest that this debate is getting a little away from these Amendments. There is, after all, the opportunity to discuss the whole clause on the Question. That the clause shall stand part of the Bill? My noble friend might think it more appropriate perhaps to deal with these matters on that occasion.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should be perfectly happy. I do not want to leave Lord Wilson of Langside's questions unanswered except on the same basis.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I am quite happy. I thought it proper to ask

1659
the questions since they related directly to what the noble and learned Lord had said.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I have put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 35 in order to indicate that we hoped to have a general discussion on this clause.
4.54 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: It was generous of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to take a measure of responsibility for what happened when he was not here. But in fact the responsibility is mine. I succumbed to the blandishments of the "usual channels" to try to get your Lordships' deliberations to move a little faster. It was wrong of me to fall to those blandishments. The result has been that we have had one perhaps not very satisfactory debate when probably we would have had a number in a very much longer series of possibly more satisfactory debates.
In the circumstances, I know N,NT on these Benches will take up the invitation of the noble and learned Lord to consider Clause 35, and how it can be improved. I was at least heartened to hear the noble and learned Lord say that, in his mind at any rate, the clause is capable of improvement. I want to leave this point with the noble and learned Lord: in discussing some of the Amendments—notably Amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 136—he kept on repeating that, in his view, there would be close consultation as between Parliament in Westminster—or, at any rate, the Government—and the Scottish Assembly. I wonder whether that is an assumption which it is safe to make. Putting it in another way, I wonder whether it is an assumption which can be made and brought into the thinking of this Bill.
I should prefer to have the assumption made that relations between the two bodies, the Scottish Executive and the Government of Westminster, will, one hopes, be friendly and correct, but not perhaps any more cordial than that. If one has Parties of different complexions in the seat of power at both ends of the United Kingdom, the relationship might not be so very good. It might well be that while the civil servants would confer
1660
among each other as to the likely outcome and effect of any particular Scottish Assembly Bill, 1 do not regard it as by any means certain that there would be that cordial exchange of ideas which the noble and learned Lord seemed to imply was the necessary outcome of any Bill seeing the light of day in the Scottish Assembly.
Then we went on to the matter of what the Government here would do if something which it did not like happened in Edinburgh. We were told that Parliament could pass a Bill which would override the Scots Assembly. May I put this forward for the noble and learned Lord to ponder over? Supposing the Scots do not have the very generous summer vacation which the English have always claimed, both in Parliament and in the courts. Supposing that they continue merrily on through August, passing legislation which the Scottish Assembly considers desirable. That is one possibility.
Supposing the Government in Westminster is—and I do not want to be offensive and say "Like this one" —in a position where perhaps it is not as powerful as it might be and finds that it cannot take the necessary Parliamentary action as is envisaged by this clause. There is also a third possibility: supposing the Government is about to resign or fall, or supposing that there is going to be a General Election. It would not bring the deliberations of the Scottish Assembly to an end.
Suppose the Session was crowded; suppose there simply was not time to put into the Parliamentary timetable the Bill, to become an Act, which would seek to remove the repugnancy which the noble Lord agrees could occur. All these matters are worthy of some thought, not least by the noble and learned Lord. I am certain that we will have to come back to them at a later stage of this Bill. For the present, I shall go away and read the Official Report, with the noble and learned Lord's speech, with a great deal of attention and, for today, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 134 not moved.]
4.58 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 16, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this section a reserved matter is one—

(a) which concerns Scotland (whether or not it also concerns any other part of the United Kingdom); but

(b) with respect to which the Scottish Assembly has no power to legislate (disregarding for this purpose paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act).").

The noble and learned Lord said: When we looked at Amendment No. 78, an Amendment to Schedule 2, which stood in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, it was an illuminating study. It disclosed to us an infelicity in Clause 35(2)(b). The term "legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly" is used in the Bill solely to describe the character of a provision of an Assembly Act or Bill. It has no other meaning. Clause 35(2)(b) uses it to describe something which ex hypothesi is not part of an Assembly Act or Bill.
That was one matter which came to light. The second matter, which was of rather more substance, was that if, as a result of the operation of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, as it stood, something fell within the legislative competence of the Assembly but would not otherwise be within the legislative competence, it would be very useful to have available the Clause 35 override to deal with such a provision. That was plainly the point that the noble Viscount had in mind. Amendment No. 253 seems to deal with both matters. In moving it, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his vigilance and assistance. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): I am advised that if this one is carried I cannot call Amendment No. 135.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: It is for that reason that I should like to mention Amendment No. 135 at this stage because, generous and kindly though the noble and learned Lord has been to me, I am still not sure that 253 is comprehensive and right. There are two points here. The first does not arise directly under this clause and it may he that the noble and learned Lord would rather deal with it on Amendment
1662
No. 140, or possibly the equivalent one that I must have put down somewhere—it would be Amendment No. 140 because the definition in Clause 37 is the same as in Clause 36. Just to give notice of this, when it comes to subordinate instruments, those subordinate instruments—if they are made by virtue of a Scottish Assembly Act which, by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, does extend beyond the bounds of Scotland to the minor extent that is allowed—the subordinate instrument may, by the same terms, extend beyond the bounds of Scotland and still be within the legislative competence of the Assembly and therefore within the power of a Scottish Secretary.
Therefore, the first point is: if one is going to make this Amendment in Clause 35 for primary legislation, should one not do the same thing for the Amendment which affects Clause 37? I am not sure whether or not it is then apt to have the same definition in 37 as in 36, because the powers of Scottish Secretaries in their executive capacity do not seem necessarily to be the same, nor to have the same scope so far as cross-Border activities are concerned, as the legislative competence of the Assembly or the power of a Secretary in subordinate legislation under Clauses 35 or 37.
If that is not clear, I am not surprised! But I shall come back to it if necessary. That is the first point of which I give notice. It does not arise on this Amendment. What does arise is a point which I attempted to express in Amendment 135. I must confess that the Public Bills Office thought I was mad and I expect everybody else does as well; but I eventually persuaded the Public Bills Office that it was not a complete lunacy. The case I have in mind is this: for one reason or another the Scottish Assembly has passed Acts about reciprocal enforcement on, say, the process of criminal service or possibly in domestic proceedings, or something like that, in which it is obviously sensible, if they are going to provide for that sort of thing in Scotland, something should be said in the Bill about how the Scottish process is to be introduced south of the Border so that the person who, for some reason or other, has crossed from Dumfries to Cumbria, may still be dealt with. That I would expect to be a perfectly sensible and proper thing in an ordinary case.

1663
Let us suppose that something goes wrong and it is discovered that the provision is faulty and that it is faulty solely to this extent: that there is a minor trouble relating to the enforceability of the law south of the Border. The Scottish draftsman made some mistake in relation to the way in which his legislation would be enforced in England but the thing works perfectly well in Scotland. Therefore, the Scottish Assembly will wish to legislate to put that right, and I suppose it is possible that some policy clash could arise.
If the noble and learned Lord will look at Amendment No. 253, first of all, the legislation was, within the terms of paragraph 8, competent for the Scottish Assembly because it was really only consequential. However, for one reason or another, the United Kingdom Government want to override it and cannot, for, although it is a matter with respect to which the Scottish Assembly has no power to legislate disregarding paragraph 8 —because, although it was cross-Border, it would not now fall within subparagraph (b) of this Amendment since paragraph 8 is excluded—it still is not within (a) because it does not concern Scotland at all. It concerns the law south of the Border and not in Scotland, because it is only a minor consequential point. That must be so, because my hypothesis required only a minor Amendment to the effect of the legislation south of the Border and that was the sort of thing I was looking for in putting the matter the other way round. Therefore, it was for that purpose that I put down Amendment No. 135, and I believe it is a valid point. So, although I welcome Amendment No. 253, 1 am not yet sure that it is complete.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I may just say so in relation to the first point, I think the noble Viscount did himself an injustice. What he said was perfectly clear and indeed, if I may say so, I think it was clear from the Amendment itself what he had in mind. I have put in train a study as to whether or not we have to carry through into Clauses 36 and 37 the kind of amendment we have put in by means of Amendment No. 253. I can assure the Committee of that.
In relation to the other matter, so far as I could follow what the noble Viscount
1664
was saying and upon the assumption that he is not mad—one that I am perfectly prepared to make—I think perhaps he has misread sub-paragraph (2)(b) in Amendment No. 253, because, as I read it, if the Assembly passes an Act and there is a consequential provision contained in it which operates cross-Border, then that cross-Border provision is none the less outwith legislative competence within the meaning of sub-paragraph (2)(b). I see that the noble Viscount is not surprised by my answer: he agrees with it. Therefore, I have not followed what he said and I shall therefore read what he has said. 1 think that, as we are now looking at Schedule 8 and at these other matters, that would be the sensible way to do it. Again, there is no argument about this. We want to get it right and I am indebted for the assistance we have been offered and for the explanations given. We will look at them and hope to get on ultimately with other business.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I shall take only one minute very quickly to explain again to the noble and learned Lord. Yes, it would fall within subparagraph (b) of his Amendment but it would not fall within sub-paragraph (a) and, as I understand it, it has to fall within both before it is a reserved matter. It would not fall within sub-paragraph (a) because it does not concern Scotland at all but is solely a consequential matter for south of the Border. That is the point.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I take it that sub-paragraph (b) in the Amendment really means in effect that, on any occasion on which paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 is used, this could come into operation: in other words, it could be checked by the procedures under Clause 35 for any use under Schedule 2, paragraph 8.
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is right, with the possible exception of the case that is figured by the noble Viscount: in other words, if it does not fall under (a) for the kind of reason he has given, I think that might depend upon what is meant by the words "concerns Scotland" in the context, and I shall take that into account. Certainly, we will look at all that has been said.
Lord BOYD-CAPRENTER: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will confirm that the putting forward of this Amendment and what has been said this afternoon do not in any way erode the undertaking that he gave last week to have a look at the necessity for paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to exist at all.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I could depict the anguish that is going on among those discussing these matters, I could bring tears to the eyes of the noble Lord! These matters are being discussed and there are those ranged on the side of preserving the provision in its present form; there are those who want to change it and there are those who want to abolish it. I look forward to announcing the result in the fullness of time. My undertaking is not in any way affected by what I have said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
5.10 p.m.
Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 330:
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("either").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 330, and I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 137, 331, 332, 333, 334 and 335, and the Amendments on the Marshalled List to leave out Clauses 72 and 73, which of course have no number. These Amendments to Clauses 35, 36 and 37 are all paving Amendments to the Amendments which are down later to leave out Clauses 72 and 73. Up to now, we have had debates on matters relating to the Assembly, to the setting up of the Assembly, to the standing orders, to the composition of the Assembly and so on, and others on the deep legal impact which this Bill will have; indeed, we have had some experience of that this afternoon. I would only say that, to those of us who have not yet risen to the intellectual prowess of the fourth form of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, it has seemed rather like the crack of rifle fire over the top of our heads. But those are intensely important legal points.
These Amendments are totally different and readily understandable, and their objective is quite clear. I am bound to
1666
say that neither the Amendments, nor the substances in the Bill to which they refer, have anything to do with devolution. They refer to the constitutional rights which your Lordships' House has over subordinate legislation, and the effect which your Lordships' House may have upon subordinate legislation which emanates from certain parts of this Bill. Quite understandably, and quite correctly, the Government have recognised the problem which will be created if the Scottish Assembly passes a Bill which includes provisions which may affect a reserved matter for which the United Kingdom Parliament, and the United Kingdom Parliament only, is responsible. Under the Bill, if the Secretary of State were to consider that a Scottish Assembly Bill would, or might, affect a reserved matter, or if the Secretary of State were to consider that the enactment of a provision would be against the public interest, then the Secretary of State can invite Parliament to use its overriding authority to prevent the Bill from becoming law.
Under Clause 35, the Secretary of State can do this by laying a Scottish Bill before Parliament with a statement saying that, in his opinion, the Bill should not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for approval. Under Clause 36, a similar provision is allowed for action which is proposed to be taken by a Scottish Secretary and, if any action which he proposes to take is likely to affect a reserved matter, again the Secretary of State can direct that the proposed action be not taken by the Scottish Secretary, and he has to lay the direction in front of Parliament and have Parliamentary approval for it. Clause 37 has a similar proviso for Statutory Instruments.
In all these cases, if the Secretary of State thinks that the Scottish Assembly, or its Executive, is going beyond its responsibilities and is interfering with reserved matters, then the Secretary of State can say No, but he has to have Parliamentary approval for a Resolution on the action which he has taken. This is entirely understandable. It exerts the proper and undisputed right of the United Kingdom Parliament to protect the matters over which the United Kingdom Parliament retains unfettered control.
But Clause 72 states that if a Resolution is placed before both Houses, and if your

1667
Lordships do not approve such a Resolution when another place has done so, then a further Resolution can be presented to another place 10 days later, in exactly the same terms as the first one, and, if that Resolution is passed as well as the first one, then your Lordships' objection will be of no effect. In other words, it overrides entirely your Lordships' objections.
This is pretty fundamental stuff. While the whole Bill alters the Constitution of the United Kingdom, these Clauses 72 and 73 to which these Amendments refer alter the constitutional practices of Parliament. It is not just the House of Lords which will be affected, but those people, whoever they are, whose interests will be affected by one Chamber of Parliament totally disregarding the views of another. Whatever the merits may be, this is a clear departure from precedent and practice and tradition. The whole principle of the Parliamentary system is that nothing becomes law in this country, unless it has the agreement of both Houses of Parliament, both in total and in detail, unless it is passed under the special circumstances of the Parliament Act. Even the Finance Bill has to have the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
It is a long-standing and recognised custom, followed by Governments of all complexions, that subordinate legislation, other than Financial Instruments, should likewise be subject to equal scrutiny by both Houses. Yet in these clauses the Government are proposing a total change. I know that many people consider that your Lordships' House needs changing, either as to its composition or as to its powers, or both. Some people do not. But whatever our views and opinions may be, the right way to alter the affairs and practices of either House of Parliament is by a Parliament Act, and not by a surreptitious clause in a Bill on devolution, in a Bill which has been the subject of the guillotine, the effect of which is that this clause, which creates this constitutional innovation, has not been at all considered by another place. Indeed, until this moment it has not been at all considered by Parliament. It has just been written into the Bill with the hope that it will become law, and it is something which has nothing to do with devolution.
1668
The one fact which has appeared time and again throughout the proceedings on this Bill is the possibility of conflict between the Assembly and Westminster, and the necessity that, so far as possible, this should be avoided or, at least, limited, but I believe that the proposals as put in the Bill at the moment could contribute to conflict. Under these provisions, another place could—I do not say that it would—for political purposes frustrate the Assembly.
Let me take, for example, a situation in which the Assembly passes a Bill on secondary education. This is a devolved matter and is wholly within the competence of the Assembly. But the provisions of the Bill might be considered by the Secretary of State so to alter the standards or levels of secondary education that they could affect, either directly or indirectly, university education, which is a reserved matter. It could be that the Government of the day in Westminster was of a different complexion from that in the Assembly, and might well object to university education being so affected by the Assembly Bill, and could seek, possibly even for partisan purposes, to have the Bill negated. So the Secretary of State would lay the Bill before Parliament and ask for a Resolution to be passed, saying that the Assembly Bill should not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council, because it was considered to affect a reserved matter.
If both Houses of Parliament agreed to the Resolution, then the Bill would not be presented. But if your Lordships disapproved of the Resolution, then the Secretary of State could lay the same Resolution again, 10 days later, which would have the effect of overruling your Lordships. But in this case it would not be the unelected House of Lords overruling the elected House of Commons. It would be a case where the House of Lords thought that the Assembly was right and the House of Commons was wrong, and it would be another place overriding the House of Lords which was supporting the elected Scottish Assembly. So that there would be a conflict three times over. The House of Commons would be in conflict with the Assembly, the House of Commons would be in conflict with the House of Lords and the House of Commons would be in conflict

1669
with the Assembly and the House of Lords together.
In those circumstances, the Bill states that the House of Commons—which means, in effect, the Party forming the Government in the House of Commons—should always prevail. I do not believe that that is a happy recipe for resolving a conflict. if these Amendments were accepted and the normal Parliamentary processes were used, and if both the Assembly and your Lordships' House were wrong and the Bill did affect a reserved matter, then the United Kingdom Government could introduce a Bill to negate the Scottish Assembly Bill.
It is worth while if we remember that the power of Resolution refers only to reserved matters, and reserved matters must affect Scotland. They are not reserved matters if they affect England only. But the Scottish Assembly can pass Acts which, though they have no legal authority in England, nevertheless will affect England or the services which England provides.
Let us suppose that the Scottish Assembly passes a Bill to stimulate housebuilding in the Borders, which they would be perfectly entitled to do by, say, offering substantial fiscal incentives. All of the builders in Northumberland may decide to go and build houses in the Borders of Scotland, and Northumberland would be disadvantaged. The Assembly Act will affect England. Again, if the Scottish Assembly decides, for example, to close down a cancer unit in a hospital in Edinburgh in the full knowledge that there is an excellent one in, say, Newcastle, all of the cancer patients who would have gone to Edinburgh might well, under these circumstances, go to Newcastle. This would be bound to affect English cancer patients in the North of England. In these cases, where the Scottish Assembly takes action which materially affects England but which is not a reserved matter, the Secretary of State is powerless. The only way to redress the situation for the English is for the Government to introduce a Bill specifically repealing the Scottish Assembly Act.
If these clauses go unamended, therefore, we have the absurd situation that where the Scottish Assembly passes a Bill which affects a service in England over which the Assembly has neither
1670
concern nor jurisdiction and over which the House of Commons might be expected to offer protection, the House of Commons can do nothing short of introducing a Bill which then has to have the approval of both the House of Commons and your Lordships. But where the Scottish Assembly passes a Bill which affects a reserved matter which, although it is reserved for the United Kingdom must affect Scotland, then another place can overrule the Scottish Assembly and the House of Lords as well.
I do not believe that this is right or sensible. Nor do I believe that it is right, sensible or proper to alter the Constitution in the manner which the Government propose in this Bill, because it is not the right place to do it. It is restricting the authority of Parliament as Parliament and shifting the unbridled emphasis to the House of Commons and, ipso facto, by means of the Whips, to the Party which forms the Government of the day.
I do not believe that the people want this. There is a growing and genuine fear of the massive and increasing power of the Executive and of the gradually receding effect of the influence of Parliament. In a turbulent world where everything seems to be shifting, it is vital that we should try to retain the people's trust in and respect for our Parliamentary system. Even in the lifetime of this Parliament we have seen, on the hybridity issue of another Bill, the acknowledged and accepted Parliamentary processes thwarted and even subjugated for a matter of immediate convenience. People had their due rights removed from them. It was only the existence of a second Chamber—not its powers, not its composition, not even in the end the contribution of its Members but the sheer fact of its being there and its inevitable involvement with the Parliamentary process—which eventually caused a wrong to be righted, however inconvenient that may have been to the Executive arm of the Government of the day.
If there are to be Amendments to the Constitution—and I do not deny the case for saying that there should be, although I should not seek to argue the case either way on these Amendments—the right way for that to be done is by a special Parliament Bill. In 1968, the

1671
then Government, which was formed by the same Party as the one which is now in power, thought that there should be alterations to the Second Chamber, and they published a White Paper depicting their views. Contained in this White Paper was the suggestion to limit the power of the second Chamber over subordinate legislation in the very manner in which the Government seek to do it in this Bill.
I should be the first to acknowledge the consistency of the present Government in relation to the views of their predecessors in 1968, but the cardinal point of difference and importance is this: the Government of that day, in seeking to get approval for their measures, quite rightly introduced a year later the Parliament (No. 2) Bill 1969 which, among other things, contained this proposal. But Parliament never approved that Bill; another place never approved it; another place never approved the proposals contained in it. The Bill foundered in another place, and all of the proposals with it. Those very proposals, which were unacceptable to another place, have now found their way into this Bill and have not even, by virtue of the guillotine, been considered by another place.
I do not blame the Government for trying to reintroduce these proposals if they wish to do so, even if one may disagree with them. But what is wrong is that the Government should introduce these proposals through the back door—not in a Parliament Bill but tucked away at the back of a devolution Bill—and then guillotine the Bill so that those proposals are not discussed. Whether or not the suggestions of the Government are right or wrong, let us make no mistake about the fact that they will have a profound effect on the nature of Parliamentary business and the impact which each and either House has on subordinate legislation. They will certainly act as a precedent and, once established in this Bill, as sure as night follows day, the same provisions will appear in other Bills.
Whether this is a good or a bad thing, whether or not we approve of devolution as portrayed in this Bill, the one thing which surely must command the approval of all parts of your Lordships' House,
1672
wherever we sit and whatever our views or allegiances may be, is that at least another place should be permitted the right to consider such a far-reaching constitutional alteration. That is why I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Amendments which are set down in my name and in the names of my noble friends, which will enable another place to discuss this matter and say whether or not they agree to these proposals. I beg to move.
5.28 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: May I be allowed to ask the noble Earl one question in order to find out whether or not we have understood correctly these Amendments in this very difficult and troublesome area. Is it correct that the effect of the noble Earl's Amendments, if carried, would be that if a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly came up for consideration under the terms now proposed it would become law if the unelected House of Lords said so against the direct wishes of the elected House of Commons? If I have understood correctly the noble Earl's Amendments, that would be the position, would it not? What, then, becomes of his observation as to the principle that nothing shall become law unless it is approved by both Houses? In what I entirely conceive to be a novel situation, where for the first time we have a devolved Assembly, would it not be wholly undesirable that the issue as to whether a Bill should go on to the Statute Book should be left to the House of Lords rather than to the House of Commons?
Earl FERRERS: As the noble Lord has asked me a direct question, I should say that the answer is that the Assembly will have passed an Act which should become law. It is the Secretary of State's business to say whether or not he thinks that it should not become law. If he were to produce a Statutory Instrument, it would have the same effect as all other Statutory Instruments. It would have to be agreed by both Houses, and the chances are that both Houses would agree. The problem will be if one House does not agree. Then. as I said earlier, the elected House of Commons would be disagreeing with the elected Assembly and the House of Lords.
Lord WIGODER: I am right (am I not?) that, if there is disagreement,

1673
under the Amendments of the noble Earl the last word will be with this House and not with the House of Commons?
Lord WIGG: I find no difficulty in accepting the view of the noble Earl that he finds the Bill wrong. So do I. It is hydra-headed monster and every time one takes a layer off it and understands it, its wrongness becomes ever more evident. The noble Earl wants the Committee to take a decision on a constitutional question. Because I do not understand constitutional questions, may I be allowed to put it into language that I do understand?
It seems to me that any legislative Assembly worthy of the name must carry on its affairs on the basis of responsibility. The great difference between this House and another place is that there are no Standing Orders here, so that day after day Questions are put on the Order Paper to Ministers on subjects for which Ministers are in no way responsible. Up gets the Minister and off the cuff—or if it happens to be in his brief, with advice—he gives an Answer. It does not matter very much because of course our affairs are not very closely reported; but a legislative Assembly which attracts public attention, and which has its roots deep in the society which it seeks to serve, will not be quite like that.
Yet it was revealed, almost by way of an afterthought last evening, that the new Assembly, when it comes into being, will be able to discuss any subject it likes; it will be able to discuss unemployment in Cornwall, recruiting in Wales, financial matters—no holds barred. It can have discussions on any subjects, devolved or not devolved. In other words, it is an educative Assembly and it exercises authority (if it has any authority at all) not only in terms of what it enacts but in effect the extent to which it educates public opinion. The folly of this Bill starts at its roots—just there. It is an Assembly. Either it will be a mere talking shop in which people talk and nothing happens, or they will talk in the hope that it will have some effect. If it has some effect, then it will produce the ultimate nonsense; that is, the fruit, not of un-wisdom but of barefaced political stupidity which has drifted into a situation in which we can only say
1674
of those who enacted it—and we can only use the words at the first Station of the Cross—
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".
I would suggest with great respect that this House is only now beginning to find out after discussing hour after hour, day after day, some of the proposals that this Bill contains. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langsidc, received a reply last night which he said made him uneasy to hear because he had not considered the point that it was possible for discussions to take place on devolved subjects. That is where the folly lies.
I wish to say one final word. I lost a little interest in these proceedings, because I was tired of listening to debates which ended with the words, "I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment". What about a vote? If the Conservative Party on this occasion, having got to this hurdle, will vote, I will vote with them—for what that is worth—but I hope that at least on one occasion the protests that are made will be taken into the Division Lobby. At the Report stage I shall try to put right the nonsense of the Assembly having the power to discuss any subject, irrespective of whether it has any responsibility. But sufficient unto the day is what we can do this evening and that is to vote on this and condemn it for the piece of nonsense that it is.
5.35 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Having sat opposite the noble Lord, Lord Wigg in another place and here for something in excess of 30 years, I have had a new experience this evening; I have listened to a speech from him with which I wholly agree. I only hope that that novel pleasure will be repeated more frequently in the future. However, I think it is true in more than the usual sense to say that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has done this Committee a service in moving this Amendment, because he has brought out the fact that this clause as it stands, and invoking as it does for the first time the effect of Clause 72 of the Bill, seeks to do something which goes far beyond Scotland.
The point of this Amendment—apart from one point made by the noble and

1675
learned Lord on the Liberal Benches. about which I shall say something in a moment—is that it does not affect Scotland. By invoking Clause 72, Clause 35 as it stands shifts the balance of the Constitution by seeking to effect, through the machinery of the Scotland Bill, what is basically a change in the series of Parliament Acts. Whatever view one takes—and I know that in this House there are many views taken as to the relative positions of the two Houses—I would hope that we would really be unanimous in the view that even if this were the right thing to do (and I really do not think it is) this is manifestly the wrong way to do it. Heaven knows this Bill tackles a big enough problem in seeking to set up a Scottish Assembly and devolve much authority to Edinburgh. For it to take on —and I am afraid I must say surreptiously—Amendment of the Parliament Acts, is really putting on to it a load which might well involve for it the same fate as that of the measure to which the noble Earl referred; that is, the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of the 1960s.
This provison, as I understand it, of Clause 72 invoked here in Clause 35 disturbs the existing position under the Parliament Acts, under which both Houses have co-equal powers of control over delegated legislation, save of course in respect to those purely financial measures which only require to be laid before the House of Commons and which do not come here. But in the case of measures which are laid before both Houses the control of both Houses under our present law is a reality. In the context of this Bill, in respect of some very important matters, it is proposed that the co-equal power in this House with the House of Commons should be cut down to a delaying power of some 10 days; in other words to annul it.
It is perfectly true that if the Bill goes through in its present form this would apply only to certain orders made under the present Bill. It would of course cover the enormously important Order in Council to be made in the light of the referendum, as to whether to bring the Bill into operation at all, and it would apply to the provisions of Clause 35 and to certain other provisions. But once this has been written into the law, as the noble Earl has said, it will be a precedent.
1676
"Twill be recorded for a precedent and many an error by the same example will creep into the State. It must not be ".
If there is an argument for doing it here, there is plainly an argument for doing it in other important measures. If there is force in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—that nega? tively if we take this out, this House could reject a decision of the House of Commons—that is true right over the scope of delegated legislation. If the noble Lord's objection to doing it here is a valid one, it is, as I shall seek to show, even more valid over the whole of the rest of the field, because at least in this case the problem is not as bad as he suggested. I can understand the attitude of the Liberal Benches because it would be the unelected House overruling a decision of the elected House. But this would only arise in this particular context where the elected House at Westminster was seeking to overrule the elected House in Edinburgh. There would at least be an elected House on each side, whereas in most of the cases where the same powers continue to exist, that situation does not arise. It would there be a straight situation of the unelected House rejecting the decision of the elected one.
I suggest to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches that if his point is right in this context of this Bill it must be stronger elsewhere. I would equally suggest to him, as a distinguished lawyer, that he must feel, surely, that if this is something that ought to be altered then it ought to be altered in the proper way after full discussion of a constitutional Parliament Bill in both Houses and not by a side-wind as part of a measure for devolution in Scotland.
I would add to that, on the broad issue of the exercise by this House of its current control over delegated legislation, that this House has exercised great discretion. Indeed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said on Second Reading of the Bill, we have not deserved this affront, because no one has ever suggested that this House has abused its current powers. I think we are entitled to an explanation from the Government as to why in this particular case they are seeking so drastically to curtail the powers of this House, and to answer, too, the second question, that if they succeed in doing so here what logical reason is there why they should not seek

1677
to do so on every other major Bill involving powers to make Statutory Instruments which they bring forward? What is the distinction here? What is the difference which causes them to propose so totally different treatment of the powers of this House in respect of delegated legislation in regard to Scotland as compared with the whole of the rest of the field of government and of legislation?
It is an extremely good thing that this matter should have been brought to light, because very little attention has so far been paid to it, and yet I think once it is brought to light, as it is by my noble friend, its significance and importance are only too apparent. I can only say that when the Bill started it was not apparent, even evidently to Ministers. I have in front of me the Official Report of this House for 9th November (column 257), when the Bill had already been introduced in the House of Commons, and the question was raised on the Address as to how the Statutory Instrument, the Order in Council, to bring the Bill into operation after the referendum would be handled. In reply to a question of mine the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoted from the then Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill:
"The first order bringing the Bill into operation is to be approved by both Houses of Parliament and the Bill provides that this order cannot be made until a referendum has been held in Scotland on the question whether the provisions of the Act should be brought into effect ".
He added:
"There is a similar provision concerning the Wales Bill".
At this point I am reported as having intervened and asked:
"My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask whether that means that the order will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure?"
Lord Harris of Greenwich replied:
"Exactly, my Lords".
Those who know the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, know that he is a man of the most meticulous care, probity and a desire accurately and faithfully to serve this House; if I may be allowed to say so, having had the pleasure of taking part in debates on several occasions, I have a special admiration for the way he does it. Therefore, that is a very clear indication, even at that stage when the Bill had already been presented, because the Memorandum was quoted, Ministers themselves did not appear to realise that
1678
it contained a power, an astonishing power, to truncate the authority of this House in these matters.
As I began by saying, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg; this is not a provision which should be allowed to stand. It has nothing whatever to do with Scotland. This cannot be represented as seeking in any way to go against the decision to devolve authority to Scotland, much though many of us may think that that is in itself a mistake. It cannot be urged that this is a diminution of the power of the Scottish Assembly. Indeed, taking again the example of the noble and learned Lord on the Liberal Benches, this Amendment would in fact strengthen the position of the Assembly in the case of its coming into conflict with Westminster.
Therefore, I would suggest to the Committee that we should say quite firmly to the Government: "We should like an explanation as to why this provision has been inserted in this Bill, and as to whether it is intended to constitute a precedent to be followed in other Bills". Also we should say to the Government: "If you have proposals for altering the relationship and powers of the two Houses, there are many people on both sides of this House who have open minds on this and are more than prepared to look at proposals, provided they are put forward properly, in a properly, fully debated constitutional Bill confined to those issues, and not sought to be smuggled in as an apparently small series of phrases in an enormous measure dealing with totally different matters."
5.47 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, as I hope he will do ultimately, to this Amendment, may I make a special appeal to the Government in this matter. As the Committee will remember from what I said on Second Reading, I am particularly anxious that this Bill when it ultimately emerges from the Parliamentary process should be submitted to a referendum. I believe the Government have the same desire, and probably the Liberal Party too. It may be that I hope that the result of that referendum will be somewhat different from the result others hope for. But, having given this a great deal of thought, I have come to the conclusion that the

1679
only way out of the constitutional tangle we have got ourselves into by what, from my point of view, is a bad Bill is to let the referendum process go forward and see what comes of it. I beg the Government not to insist on this rather disreputable procedure which this Amendment is designed to get out of the Bill.
May I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and indeed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. For 50 years now, and for very much longer indeed since the matter was referred to as long ago as the Interpretation Act 1889, this House has had co-ordinate jurisdiction with the House of Commons in matters of subordinate legislation. It has enjoyed that power, and it could at any time during that period of a century, and I think longer than that, have held up the whole business of Government by successively rejecting every Resolution, either on a Negative or a Positive Prayer; it could have done so. I do not believe the Government could find a single case where this House has misused that power. There have been cases, of course, where the House has tended to take a different view from the House of Commons in this kind of matter, but it has never pressed its view, and there is not the smallest reason to suppose that it would press its view improperly in this particular matter—quite the contrary
In the case of the bringing into effect of the Bill after the referendum—assuming the referendum went the way I do not wish, and goes the way the Government do wish—I cannot conceive of this House, taking the responsible view that it has already done for over a century, blocking what would then be the wish of the Scottish people and the Government of the day, ex hypothesi by whichever side, by that time, the Government might be represented. I do not understand on what evidence it is supposed that that situation could arise.
To take this particular case, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has pointed out, the peculiar and unlikely situation which is envisaged by the particular clause to which the first of the series of Amendments refers is the case where the elected Scottish Assembly came to one view and the elected House of
1680
Commons came to another. I cannot imagine this House pursuing a matter beyond the point at which it had made its opinion plain, with the result of holding up the working of the Constitution. I should like to know by what train of reason the Government think that they are dealing with a real situation —if they were to try to insist upon this most objectionable insult to this House. What are they thinking of?
Of course it would be used as a precedent in a sporadic series of Bills introduced by one Party or the other, whichever was in power. Once it has been done once it will be introduced in one Bill and perhaps not in another. If they want to alter the relationship between the Houses, which has worked perfectly well for over a century, to the disadvantage to the House of Lords, that would be a great pity. It would affect much of our ability to criticise Ministers. Supposing that they want to do it, why not do it as part of a general constitutional measure, altering the situation as between the House of Lords and the House of Commons? Why must they try to bring it in by the back door? It cannot be right.
I should have thought that if the Government were really sincere in wanting to get this Bill on to the Statute Book, and wanting to get the referendum process complete, they must—I beg them to believe—get rid of this series of objectionable little clauses, which are proposed only out of spite and which have not so far even been discussed in the House of Commons. I do beg this of them. This is not said with a view to humiliating or upsetting the Government, or saying many of the nasty things about the Government that on other occasions I should be only too willing to say. It is said with a perfectly sincere desire to beg the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—whose influence over his colleagues is so large and who is so much respected and loved in this House on all sides—to say on behalf of the Government that, on reflection, they realise that this causes profound offence and can only hold up the progress of legislation to which they are, at any rate, sincerely attached.
5.53 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

1681
spoke of the concurrent powers, particularly over subordinate legislation, and the way in which your Lordships' House has treated it—I think he used the words, "in a satisfactory way". I wonder how satisfactory it is. I shall come back to that in a moment. I share, I think, the general unease at the proposals which are, in the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is undesirable to change the relationship and responsibilities of the powers between the two Houses in a Bill of this nature. But the reality is that it had to be put in this Bill because we were dealing with a situation of a Scottish Assembly with reserve powers, or where the Assembly may be legislating in a way that is contrary to the general interests of the unitary State. It was then felt, as I understand it, that there should be the power of the Secretary of State to withhold the sending of the Bill to the Monarch for the Royal Assent, but that before he could do that he would be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and assent.
We have heard in Committee of the possible conflicts between the Scottish Assembly, if the Scottish National Party were in power, and a Labour or Conservative Government in London. I suspect—and I do not think any noble Lord would challenge me—that the only possibility of conflict between the House of Commons and the House of Lords on an action taken by the Secretary of State is when there is a Labour or Liberal Government in the House of Commons and a Conservative majority in the House of Lords.
I want to come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, said about what he called the "satisfactory procedures"— the satisfactory approach of your Lordships' House to subordinate legislation. This House recognised that, in the bulk of subordinate legislation, if your Lordships' House declined to pass an order then there was no going back, because an order may not be reintroduced unless it is so drafted, as I understand it, according to the Standing Orders, as to be substantially different from the previous order that had been rejected.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, shakes his head. However, may I remind him of a very critical moment in your Lordships' House on the Southern Rhodesia Order. I would ask him to
1682
refresh his memory; the incident is indelibly fixed in mine. My noble friend Lord Shackleton, who was then the Leader of the House, replied to that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised the question of what would be the position if that order was defeated in this place. Did that mean that sanctions against Rhodesia could not be fulfilled, and all our obligations to the United Nations could not be complied with? My noble friend could well have said that there was such serious doubt that he would have to say to the House that that would be the position. He did not do so. But the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rose and asked that specific question. I think that my noble friend then said, Yes, he thought a new order could be laid. I suspect that if Lord Shackleton, as Leader of the House at the time, had said it would have been impossible to have laid another order, we would not have had a Division that night.
This House has passed many orders. It has had many fiery debates, but it has always been reluctant, as the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, to take a vote on them. I would support the procedure that is in this Bill. With the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I would much prefer to see it in a Bill on its own, because at least it would give this House the real and only opportunity, on subordinate legislation, to go into the Division Lobbies in support of the strong views that have been held, which it is not able and willing to do today.
I suggest that with the procedure that is in this Bill, your Lordships' House, if it felt strongly in support of the Scottish Assembly in opposition to the Secretary of State, at least would be able to go into the Division Lobbies and record its views in the strongest terms possible, not just leaving it to the voices of those who participate in debates and to another House to take a view of what had arisen. If it then decided by Resolution, so be it. Whatever we may think of ourselves, the House of Commons is still the only elected body. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and some of his friends would like to see an elected second Chamber. There is a strong case for it, but the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, wants an elected Chamber, as I understand it, because through an Election it can have authority. We are not elected.

1683
We have not got the authority to withstand the will of the House of Commons.
Lord CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has chosen a rather odd example to argue that it is impossible to introduce a Statutory Instrument again, if this House defeats it on the first occasion; because on the occasion of the Rhodesia order, when we divided against it, I specifically said that your Lordships on this side of the House would not reject it if it was introduced again. Within a fortnight the Government introduced the order.
Lord SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord will look at the Standing Orders, I believe he will see—my noble friend the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—that the order cannot be in identical terms to the one which has been defeated, and I question very much if a Resolution, or whatever it may be, to deal with the Secretary of State's decision could be drafted in such a way that it would meet our Standing Order.
Lord CARRINGTON: It falls, and we have got sanctions on Rhodesia.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: May I make a point? Personally, being very pro-Assembly, I should be delighted if this Amendment were passed because it would at least override the powers of the Government in that, if the legislation was legal, it would give it more of a chance of coming into being if the two Houses disagreed. I should like information on the constitutional question. Surely, if the Amendment is carried, one will have a new constitutional situation also in that legislation will become law because the two Houses disagree. As I understand it, if the two Houses disagree, the legislation will go forward. That surely—may I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham?—would be a new constitutional position.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: The noble Lord has it completely upside down. The situation is that, if the Assembly passes a law which is otherwise legal, it has the complete right to see that law enacted by submitting it to Her Majesty for consent and that consent is given by an Order in Council. There is an exception to that right which
1684
is given to the Assembly—that is, that Parliament, if both Houses are agreed, can veto it at the suggestion of the Secretary of State. If Parliament fails to give that right to veto it, or proceeds to veto it, then the Assembly measure will become law. That is the only way in which it could be legitimately put.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: As I understand it, the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—and I do not disagree with him—was that if anybody is going to be supreme it should be the House of Commons because it is an elected Chamber. On those grounds, I should have thought that, if we pushed this to a vote, it would be in our Lobby. It is vital on a matter as important as this that the House of Commons should give a considered, detailed decision, and it has not done that. This is one of the matters which came under the guillotine, so we do not know what the House of Commons view is. It still figures in the Bill because it is the victim of a procedure—the guillotine.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said he would be prepared to accept this Amendment. He can help to do that by going into the Lobby if this is not acceptable to the Government. I rather anticipate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is going to be in a position to say that he accepts it because I do not believe that what is now the situation is what the Government would want. If you compare it to the real thing, this is one-Chamber Government by stealth. If we are going to have one-Chamber Government at any time—and I hope we shall not do that—let us have it done properly, and let us ask this Government to look into the full Parliamentary procedure and have it examined in detail. There are certain supporters of the Government Party who would like to have a one-Chamber Government, but I do not believe that that is the view of the Government as it now exists. I cannot see that they would be a party to wanting to get by stealth something as important as this.
On Second Reading, I said that this was not a Scotland Bill. I called it the United Kingdom Dynamite Bill. This is the dynamite that I had in mind. If this precedent is allowed to go through it will affect the whole of the United

1685
Kingdom. It has nothing to do with Scotland. This is on the narrow Scottish point as put by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I would not have felt very disturbed about it. It would not be an unelected House of Lords overruling the elected House of Commons; it would be the elected House of Commons overruling the House of Lords, who would be supporting an elected Scottish Assembly. If the Scottish Assembly bring in a measure which is within their powers, they are just as much as elected body as is the House of Commons. It may be setting us on a new road. If we have to have this sort of a Bill, it may not be a bad road. If you have an elected Scottish Assembly genuinely holding one view and an elected House of Commons holding another, who better to be an arbiter as to which elected view shall become the law of the land?
It could well be that we are moving into an era where the House of Lords —in addition to being a revising Chamber and in addition to being part of Parliament in order to add the knowledge of its members in the effort to bring about good Bills—will, if we are to have these devolutions to Scotland and to Wales and goodness knows where else, become the arbitrator among elected bodies. It may well be that that is the kind of thing we could keep in mind.
The other answer that I could give to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is that the actual steps to implement anything arising from this would have to be taken by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State is still in the House of Commons there will be a great power for seeing that real thought is given to whatever is the expressed view of the House of Commons. I would remind your Lordships of the words of my noble friend Lord Ferrier. He set out a situation, not an exaggerated situation but a most likely one under certain conditions that would flow from an Assembly, and he said this (I took it down):
"We would be in a situation where the House of Commons would be in conflict with the Assembly; the House of Commons would be in conflict with the House of Lords; the House of Commons would be in conflict with the Assembly and the House of Lords together ".
If that is what the Bill might mean, if that is not dynamite in terms of constitutional Parliamentary government I do not know what is.
1686
I remember my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham took me to task in that gentle way of his for using "dynamite", and, then I intervened when he himself quoted in his Second Reading speech a very hefty bit of dynamite and said it would have to have a long fuse. I have never been put off recognising the danger of dynamite because of the length of the fuse. You may not be blown up today or tomorrow, but I do not feel that a delay in being blown up for a month or a year is very much of a reason for allowing the danger to exist in the first place. I would suggest that the Government ought to have this part of this Bill sent back to them unless there is a word from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asking to have it back by accepting the Amendment. I think we ought to insist on sending it back to them in order that they can give a considered and detailed view on it.
I have been in your Lordships' House for only a short time, but I was very disturbed at the way in which your Lordships allowed your powers to be taken away in last year's Finance Bill. In last year's Finance Bill, on a Money Bill which is widely the perrogative and responsibility of the other place, Parliament, including this House, allowed to be tacked on to it powers which interfered with our freedom and liberties and the law of trespass. We allowed in that Money Bill—and it was not deemed to be a Money Bill when it first came to us—the power to allow people to break into one's house, break into one's desk, to trespass and to do all sorts of things. I am not necessarily saying that what they wanted to do would be wrong, but that is a power which ought not to have been given until there had been full and detailed debate in the House of Commons and your Lordships' House in the full, true and Parliamentary fashion. I believe that that was the beginning of one-Chamber Government on matters outside the actual extraction of money.
This is a second step. I remember the old Irish saying: "If I am cheated once, I forgive him: if I am cheated twice then I don't deserve forgiveness myself." The Lord Chancellor must recognise the constitutional dangers. What will be said if this is allowed to go through? The details, and even the details of the sort of argument

1687
that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friends have put forward will be forgotten. If it is allowed to go through it will be said that both Houses agreed that this should happen. The fact that one House never debated it at all and that this House is supposed not to have the same amount of power as the other, will be forgotten. It will be said that, in a constitutional way, this new procedure which turns this into the beginnings of a one-Chamber Parliament was accepted because we let it go through. Therefore, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will make this one occasion when they give satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, so that he can come in the Lobby with us.
6.11 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, does not want my support; I am equally sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is wrong. It cannot be true that the Standing Orders of this House can override the procedures governing the laying of a Statutory Instrument. In my submission the Government can table a Statutory Instrument on every odd day throughout the year, including Saturdays and Sundays, and the House of Lords can meet on all the even days and cancel it, and it can then be introduced the next day. The Standing Orders of this House do not make twopenny worth of difference. I hope that I have killed that piece of constitutional nonsense once and for all.
I should like to take up one other point. I can understand the possible embarrassment of the Party opposite in wanting to call a Division. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that he and I call the Division and go into the Lobby as Tellers together, because nobody can charge us—neither he nor 1—with wanting to perpetuate a Conservative majority in this House. I would go a little further than him; I will vote with both hands to abolish it in your Lordships' House. However, so long as it is here, it ought to be used.
If there are ever any complaints about the abuse of the procedures in this House, I am one who has abused them. I defeated on Second Reading a Private Member's Bill from another place and I
1688
am very glad that I did so. Therefore, if today the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will join with me in calling a Division and going in as a Teller I hope that we shall be supported by all the Party opposite, all the intelligent Members on this side and all the Cross-Benchers. It will then be perfectly clear that we are saying to the Government: "If you want these powers you can have them. We shall vote for them, but do not do it by the backdoor. Do it by introducing a Bill that faces up to the problems, discusses the problems and is passed by another place before it reaches here".
6.14 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I respectfully agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he says that the proposals in the Bill that we are debating this evening and the Amendments that we are now considering, undoubtedly raise important constitutional issues as to the relations between the two Houses of Parliament; between the Assembly and Parliament; and between the devolved Administration and the Government. As I think was conceded in last week's fascinating debates on judicial review, the Bill contains important constitutional proposals calling, I submit, for reconsideration of our present constitutional practices and requiring consideration of constitutional changes which may prove necessary to meet the new situation that the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will create in order to make it effective.
The awareness that we were faced with a situation calling for constitutional change was, perhaps, most dramatically illustrated last week when two noble and learned Lords brought forward a proposal for a constitutional council and a constitutional court. I am bound to say that I had never heard of that before, so it might have been said about that proposal that if it was not surreptitious at least it was unheralded. However, what I do not understand about the complaint that what is proposed by the Government is surreptitious, is that the proposals were described and contained in the Scotland Bill before the Commons. They were defined and described in the Explanatory Memoranda of the Commons' Bill and your Lordships' Bill. They had previously appeared in the Scotland and Wales Bill published in November 1976.

1689
This proposed change has been on the Lapis and under consideration for years. Of course, as has been said, it had its origins in the ill-fated Parliament (No. 2) Bill of 1968, a Bill which, incidentally, had the support of both Front Benches of the day in another place and was not without friends who are now distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. It is true that I should also say that your Lordships have present those who were then right honourable gentlemen who did not agree with their own Front Bench. However, the proposal was introduced in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. In fairness I must say that, due to the strange events and strange alliances that occurred in another place, the relevant clauses were not reached. The other place reached only Clause 6 of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot claim that the noble Lords who were then supporting the Bill have committed themselves in advance to this proposal. However, it emerged as a serious proposal in that Bill which was, as I have said, supported by both Front Benches at that time. Therefore it has a not dishonourable antecedent. There is nothing disreputable about it. Perfectly honourable and serious consideration was given to what should be done in the new constitutional scene.
I agree that, of course, one would prefer to make these constitutional changes affecting the relationships between the two Houses in a constitutional Bill dealing with such matters. However, we are faced now with the practical necessity of seeing what can best be done to make—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has said—the Bill as effective as we can and let the people of Wales and Scotland decide in the referendum whether they want it or not. This is an attempt to do just that.
I apprehend that there is a general view—I agree that it is not a unanimous view—that there is a need for the proposed override powers which are contained in the Bill, subject to amendment as to the detail of them which we are still considering. We are now discussing how Parliamentary effect shall be given to the exercise of the override powers. What is proposed in Clause 35 and the other relevant clauses is that the other place should be empowered to confirm a resolution that it has passed approving the Secretary of State's intervention, despite your Lordships' House not having passed
1690
a resolution to the same effect. The result of your Lordships' House agreeing with the other place would, of course, empower the Secretary of State to go ahead. I apprehend that that would probably be what would happen in most cases. However, if your Lordships disagreed with the decision of another place and that was maintained, then the result would be that the challenged Assembly measure—which the Secretary of State, the Government and the House of Commons thought might threaten important United Kingdom matters—would become the law of Scotland on the authority of this House, and this House alone, along with, of course, the Scottish Assembly. That is the situation which would arise.
What the clause proposes is not the exclusion of your Lordships' House from the procedures that arc put forward. On the contrary, the matter would come to this House, with its authority and now with its new more public voice in the land. It could vote upon the matter and throw the proposal out. That would be recorded. The stand and view of your Lordships would be known, would be publicised and would be declared. The result of that action by your Lordships would compel the House of Commons to think again about the matter. That is the great service that this noble House renders within our Constitution; it causes the other place to think again, to give second thought to what it proposes.
But, as I said earlier, if what is proposed in the Amendments were to prevail, then we would have a piece of Scottish legislation which the Government of the day, the Secretary of State and the House of Commons all thought would be damaging and prejudicial to United Kingdom interests. The only way of remedying the matter would be by passing an Act of Parliament. Bearing in mind the pressure on legislative time and the delay that that would create, it would mean a very long period of uncertainty in what could be an important measure.
These are serious problems and difficulties and, with great respect to the noble Lord, although I share his anxiety and wish that this matter might have been capable of being dealt with in another way, this is not a disreputable attempt to deal with the difficulty—it is a serious one. However, it is apparent from this long

1691
debate, where the issues have been fully ventilated, that we are here faced with a clear difference of opinion on both sides of the Committee on the matter. Although I hope that I have endeavoured to explain the Government's position moderately, without passion, nevertheless I think that this is a circumstance where the matter must be resolved by a decision of your Lordships' Committee.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has quite rightly said that he has spoken in a moderate way and without passion. He was, indeed, right in what he said. In view of the office that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor holds, his view is always impressive and no one could have been other than impressed by what he said this evening. He was very quiet. If I may say so, he reminded me very much of something that was once said to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, when she was speaking. Someone said to her that she looked very much like a swan—majestic in appearance but paddling away like mad underneath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The prospect enchants me. The idea of me being swanlike alongside my noble friend fills me with delight and enjoyment.
Earl FERRERS: Be that as it may, it conjures up all sorts of imaginings in our eyes, but we have the advantage of being able to see the noble and learned Lord. Although the noble and learned Lord put his case clearly and reasonably, it leaves at least me unimpressed for three reasons. First, this sets a precedent and once passed in this Bill it will appear in others. Can any noble Lord really imagine a Parliamentary draftsman sitting down and, when subordinate legislation is being written into the Bill, saying, "Shall we allow the House of Lords to vote on this

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Allerton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Alport, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Cockfield, L.

Amory, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Coleraine, L.

Atholl, D.

Burton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Balerno, L.

Caccia, L.

Colwyn, L.

Banks, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Carrington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boothby, L.

Cathcart, E.

Craigmyle, L.

or shall we put in the same bit that was put in under the Scotland Bill?". Of course, the choice will not be there, and shortly all Bills will contain this piece of new legislation.
Secondly, as has so often been said, if this kind of alteration is to be made, it would be a constitutional alteration and should be in a special Bill; it should not be in this Bill. I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, slightly confusing when he said that the advantage of this Bill, as it is, is that the House of Lords can vote, whereas if the Amendments are passed, it cannot vote. He then went on to say—and I found this to be a curious argument—that there is only one elected Chamber, the elected Chamber ought to have its say and the House of Lords ought not to vote. It would seem to me that it would be much better to allow the present system to continue where, although the House of Lords can vote, it takes its responsibilities seriously, and hardly ever does so on matters like this.
The third reason why I would ask your Lordships to support these Amendments is the very simple one that another place has never discussed them. Whatever we may think about these Amendments—whether we think they are right or wrong—another place has never discussed them at all. At least if we pass these Amendments it will give another place that opportunity. Of all constitutional arguments that surely must be one that should carry some weight. At least we should have the approval or opinion of another place and we should not remove that right from them. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support these Amendments. I beg to move.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 330) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 51.

Cromartie, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Daventry, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Reigate, L.

Deramore, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Rochdale, V.

Digby, L.

Long, V.

Romney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Sandys, L.

Dundee, E.

Luke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Selsdon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McFadzean, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Sharples, B.

Exeter, M.

Mancroft, L.

Shinwell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Simon, V.

Forester, L.

Margadale, L.

Somers, L.

Fortescue, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Spens, L.

Gainford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stamp, L.

Garner, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Meston, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Glendevon, L.

Mills, V.

Gray, L.

Monck, V.

Strathspey, L.

Greenway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Suffield, L.

Gridley, L.

Monson, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Teviot, L.

Mottistone, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hampton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tranmire, L.

Hankey, L.

Trenchard, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Moyne, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Hatherton, L.

Newall, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hereford, V.

Northchurch, B.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Onslow, E.

Wall, L.

Hylton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Pender, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Killearn, L.

Perth, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kilmany, L.

Platt, L.

Wigg, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rathcreedan, L.

Young, B.

Amherst, E.

Hall, V.

Pannell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. Henderson, L.

Pargiter, L.

Bacon, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. Jacobson, L.

Parry, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal).

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kagan, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Kagan, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor

Stedman, B.

Crook, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

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

Stcabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lovell-Davis. L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

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

McCarthy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Fulton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gardiner, L.

Melchett, L.

Willis, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wilson of Radclifie, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
6.36 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 137:
1694
Page 17, line 6, leave out from ("Council") to end of line 9.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: I think it right to explain that this is consequential upon the Amendment which the Committee has just carried.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We acknowledge time they will not be interested in it work-that to be correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 35, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: With my noble friend Lord Strathcona, I put down an Amendment on the Marshalled List some time ago to leave out Clause 35, and this was to indicate that we hoped to have a discussion of this clause, which is a very important part of the Bill, as well as dealing with the Amendments, because some of the Amendments have been on particular legal points. I think it also helped the debates on them to concentrate on those points so that we could keep our general discussion of the clause to this part of our Committee stage.
Clause 35 gives the Westminster Government, and the Parliament at Westminster, power to override legislation of the Assembly; power to override Bills even though they are completely within the competence of the new Assembly. The following clause, Clause 36, is a similar clause, but it gives power to the Government at Westminster, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, to override actions by the Scottish Executive; the new Executive to be formed with the Assembly.
In arguing for the powers in Clause 35, both in another place and so far in your Lordships' House and Committee, the Government have indicated that they regard this clause as a safeguard which would be rarely used. But I would draw attention to the wording of the Bill, in that if it appears that a Bill—that is, a Bill in the new Assembly—is not in the public interest, the Secretary of State for Scotland may propose that it be not enacted by laying an order, the procedure for which we have just been discussing.
That is very wide. There are often arguments in Parliament, both here and in another place, about what the words, "in the public interest" mean, and what subjects are in the public interest or what are not. It is not an easy matter to agree upon. Again I approach the wording of this clause in the light of the possibility of a largish group in the new Assembly being Nationalists, and although they may want to set up the Assembly in the first place, after it has been going for a certain
1696
time they will not be interested in it working.
Yesterday it seemed from some words that I had said that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and I had an apparent difference of opinion about this. However, I do not think we had any difference at all, because he was saying that the Scottish National Party, the SNP, had stated that they would support an Assembly in Edinburgh at this stage. I had referred to statements—but observing the convention here in Parliament I had not quoted directly from a Back-Bencher in another place in a current Session—from SNP Members of Parliament that they regarded the Assembly under this Bill purely as a staging post towards independence. I think the same thing is happening at this stage; they support it simply as a stepping stone.
Some references have been made to SNP manifestoes, and I have with me the last two. The relevant words which we must have before us have appeared in the last two main manifestoes of the SNP—as I have been a collector of these documents I can assure noble Lords that similar wording has been in their manifestoes for at least 20 years and under the heading "Aims" we read:
"Self-government for Scotland: The establishment of a Scottish Parliament whose authority will be limited only by such agreements as may be freely entered into by it with other nations or States or international organisations.".
They have made it clear that they regard that aim as making Scotland completely independent in everything, including foreign affairs and defence, having a seat at the United Nations, and a Parliament which, as I have described, would be similar to the Parliament of any separate independent State. That was in the main manifesto dated August 1974. In September they produced a supplement to it, for the Election, and the relevant part in that--I think this is what the noble Earl was referring to—read:
"The Scottish National Party will support a Scottish Assembly as a step on the road to full self-government, provided it is to be directly elected and—
this is the important proviso—
"provided it is to possess significant economic and financial powers".
It is clear already that the SNP do not regard the provisions of this Bill as giving them the significant economic and financial powers they mentioned in that manifesto,

1697
so we must bear clearly in mind, as I said yesterday, that the SNP are likely, hastily and merrily, to help set up an Assembly, if this Bill is endorsed by a referendum, but once it has started and been set up they will then be trying to get more power, they will not consider it what they are aiming for, they will not wish it to be stable and they will do everything possible to make the machinery breakdown in order to carry on to independence. That is perfectly clear and that is why it is important that we should examine the safeguards in the Bill. The member of the SNP in this House, the noble Lord who spoke on Second Reading, stated his opposition to the Bill, as I understood it, mainly for the reason I have given; that it did not provide for economic and financial powers.
The main worry about this part of the Bill is that it creates two Executives, the Secretary of State for Scotland and his entourage of Departments, and a new Executive in the Assembly, and there is likely to be a head-on collision when this clause is being interpreted, if it is enacted. It places it on the Secretary of State and therefore the Westminster Executive to decide whether a matter is within the public interest and whether or not they will recommend that the Assembly measure should be allowed to go forward. That is the result of the method of devolution which has been adopted by the Government. All stages of legislation are to be within the Assembly and at the same time their approach in this Bill is to try to draw a line dividing reserved subjects from devolved subjects, and thus we have the many pages of Schedule 10.
When this clause is invoked it is likely to cause ill-feeling, even resentment, in the Assembly. As I said, the Government have indicated that they regard it as a safeguard to be seldom used, but take the example of education. There could well be Bills in the Scottish Assembly which indirectly affect a reserved matter, and that comes under subsection 1(a). For example, the universities in Scotland are not to be devolved; the large majority of those in charge of the Scottish universities, I think including every vice-chancellor in Scotland, are in favour of the universities not being devolved. There is that majority opinion, as there has been for some time, and therefore I am not surprised at what is in the Bill. However,
1698
secondary education in Scotland must be closely linked with universities and it could well be that Bills on education which are introduced into or go through the new Assembly will affect a reserved matter because they touch on university matters or affect universities in England and Wales.
Again, within the sphere of education, consider teachers' salaries and conditions of service. I would remind the Committee that the Burnham Committee, a well-known body which has been operating for many years dealing with salaries, deals with the salaries of teachers in England and Wales, but not with Scotland. Scotland has a quite different system and when the Butler Education Act, which was a milestone in education in this country, is spoken of, people forget that it did not apply to Scotland; it applied to England and Wales but Scotland has always been different and has had a different system of education. Or consider the teachers' associations, the bodies representing them. They too are different. The National Union of Teachers exists in England and Wales but not in Scotland. In Scotland there are several teachers' associations, the chief one being the EIS, the Educational Institute for Scotland.
I am simply indicating that different systems exist and it is exceedingly likely that Bills in this field could appear to be not in the public interest or to be encroaching on United Kingdom matters and therefore to raise the question of the invocation of Clause 35. The teaching profession is included in Schedule 10; the teaching profession is a devolved subject. I presume that means that it covers the salaries and conditions of service of teachers. It could be that the Assembly might legislate on the pay and conditions of teachers in Scotland in a way that was completely out of line with United Kingdom policy, perhaps concerning incomes and causing discontent or adverse reaction among teachers and their organisations in England and Wales. Under the block grant system proposed in the Bill it is perfectly possible for the Assembly to do that.
During discussion of Amendments on this clause the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated that prints of Bills, when first introduced in the Assembly would be examined, as Amendments would

1699
be when introduced. There would be continuous consultations, with Clause 35 in mind, between representatives of the Assembly and the Westminster Government. That process would be continuing. None the less, the Government's view is that Clause 35 will seldom be used. However, I have given an indication of just one area--education—where I believe there could be considerable friction between the proposals of the Assembly and Westminster because of the effect to which they could lead South of the Border. Certainly with a sizeable group in the Assembly, committed, once it had got going, to try to go much further and extend its powers, there would be deliberate attempts, if that SNP group was in a majority, to try to do things which were not within its competence, or which extended to United Kingdom matters.
In that situation Clause 35 might have to be used much more than the Government at present contemplate, and therefore its terms must be considered very carefully. They have already been amended by the Division we have just had, and in the earlier discussion the noble and learned Lord indicated that there might be possible improvements of the clause as the result of the debates on the Amendments. But we still regard the clause as a dangerous cause of conflict in the future, and we must consider at Report stage whether it should be removed or replaced.
6.52 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I think it is a good thing that we are discussing Clause 35 because it is, to a degree, controversial. In supporting the Government in the last Division I had serious doubts about the constitutional position, and about the way this matter was being carried out. But I took the view that Clause 35 was necessary, and that this was the most practical way to implement it. One of the great things about the whole Bill is that it is set about by extraordinary provisions in order to allay the tremendous fears felt in many quarters about this constitutional change after 270 years of unitary Government in the United Kingdom.
It was very interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, should refer to the situation in which the Nation
1700
alists had a majority in the Chamber. Along with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I take the view that responsibility will make the Nationalists very different people. I think it has done until now, and I believe it is a process which will continue. When one talks about staging posts it should be remembered that many of the people who were heading West in the great American rush to the West, upon arriving at a pleasant place did not go on to the Pacific Ocean. They stopped in that pleasant place and settled there. I believe that this may well happen to the Nationalists. I see that the noble Lord was pointing to their Manifesto. My goodness! I could take many Manifestoes from both the Conservative and Labour Parties and point to the difference between their—
The Earl of ONSLOW: Have Liberal Party Manifestos always been filled with words of pure wisdom from 1906 until now?
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Indeed they have, but we have never had the chance to put them into effect. That is what is wrong with the country.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, because I do not want any misunderstanding over this. As he knows, I have spoken about Manifestoes, particularly when we were on the question of proportional representation, which is not a system I particularly like or encourage. But what I was referring to here is their aim, it is their raison d' etre, their reason for existence. I referred to the Manifesto only because what I have been talking about there is stated as an aim. I do not think that one can go further in order to get what is their tablet on this subject.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: That is possibly so, but much experience is against that point of view. Furthermore, if this group is elected with a majority in the Assembly and then proceeds to wreck it, to the detriment of the financial wellbeing of the electors, those in the group will not get on too well. I have often noticed that people who have the most amazingly radical ideas, upon getting a little responsibility somehow settle down to some extent and get on rather better.

1701
I should like to take up several other points. The noble Lord mentioned the universities. I believe that the universities are naturally very chary of wanting to put themselves under the Assembly, simply because they are waiting to see what kind of Assembly it will be: whether it will be a narrow, parochial body which would spoil the whole conception of a university, or the kind of body that led to Scotland having four universities when England had only two. I have in mind other matters which this kind of clause is meant to allay.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, is not here; I thought that he made a quite significant contribution when he said that the consultation about the legality and the effect ofNorthern Ireland legislation was very thorough. They discussed it thoroughly among themselves, and I think that the phrase he used was, "If there was any doubt, we were on the phone to London double quick." I believe that this kind of situation will grow with the Assembly; at least, I hope it does. If it does not, then we shall need all the provisions in the Bill—but I think that it will grow. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, made a point in its favour when he said that over a hundred years—that might be a slight exaggeration—your Lordships' House has fulfilled its duty and its needs although it has not been a logical body. I believe that the same can be true of the Assembly if it gets the chance.
That is why, although I think that the political override powers of the Secretary of State are something of an insult to the intelligent of the Assembly, when the legality is already protected by the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, they are, nevertheless, necessary in order that people may have confidence that the Assembly will not become the disaster that so many people fear.
6.58 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I seek only to ask a question and to utter a warning. As I understand subsection (1), which was to some extent discussed on my noble friend's Amendments, for the Secretary to have, or feel bound, to act to override the Assembly's legislation, the Assembly measure has both to affect, or possibly affect, a reserved matter, and
1702
—this "and" is important—not be in the public interest. I am aware that the phrase "the public interest" is probably one of the most difficult phrases to construe in any legislation, not least because what is the public interest is very much a matter of opinion which can change with Governments.
But the question I should like to ask is this. Would the fact that an Assembly measure quite seriously obtruded into reserved subjects, although in ordinary terms did no harm, be itself regarded as contrary to the public interest? In other words, if there is no material harm done to the rest of the United Kingdom, yet what the Assembly is doing is driving a coach and horses through the Bill when it is an Act, would that of itself, in the noble and learned Lord's view, he so contrary to the public interest as to bring this subsection into operation? I hope I have made the point clear.
My question relates to the warning I do not intend to weary the Committee with what I said on Second Reading, other than to invite your Lordships' attention to the fact that the whole history of the British Commonwealth for the past 50 years has been that you begin by setting up bodies of this sort, with overriding powers held by a higher authority, with statutory limitations and so on, and that those who constitute those subordinate bodies spare no effort to widen their powers and to assume greater and greater authority. They bang and bang against the restrictions. This has been the common experience for 50 years, that nothing short of complete sovereignty has ever satisfied any of these bodies. This, I would suggest, is very likely to happen with the Scottish Assembly; and, if that scenario be correct, then this subsection (1) is a recipe for ill-will, for friction, for confusion and possibly, though I regret to have to say it, for ultimate Scottish independence.
The Earl of ONSLOW: This clause seems to me to suffer from some of the main defects of the whole Bill. Either it does not go far enough—that is, it does not give the Scottish Secretary of State the power to act almost as a Monarch and say, "I veto this", with no restrictions at all hedging him about--or we should leave it out altogether and say that it will

1703
be just the Judicial Committee. Then it will be up to the judges to say, with the fairness for which they have established themselves a reputation, that it is either within the law or it is without the law.
That would be all right; but I should like to draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskeybecause earlier on he hinted that he thought I was not being serious, whereas I am—the phrase "public interest". I think my noble friend Lord Ferrers illustrated it a little: the English public interest and the Scottish public interest, in the bribing of building workers across the Border for one reason or another, or in the closing down of a hospital just North of the Border in order to lay it on the English taxpayer, so that more of the block grant could be used for something else. I am not saying that the Scottish Assembly will do this automatically—of course not. One is just saying that it is within the bounds of possibility that men of evil disposition could get elected to this Assembly and could be motivated by second-rate thoughts.
There are other things which could give rise to the question: What is the public interest? Is it a Scottish public interest? Is it an English public interest or is it a United Kingdom public interest? And which of those three public interests takes precedence? There is the muddle in the Bill—the fact that forestry is private under the Assembly, and that the Forestry Commission is still retained as a unit. Am I not right on that? I think I am. Things of this sort are going to give rise to terrible argument, discussion and acrimony. I honestly think that it will be easier, either to make the power of the Secretary of State much more absolute or to confine it to the Judiciary. This is a compromise. Normally, I like compromise. Normally, it is the sensible thing to do, to try to compromise between reasonable men. But this is a compromise which, like the rest of the Bill, either goes not far enough or goes too far, and it is a compromise which is open to destructive and anarchic influences.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said on this clause—and, of course, as your Lordships know, he speaks with
1704
great authority in this context. Is it not really as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was saying earlier, that, as we go through this Bill clause by clause, it slowly sinks in that this is a bad Bill? This is very much the picture which emerges when one looks at the debates in the other place. I close with only this thought, that my greatest regret, which I am sure will live with me all my life, is that I do not have the capacity of Mr. Tam Dalyell, who, at the end of the debate on every clause of this Bill, said the same thing in slightly different words. So I content myself with saying that once again your Lordships can see that this Bill, as those of us who have opposed it from the outset have said, is indeed a recipe for conflict, for confusion and for complexity—a recipe for those three indeed.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I say just one or two words. I really will be very brief. I do not think one ought to pass from this clause without recalling that, when the Bill was first published, this was the clause which was picked on by the Press—I am talking of the Scottish Press—above all the clauses in the Bill as being the most damaging; that is, this power to override what the Assembly did. I wonder whether the noble Lord could help us on this matter. In our very closely interrelated society, there is hardly anything that you can do which does not affect something else; so it must follow that an awful lot that the Assembly will do might affect a reserved matter, and at that point the Secretary would have to consider, I think in each case, whether or not the enactment of that provision would be in the public interest.
I think the noble Lord will agree that what I have just said must be true. Take, for example, the case of housing. One of the reserved matters is provision by private financial institutions of finance for housing. That is one kind of example; but there are so many things which could overspill into some of the reserved matters. I should therefore be very grateful if the noble Lord could reassure us that there would have to be some substantial effect on a reserved matter before the Secretary of State would even consider using his powers to override. I think that will be tremendously important.

1705
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that there is a strong likelihood that there will be close cooperation between the two sides of the Home Civil Service, those who are working for the Secretary of State and those who are working for the Scottish Executive. I am sure that this will be so, and that they will be in close consultation. After all, in many cases they will have been working together for a long time. What I think I am trying to be reassured about is that the advice of both sides of the Civil Service, all the time to their respective Ministers, will be to keep in touch and ensure that, whether something which it is proposed should be done by the Scottish Secretary—Bills being introduced into the Assembly—is something which may have an effect on a reserved matter will be considered at a very early stage; so that the Ministers concerned are advised whether this is likely to be regarded as a substantial interference which would invoke the powers of Clause 35, such that the Secretary of State would then be bound to consider whether or not it was in the public interest to take the very stringent action which Clause 35 allows.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: I shall not keep your Lordships long about this Clause 35, but as the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Mackie of Benshie, both interpreted my position in regard to the Scottish National Party 1 think it might be useful if I make my own statement on what I believe about it. First, 1 am not in favour of independence and therefore I do not go along with the Scottish National Party on that point. Secondly, I am not at all sure that, if they got a majority in the Assembly, they would not do all that they could to make use of that majority for purposes which, in a sense, are perfectly legitimate; but my hope is that that majority would have to be a true majority and that is why your Lordships passed and I welcomed the proportional representation. If they had a true majority, which meant that the mass of the people in Scotland wanted more power to the Scottish Nationalists, then, clearly, they have a right not, as I see it, to do everything possible to make the machinery break down but to try to bring this matter to a new issue with the Houses of Parliament together.
1706
My only difference from Lord Campbell is that I think they have said that in the first Assembly, in the event of their not having an absolute majority, they will try to make it work rather to do everything possible to make the machinery break down. I hope that that is sufficiently clear. On the question of Clause 35, I believe that something like this may be necessary, but my hope would be that the Secretary of State would use his power in the most thoughtful way. It is why I think when the Amendment was put down that "shall" rather than "may" would have been a mistake.
I think that what we have to hope is that the Secretary of State realises that in using such power it is potentially a matter of a serious clash between the Assembly and the Houses of Parliament. It is, further, why I think an Amendment which was also put down—Amendment No. 134; namely, a statement of the Amendments necessary in the Secretary of State's opinion to correct the defects in the Bill—is again along the right lines. It is all trying to ensure that if there is a difference it is a difference which is understood and one which can be corrected without the clash which otherwise is feared. So I hope that Clause 35 in some form will stand, but I hope that it is in a form which is aimed always to make the probability of a clash less rather than more.
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I welcome the positive approach from both the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Much may depend upon which Government is in power and which Secretary of State is responsible; but the Government's intention is that Clause 35, if it is ever to be used, will be used most rarely and most responsibly. For that reason, as the noble Earl has picked out, we put in the word "may" rather than "shall". There are other safeguards: there is that of Parliament. The Secretary of State cannot lightly use Clause 35 because he must go to Parliament and satisfy Parliament that he is right; otherwise he will get into trouble in that way. There is no doubt about this. The Secretary of State must act responsibly and the Bill provides the mechanism for ensuring that he does.
In relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said, I want to pick up two brief points. At one stage he said

1707
that if the Assembly tried to extend their powers and to do things which extended to mattters outwith their competence, then I think that that would be picked up by the vires provisions of the Bill rather than by this clause. He also thought that because of what he described as the difficulties of Clause 35 and the possible conflicts, that was a matter that he might have to consider at Report stage. I thought that the Conservative Party generally, albeit they had reservations about the clause, were prepared to support it. We must wait and see. From the Government's point of view, I cannot emphasise too strongly that Clause 35 is regarded as an essential part of the machinery of this Bill and we shall try to maintain it within the Bill.
Let me be frank with the Committee. We have repeatedly gone to our advisors and said, "Give us more examples, clear examples, of cases where we would be using the override." The difficulty we have had in getting good examples—we have had some; the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave us one or two in the course of his speech on the last Amendment—has made clear that it is difficult, quite difficult, to spell out examples. 1 could give the Committee some; but it is not very easy to find them. I am satisfied after that particular search for good working examples that the kind of situation in which the Government would seek to make a clause of this kind bite is rarely going to arise. Nevertheless, it ought to be there because if the situation arises, one cannot expect to use the ultimate weapon, which is legislation in Parliament. Surely, if this kind of situation arises, it ought to be possible to deal with the matter more shortly. That is why Clause 35 was conceived and that is why we maintain it and that is why, although I hope that it will never be used and cannot conceive of circumstances where it is likely to be used, it is in the Bill.
I have nothing very much to say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. If he brings that degree of pessimism and unrealism to bear on the Bill, then he must vote against every provision and vote against the Bill, for there is nothing I can say that will carry him with me.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Would the noble and learned Lord answer the
1708
question that I put as to whether, in his view, the public interest provision would be triggered off by a measure which obtruded substantially into reserved matters?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The clear answer to that is that it becomes a question of degree. If there are effects on reserved matters and they are substantial, then it becomes a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State, and ultimately for Parliament, to say: "Are these interests such that, cumulatively and in degree, they amount to something contrary to the public interest?" That is how the two things will work together in that kind of situation.
7.18 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Is the noble and learned Lord going to answer the question which I put earlier? I conceded that it might be my obtuseness or the slowness of my cerebration, but I found it difficult to see a consistency between saying, "If the Assembly does this or that it is neither here nor there to us in Westminster" and saying that it is wrong to assert that the Bill sets up a rival Parliament or that the Bill affects the sovereignty of the Mother of Parliaments.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The whole virtue of this scheme of devolution is that it will allow a reasonable diversity within the continuing unity of the United Kingdom. Within the devolved matters the Scots may do as they like. But if one looks at the context of Clause 35 and the narrow area in which it may bite, one sees that where the Scots do something which is going to affect materially the public interest and materially affect matters which are reserved, they are doing something which is not properly contemplated within the kind of devolution that we are talking about. This Parliament, interested in the unity of the United Kingdom and in what happens in the rest of the country—England, Northern Ireland and Wales—must take an interest in that. There must be some way of stopping things from being done under this scheme of devolution which have effects outside Scotland which cannot be tolerated. I think that that is perfectly clear, and I hope it answers my noble and learned friend's question.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Will the noble Lord answer one other question from me? I can see some hungry noble Lords—
Lord McCLUSKEY: My attitude would be not a question of whether we are hungry. This is not a viva voce question and answer session. We are supposed to be making speeches on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? I should have thought that if the noble Earl has a question to ask he would have asked it earlier when he was on his feet.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I do have a question to ask and I think it is very important to the point of this Bill. I should have thought that one is entitled to ask it. It may be a stupid question, it may be an inaccurate question, but I am sure that I am entitled to ask it. My question is this: As the Minister obviously thinks that he is Dr. Pangloss, is it not possible that when the Minister does use his power under Clause 35 of the Bill it is going to involve the most almighty political row? This is what is going to upset the whole of the unity of the United Kingdom, and this goes to the heart and rottenness of this whole Bill.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Well, if I have not answered that question already, cannot answer it now.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.22 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Housing (Financial Provision) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as
1710
they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
The MINSTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved the following Amendment:
Page 17, line 15, at end insert (" and in paragraph (b) of this subsection any reference to a protected tenant or statutory tenant shall include a reference to such a lessee as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection".
(9A) In section 16(4), (5) and (5A) for the words "under a tenancy which would be a protected tenancy", "and his tenancy would be a protected tenancy" and "to which Part VII of the Act of 1971 would apply "wherever they occur there shall be substituted the words" where he would be a private tenant".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to address myself to an additional Amendment. Before I do so formally, may I take the opportunity of just expressing my own personal appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the co-operation that he has shown to me throughout the passage of this Bill. particularly as I had to lay Amendments in a rather disconnected and unrelated manner before your Lordships and without the prior notice which I would, as a matter of courtesy, always wish to give to your Lordships' House and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who normally debates these issues with me.
I turn to an Amendment on Schedule 2. I said last week that it might be necessary to bring forward this Amendment today so as to make fully effective the increase in rateable value limits affecting the rent allowance scheme. That is indeed the case. The Amendment which was added at Report stage secured that people who would be protected or statutory tenants, but for the rateable value limit of £200 in the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, will in future be within the scope of the rent allowance scheme so long as their house's rateable value limit does not exceed £600.

1711
As I explained last week, however, the £200 rateable value limit affects other categories of tenant mention in Section 16 of the 1972 Act, even though they are not protected tenants. The group most affected by the limit are tenants of housing associations. We need to override the limit by the new £600 limit for these categories of tenant as well. This is what the Amendment does. It makes the new limit applicable to carious categories of private tenant who were not covered by the wording of the earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: First, I should like to express my gratitute for the generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, about the co-operation at the later stages of this Bill which has already passed through another place. There have been printing difficulties in the past two weeks and also I know that the Government were concerned to try to get this Bill in the right terms if they possibly could. I, in turn, acknowledge that the noble Lord made great efforts to get the first draft of Amendments to me through the post in Scotland or elsewhere in order to give me as much notice as possible. At the Report stage it emerged that there might be the need for a further Amendment at this Third Reading.
This Amendment appears to carry out what we were expecting. It means that all the private tenants who might have lost their rent allowances due to the unforeseen effects of this Bill, will now find that they are still in the scheme. I know that that is the Government's intention and this Amendment seeks to make sure of that. I can only say again what I said on the Report stage: thank Heavens for a second Chamber! If we did not have these opportunities for revision, even at this late stage, some tenants in private accommodation in Scotland would find themsleves, through nobody's fault, but just by default, without the rent allowances which they ought to have. Even though it has come at a late stage and at Third Reading, I commend this Amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
1712
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

FIREARMS (VARIATION OF FEES) ORDER 1978
7.28 p.m.
Lord SWANSEA Lord SWANSEA rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Firearms (Variations of Fees) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 267) be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. But of course what I have to say will apply equally to both Motions. This subject of increases in fees for firearms and shotgun certificates was last debated in December 1976, on an Unstarred Question initiated by myself. I was reading that debate again before I came into your Lordships' Chamber, and I shall endeavour to spare your Lordships by not repeating some of the arguments that I used on that occasion.
Only yesterday I returned from Jersey where I have been taking part in a shooting competition at international level, the championships of the European Division of the Commonwealth Shooting Federation, in which no fewer than seven countries were taking part. It is run on similar lines to the Commonwealth Gaines. Talking to some of the competitors, I found great concern expressed at these fresh proposals. Two or three people said to me: "When are they going to stop clobbering the shooter? Leave us alone and chase the people who really matter".
The Government are running true to form in their apparent policy of clobbering the shooter as well as in the manner in which these and earlier orders have been introduced. If I may take your Lordships back a few years, the history of the increases on the present principles starts from 1975, when the fees for firearms and shotgun certificates ceased to be nominal sums and were expressed officially as reflecting the current costs to the police in administering applications. At that time in 1975 the fee for a firearm certificate was raised to £7 and that for a shotgun certificate, both on initial application, to £2.
There were also corresponding increases for renewal, variation and replacement of lost certificates.
During 1975 the Home Office carried out a review of police administration costs in relation to this matter and, as a result, further increases were announced in 1976. I would just remind your Lordships of the manner in which that order was laid. It was made on 26th August in the middle of the Summer Recess; it was laid on 2nd September, still in the middle of the Summer Recess; and it was made effective on 4th October—only four days after your Lordships' House had returned and 10 days before the other place returned from the Summer Recess. So there was no real opportunity given for Parliament to debate those orders on that occasion.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I am listening with great care to what the noble Lord is saying, but he is on an entirely false point here. The timing of the increases he is talking about in no way reduced the rights of Parliament to pray against the orders in the way in which the noble Lord has this evening.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said, and I should like to return to that point concerning the rights of Parliament later. As regards the present orders, that for England and Wales was made on 27th February, laid on 7th March and became effective on 1st April, with the Easter Recess covering that period—because this House did not return until after 1st April. The Home Office letter dated 21st February gave advance notice to the interested bodies—to the police, the British Shooting Sports Council, the National Farmers' Union and others—but it made it quite clear at the same time that no consultation was possible and that the order became effective from 1st April. 1 would only ask: where is the fire? Why was it essential for this order to come into force on 1st April? Any day would have done, because firearm certificates and shotgun certificates do not expire on a fixed date in the year.
I should still like to know the answer to a question I put on the last occasion. I cannot see why it is possible for an order to come into effect before the end of praying
1714
time. Parliament has a right to consider every order that is made and laid; and to bring an order into effect before praying time has expired is simply cocking a snook at Parliament and taking it for granted. I would seriously suggest that we should review Parliamentary procedure in respect of orders and make it impossible for an order to come into effect before praying time has expired, or, alternatively, to change the procedure so far as the Firearms Act is concerned and make it subject to Affirmative Resolution instead of Negative Resolution. I wrote to the noble Lord opposite on this point last year and he gave me a flat refusal on this point, without producing any really satisfactory reasons.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I apologise for again interrupting, the noble Lord. I cannot recall the correspondence, but no doubt the point I would have made would be that this required an amendment of the law.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I am aware of that, and the Government have said on more than one occasion that they intend to introduce legislation at a suitable opportunity to amend the Firearms Act further. Dare I hope that is one point they have in mind. To compare this wth the Firearms Act for Northern Ireland, orders under that Act are subject to Affirmative Resolution and, for the safeguarding of the rights of the citizen, I would suggest very strongly that the same procedure should be applied to the Firearms Acts in Great Britain. The manner in which these orders have been laid strikes one as being very similar, and I am tempted to wonder whether it is more than just coincidence. Are we to expect further orders to be laid in the Whitsun Recess, in the summer Recess or during the Christmas Recess, when we have no opportunity to consider them properly?
If the Government wish their proposals to be accepted as necessary and reasonable in relation to administrative costs, I am perfectly prepared to believe them if they can justify what they have done. But they cannot expect their figures to be taken as read. Perhaps I might read to your Lordships the Home Office letter announcing the increases. It says this:
"In view of criticism of the costing methods used in the 1975 review which formed the basis for the existing scale of fees, more detailed

1715
guidelines were provided to the Forces taking part in the 1977 Review and the proposed new fees are based on returns which reflect all properly attributable police costs. The increases are the minimum required to cover higher administration costs. This, I fear, leaves no scope for consultation and the purpose of this letter is to give the Association and the other recipients advance notice of the Home Secretary's intention to make an order introducing the scale of fees set out in column 3 of the table, with effect from 1st April 1978. I am sorry it has not been possible to give longer notice of this intention ".
What emerges from that paragraph, my Lords, is that apparently the basis on which the 1975 review of costings was made was either inaccurate or based on wrong criteria supplied by the Home Office to police forces. It looks as though someone has not got his sums right, and we would very much like to know who it is. How is it possible for administration costs to go up so much in the meantime as to justify the present increases? This letter as good as admits that the costing methods used in 1975 were either inaccurate or based on wrong premises.
How do we know they are right this time? Are we to take the Government's word for it? There were wide variations in the costs given last time; they vary considerably all over the country on a sample of police forces, including the Metropolitan Police, which was top of the league by a very long way. I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite whether he will publish the new costs of administration on which these price increases are based. Further, can he give an assurance that the Home Office, or the Government, this time have thought of everything and that no more hidden costs are going to emerge from under the carpet?
What I should like to think, my Lords, is that the Government would submit detailed costings for scrutiny and report by an independent body such as the Price Commission or the Ombudsman, because here is a very firm case where the rights of the citizen are being infringed without proper justification being given. I should like to see detailed figures of those costings. It is either a question of a desire on the part of the Government to discourage the shooter or else it is a possible case of maladministration or of the wrong questions being asked by the Home Office.
1716
I shall now pass to another point. When the holder of a firearm or shotgun certificate receives notice of renewal of his certificate, he is required to take that certificate to the local police station, where he is presumably known to the local constable, sergeant, inspector or whoever is in charge. He is required, from his own personal knowledge of the applicant, to endorse the application form and pass it to higher authority. What administrative cost does that involve? The constable does not have to go out in his car and interview the applicant.
The applicant goes to the police station with his certificate, as he is required to do. He may have to take his firearms or shotguns with him for inspection. He is perfectly prepared to do that, or to receive the police in his home so that they can verify for themselves his holding of firearms or shotguns. But too often, in cases of which I have heard through the British Shooting Sports Council, there has clearly been inefficient use of police manpower for these inquiries, and applicants have been subjected to two or three visits in their home, sometimes by more than one police officer at a time. Is that really necessary? Cannot economies be made?
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, it takes two in Scotland.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Another point is that, compared with the cost of an initial grant, the charge for renewal of a certificate is far too high and I cannot see the justification for that. If a person is judged to be a responsible citizen, and a safe person to hold a firearms or shotgun certificate for a period of three years, then it is difficult to see how his bona fides can be queried when a longer period is involved. Unless he is most seriously in breach of the law, he must be adjudged a fit person not only after three years, but after five or six years.
This is a point on which the shooting interests have been pressing the Home Office for quite a long time. I realise that a change would mean amending the Act, but if the Government have an opportunity—assuming that they still have an opportunity—to introduce an amending Bill, I hope that they will also pay attention to this point. We have been

1717
assured in the past that it is being considered. We now issue driving licences up to the age of 70, but all kinds of things can happen before that. A man can become half-blind, but he does not have to fill in a further application form or be subjected to a test, provided he stays on the right side of the law, until he is 70. Consider, my Lords, how many people are killed on the roads, and how many are killed by deliberate criminal acts or accidental shootings.
Let me take the case of dog licences. This year, believe it or not, the price of dog licences celebrates its centenary! It has remained unchanged since 1878, at 7s. 6d. or 37½. It will be incorrect for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to say, as no doubt he will, that these increases are being applied right across the board as a matter of policy, because it is evident that they are not.
There are many thousands of law-abiding citizens, who indulge in the sport of shooting. I am not talking about the grouse shooting fraternity, which may be mentioned by some noble Lords, but about the tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, who belong to rifle clubs, clay pigeon clubs and so on, and who shoot at inanimate targets. That is one of the fastest growing participant sports in the country, and it ill becomes the Government to try to discourage it. Apart from that, there is the question of pest destruction by farmers and pigeon clubs, rabbit clubs and so on. A farmer has a right to protect his crops and to invite his friends to come in and help him do so. The ordinary shooter, whatever weapon he uses—shotgun, rifle or pistol—and whether shooting at inanimate or live targets, has a right to enjoy the recreation of his choice, unhindered by bureaucracy and not harassed by continual increases in the cost of his sport.
As regards the Bisley meeting, the numbers are rising every year. Over the last three years, the entries have increased yearly. Each year, we have had a record entry from this country and from overseas. The standing of Great Britain in international competitions, especially within the Commonwealth, is at present very high indeed and I am sure that the Government would not wish it to be anything else. I hope that they will
1718
think over what I have said, and consider whether they have not gone far enough this time. I shall look forward with interest, and perhaps a little scepticism, to what the noble Lord opposite has to say. I have no doubt that he will say very much the same as he has said in the past. 1 think that I have the noble Lord's agreement already, but it disappoints me greatly, because I had hoped that we might have just a little crumb of encouragement held out to us this evening.
The shooters of this country have no wish to be a whipping boy for the misdeeds of others. It is for the Government and the courts to chase up the offender, rather than the law-abiding citizen. It is for the courts, especially, to make the fullest use of the penalties which they have at their disposal, which are, generally, woefully under-used. I think it is time that the Government were called to account for these increases and to provide proper details of the costings. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Firearms (Variations of Fees) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 267) be annulled.—(Lord Swansea.)
7.47 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Swansea for his very detailed and well argued explanation of his Motion this evening, and indeed for his persistence in raising this subject once again. For my part, I have to declare a minor interest: first, as the holder of both a firearms certificate and a shotgun certificate; and, secondly, as a member of one of the organisations which has expressed strong objections to these proposed fees. But I am a mere paying supporter and nothing more than that. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whom I normally associate with very competent answers on matters which interest me, such as crowd hooliganism and disorders at football games, will give us most, if not all, the answers to our questions, particularly those which have been raised by my noble friend Lord Swansea tonight.
As we have heard from my noble friend there are feelings among law-abiding

1719
citizens who possess the relevant certificates, that they are being asked to bear unreasonable costs in respect of keeping their shotguns, which are used for normal and harmless country pursuits, such as shooting rabbits, pigeons and other vermin and clearing farms in the countryside. I think that there are similar feelings of grievance among rifle clubs, as well as among other groups.
The police work involved in checking the suitability of a person to have, or indeed to continue to have, a firearm or shotgun certificate, not to mention the administration, with the legal points and the extraordinary items which can be added to the cost of firearms control, has been a little exaggerated in some of the details that we were given in answers after the last debate.
At the end of his remarks or at a later date I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, could give us an indication of the numbers of firearm and shotgun certificates which are at present held in England and Wales and in Scotland. I believe that these are the relevant administrative divisions. May I also ask the noble Lord whether there is evidence of a falling off in the numbers of holders of these relevant certificates, since this is one of the fears expressed by those who are concerned about paying these increased fees.
In the course of a debate which was held in your Lordships' House in December 1976, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned during his remarks Section 5 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968. He mentioned that the orders must obtain, and then the noble Lord quoted from the Act:
"… a net return corresponding more nearly with the cost of the matters for which [those fees] are payable".
I wonder whether the noble Lord will be able to let the House have the latest available details which would indicate that the fees are being used according to the strict parameters of Section 5 of the 1968 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, might be able to help us with a comment that he made later on during his remarks in that same debate in December 1976. He said:
"We do not expect revenue to balance expenditure until 1977-78 "—
1720
I think that is the year which has just ended—
"and that will happen only if there has been no increase in costs during the intervening period ".— [Official Report, 2/12/76; col. 506.]
I think that there the noble Lord is referring to revenue balancing expenditure.
I appreciate, and I am sure that the House and my noble friends also will appreciate, that these remarks were made by the noble Lord 17 months ago. It was the last major opportunity that we had to debate these fees. However, there are widespread fears in all parts of the House, and I believe in the country at large, that costs have not risen so much as the proposed increase in fees. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will allay some of those fears if he can give us the very fullest explanation possible of the factors which affect fee increases of this size. Is such a large amount really required to carry out a check upon the continuing suitability of somebody to hold a certificate, particularly in view of the fairly minor administration which is involved, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Swansea, when it conies to renewing a shotgun certificate, since the holder of a certificate will go to the police station and carry out most of the leg work and transport work involved? We should be grateful for any further details that can be supplied by the noble Lord.
In the course of his remarks during the debate in December 1976 my noble friend Lord Swansea mentioned the administrative costs of firearm and shotgun control. Certainly the profit motive seemed to me to be obvious, but I wonder whether the noble Lord can disabuse me regarding this attitude towards what I call profit. He might be able to tell us what extra costs or factors have been involved in checking certificates since 1976 and how they would affect the figures which are included in the orders today.
The House will be aware that the sharp increase in fees has given widespread cause for concern in country areas, certainly among those who legitimately use shotguns or firearms, be they rifle clubs or pistol owners. This concern will be heightened unless the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, can give my noble friend Lord Swansea and, indeed, the House the answers we are seeking tonight.
7.55 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I did not expect to find that there would be a number of points which I could make in addition to those which have already been made by my noble friends. However, in referring to the few points which I wish to make I cannot resist a chuckle at the fact that my noble friend Lord Swansea drew attention to the point that one of the dates involved in laying these orders was 1st April. As a devoted follower of field sports, I am, with many others, as my noble friend Lord Lyell has pointed out, thoroughly unhappy about these orders. They can only serve to make it more expensive and therefore more difficult to enjoy shooting, whether in field sports or in competitive skeet such as my noble friend Lord Swansea referred to in his speech.
Apart from the question of expense about which we hope to hear further from the noble Lord the Minister, the administration of these swingeing impositions can only take up more of the time of the police—time which, in my opinion, could better be spent, as they, the police, would prefer, in countering crime. All of the evidence in Colin Greenwood's article in the Autumn number of the Wagbi Quarterly, the wildfowlers' magazine, goes to show that there is little or no link between weapons used for sport and the upsurge in the number of armed robberies.
It looks to me as though the declared intention of the Socialist movement to outlaw field sports is the real motive behind these orders. We have just had a reminder of that in the recent decision of the Home Policy Committee of the Labour Party, under the chairmanship of Mr. Wedgwood Benn. They leaked to the media on "The News at Ten" that they propose to ask the National Executive of the Labour Party to include a pledge to abolish all field sports in their next Election Manifesto. This is just another example of attempts by the Government to divide the nation by harrying the law-abiding. Would not Parliament's time be better spent upon harrying the criminal?
Something that was said by my noble friend Lord Swansea makes me remind your Lordships that a good many years ago—I believe it was in 1973—it was contended that there should be a standing
1722
independent advisory committee on firearm control. Nothing has happened about that suggestion. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Cottesloe will recall the problem which was raised at that time.
My noble friend Lord Swansea made a strong appeal for some sort of independent body which would be able to deal with these matters in a sensible way. 1 should like to repeat what I have said before in your Lordships' House: that any person possessing a sawn-off shotgun is, ipso facto, a criminal and should be treated as such. Nobody in his senses will saw the barrel off a good sporting shot gun. Quite apart from that, what does possession of such a weapon mean? It means that it is to be used for shooting human beings. We should be going after people like that and leave these already onerous fees as they are. If I may turn to clay pigeon shooting, the editor of a magazine published by the Sports Council which I receive regularly, whom I have chided for the absence of coverage of shooting in a magazine that is devoted to sport and recreation, gives me to understand that he will at least have an article on the subject of skeet shooting in the next issue.
I wonder whether the Sports Council have been consulted by the Home Office and asked for their views on these orders. My noble friend Lord Swansea mentioned the grouse shooting community. I imagine that he meant the game shooting community in general, for in addition to the people who shoot without shooting game my noble friend mentioned people involved in agriculture, as did my noble friend Lord Lyell. However, many more ancillary jobs are connected with the question of shooting, which makes an important contribution to the employment of skilled personnel, from the keeper and the ghillie down to the gunmaker and the gun fitter. I hope that my noble friend will not withdraw his Motion so that at least those of us who support him can cry, "Content". I for one shall not seek to divide the House, but if the House chooses to divide, I shall go into the Lobby with my noble friend Lord Swansea.
8.1 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, in rising to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, I suppose I must declare an interest—an interest as having all my life practised and enjoyed

1723
target shooting with a rifle at Bisley and elsewhere, and in pursuit of that interest being concerned actively as a vice-president (or in some other office) of the National Rifle Association, and the National Sporting Rifle Association; being concerned with the pastime of probably more than a quarter of a million marksmen who are members of those associations and their affiliated clubs. An interest also from a lifelong enjoyment of the sport of shooting, of shooting both game and vermin with a shotgun; and I gather that there are certainly more than three quarters of a million shotguns in use innocently and legally by members of the public in this country. The numbers arc very considerable.
Also I have to declare a particular interest as the holder of a firearms dealer's licence—not indeed, as I may assure your Lordships, that I do in fact deal in firearms. I do not so deal, but having inherited a large number of rifles used in experiments concerned with the development of the military rifle since 1860, most of them firearms now obsolete or obsolescent, it was represented to me by the police that it would save both them and me a lot of time and trouble if I were to keep a standing register that they could check from time to time, rather than that I should make out for them a new list every time I wished to renew an ordinary firearms certificate.
Having declared my interest—a wholly innocent one—let me turn to the orders themselves. As has been said, there are two points to be considered: first, there is the way in which they have been brought forward and promulgated without any adequate notification to the quite small and well known numbers of national bodies and associations concerned—the National Rifle Association, the National Small Bore Rifle Association, the Wild-fowlers Association of Great Britain and Ireland, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association. There are one or two others, but very few. It is quite astounding, for example, and I find it quite shocking, that the first intimation that the Secretary of the National Rifle Association received of these orders was when he read a short paragraph in the Financial Times, stating that the orders had been made. Quite apart from the Shooting Sports Council, who were notified at a very late date so that there was no time, before the orders were laid,
1724
for circulation even to the members of that Council. let alone to their associated bodies, surely the National Associations representing shooting should be given early notice of such orders affecting their interests and the interests of their members, as a matter of course and as a matter of common courtesy.
When we discussed in this House the last orders made some 16 months ago, we were told that the policy was simply that the fees should broadly cover the costs of administering the licences and that this was a general policy covering all licensing of the kind "right across the board". I think that was the phrase used. It is certainly not a universal policy because, as my noble friend Lord Swansea has pointed out, the licence fee for dogs, derisory as it is, has not been altered for 100 years. But leaving that aside and accepting that in total fees should be broadly commensurate with costs, there is a widespread and undoubted belief, rightly or wrongly, among those who pay these fees for firearm and shotgun licences, that the fees are deliberately subjected to swingeing increases in order to reduce the numbers of lawfully held firearms and that the police believe, against all the evidence, that that would reduce the numbers illegally held and used for criminal purposes. Rightly or wrongly, this is widely believed, and if it is not the case, then it is important that there should be opportunity for discussion to reassure those whose sport is subjected to this burden.
There was, for instance, a reasonable suggestion embodied in a Bill brought forward by Mr. Marcus Kimball in another place that licences should cover an extended period. I believe that was never adequately discussed. There may well be other suggestions that could be put forward that might lead to a reduction in the police costs. For instance, there are questions that should be discussed of arrangements for certified members of the National Associations and their affiliated clubs being able to obtain licences more easily than the public at large, which might save a great deal of police time and trouble and expense. The variations in costs between the metropolitan area and the rural districts appear on the face of them to he excessively wide, even taking into account the higher incidence of crime in the metropolis.

1725
Quite certainly, the fee for replacing a firearms certificate that has been mislaid or destroyed, of £13—simply for replacing a piece of paper—all the particulars of which the police already have, is manifestly excessive, as is the fee for a straightforward renewal of the certificate held by a respectable citizen.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, may be able to assure us that there will be an opportunity for suggestions to be put forward and discussed, and that the Home Office will put their cards on the table and dispel the widespread concern by showing just how these figures are arrived at, something they have never yet attempted to do. Otherwise they are fostering the belief among shooting men and women, not only that the fees which they have to pay are unnecessarily high but also that they are being discriminated against quite improperly and unfairly.
8.8 p.m.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, I think that I should first declare a non-interest. The last time I held a firearm was during my National Service and I never wanted to hold one again, but it seems to me that this debate has developed into an argument that this Government want to harry and chase the shooting man out of existence. I do not think that is the case at all, and I am surprised that in a debate of this sort, which seems to me to be on quite a reasonable level, even Mr. Wedgwood Benn can get an honourable mention as being somebody who wants to abolish shooting men. I am not here as a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party and I do not have to defend the decisions of the Home Policy Committee, but, just to clarify that point, I think that the field sports that the Labour Party Home Policy Committee have been concerned about are fox hunting and hare coursing, and not the question of clay pigeon shooting or live pigeon shooting or rabbit shooting or that sort of field sport.
It seems to me that the argument has developed, not into a question of how much the increase should be—and we have had talk of "swingeing increases" —but whether people should be licensed at all. I did not quite understand the
1726
reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, whether it was against the increase in licence fees or whether it was against licensing at all or any form of control. It seems to me that with the increases that we all face in an inflationary period from which we hope we are now recovering, they are not unreasonable. After all, if we are talking about licensing, that is a form of control.
My noble friend Lord Harris is no doubt quite able to answer for himself, but I think that if these increases were not justified he would not be presenting them before the House in this order, purely on the basis that he gets more fuss pro rata on increases in fees for shotguns and firearms than probably with any other order that he lays before this House. The costs we are talking about are now £13 for a firearm and £5 for a shotgun. So, for a shotgun, you are talking about round about one halfpenny per day over a period of three years. For a firearm, you are talking about something like 1.18 pence. That is all you are talking about, and it seems to me that the administrative costs are perfectly justified.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, he has referred to the cost of renewal of a firearm certificate and a shotgun certificate, one of which is 2½ times greater than the other. Is he suggesting that it costs 2½ times as much police time and clerks' time in a police-station to renew a firearm certificate as it does to renew a shotgun certificate?
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: No, my Lords, but surely the noble Lord will agree that these increases are pro rata on the original costs that we are talking about. It does seem to me that these increases are not swingeing increases but are quite reasonable. 1 am sure that my noble friend will be able to justify them, and of course it is up to noble Lords who have prayed against this order to take their own decision.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Lord said that somebody had suggested that there should not be licensing. I have heard nobody say that. Certainly there should be licensing and certainly there should be firearms and shotgun certificates.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, I think the noble Lord would agree that the general drift in the argument in favour of those possessing firearms did at one stage seem to be that there should be no licensing and that the only thing one should be doing is chasing the offenders. What we are saying is that there should be licensing and control, and these charges are completely in line with that.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERFARD: My Lords, for the years 1976 to 1978 the average increase has been 162 per cent. for firearm certificates and shotgun certifictaes. If the noble Lord talks as though there has been hardly any increase I think he is off the line.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, many noble Lords will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Swansea for introducing this prayer. I am at a complete loss to understand how police administration costs can be so high as to require these charges. I am wondering whether there is some inefficiency or whether the figures are accurate. My own firearms certificate has a considerable number of weapons upon it. How a cost of £13 can be justified to renew it passes my comprehension. If, on the other hand, I want some increase in the amount of ammunition allowed on the certificate, or a new weapon, it is even more difficult to understand how the cost can amount to £13.
Can it be that there is big expenditure on investigating doubtful cases and that this is being charged against the more reasonable applicants? I suggest that possibly inadequate guidelines are given to chief constables and that as a result there is considerable variation as to granting of certificates; some chiefs give the certificates quite easily and with others it is quite difficult to get one. Of course, chief constables delegate many of their powers in this respect, and the individual applying may well have to be subjected to a report given by a constable who is very ignorant of firearm matters. There will then be time-consuming argument and delay resulting in extra expense.
Again, there have been cases where there have been criminal proceedings and weapons have been confiscated by the court but the individuals have been allowed to keep their certificates. Courts should be given permission to confiscate certifi
1728
cates. Indeed, it has been known for convicted persons, following the confiscation of their weapons, to go behind the scenes after the hearing and buy back the weapons just removed from them, not always at full market price. Indeed, the disposal of confiscated weapons is a matter requiring far more attention than increases in these charges.
Then there is the case of visiting sportsmen from overseas. The noble Lord who has just spoken averaged out the cost, but such people may come only for a week and they have to pay £16 to allow them to use a rifle in this country for a week.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, I should have thought that anybody who comes here for shooting could well afford that. If they are coming here for a week's shooting, that does not seem to me an inordinate charge.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, they may be coming to fire at a range; it may not be sporting shooting, which the noble Lord seems to have his mind entirely directed against. Why should there be these penalties on people coming over? They do not have them in other countries. If you go to Sweden, which, after all, is perhaps even more Left than some of the noble Lords opposite—
Lord COTTESLOE: Impossible, my Lords.
Lord BURTON:—the customs there accept your weapon as you come in, and ask, "When are you taking it out?". You have it for a week or whatever it is, and I imagine there is some charge, but it is quite a simple procedure; whereas in this country you have to apply weeks or months before, and increased expenditure is run up. I really do consider that there is something which very badly needs looking at here.
Lord TRYON: My Lords, I am sorry I did not put my name down to speak, but I should like to try to correct an impression that the noble Lord on my left may have given when he said that the increases had not been all that swingeing. I have just done a little sum, the example being someone—and I declare an interest here because it happens to be me—who

1729
has both a shotgun certificate and a firearms certificate which were granted in June 1975. The cost of that was £3.50. In June this year, I shall have to go to my local police station and pay £18. That is a 514 per cent. increase in three years. I think noble Lords will agree that that is a fairly swingeing increase, even if there is now a new basis for working out these costs more accurately. Here, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, and many of the other noble Lords who have spoken in calling for greater detail from the Government as to just how these costs are arrived at, because I find them very hard to believe.
8.18 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I fully understand the concern of the shooting community over the increases introduced by these orders, which conic only 18 months after the substantial increases which came into effect in October 1976. I think it is perfectly natural that we should be asked why we have had to increase these fees. The explanation is a very straightforward one, and it is a dilemma which I am bound to say not one of those who have spoken has really faced up to. It has indeed been the policy of successive Governments, including the Government which noble Lords opposite supported between 1970 and 1974, that fees such as those for certificates and registration under the Firearms Act should be set at the level required to cover costs of administration. That is a bipartisan policy; there has been no doubt about it. It was a policy of the Conservative Government and it is a policy of the Labour Government.
Lord BURTON: My Lords—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, with great respect, I will gladly give way in a few moments. I have listened with close attention to the speeches made and I think it not unreasonable that I should now be able to answer them. I will gladly give way at a later stage, as I always do.
Where controls are required in the public interest, the cost can, of course, be recoverable in only one of two ways. It has either got to be done by the Revenue from specific fees or by higher rates of taxes. That is the only choice—one way
1730
or the other. Before 1968 it certainly was common—I concede this immediately—for there only to be a nominal fee for licences and certificates relating to activities controlled in the public interest. The fee for the issue of a firearm certificate, just to take one example, was only five shillings. The main burden of the cost of administration fell, as it did in many other fields of activity, on the ratepayer and taxpayer.
That was the situation before 1968. But in 1968 Parliament decided that, where people were engaged in an activity which needed to be regulated in the public interest, they should be required to pay the full economic cost of issuing or renewing their licences or certificates. The decision was given expression—the noble Lord, Lord Lyell referred to this—in Section 5 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968, and it has since remained not only unchanged but largely unchallenged, except, if I may say so, whenever one increases firearm fees.
This policy does not, of course, apply only to firearms; nor does it apply only to activities with which the Home Secretary is concerned. It applies right across the board, from lotteries and amusements to major petroleum installations. The policy applies to matters as diverse as licences for the removal of human remains and certificates of competence for ships' radio operators. There is no question of discriminating against the shooting community or, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, of clobbering the shooter.
Whenever the firearms fees are raised, we hear the cry that the shooter is being victimised, that the increased fees are part of a monstrous Home Office plot, or indeed a plot by Mr. Wedgwood Benn, I understand, this evening, to deprive shooters of their weapons. That is pretty far-fetched stuff. I do hope that some noble Lords who have spoken will speak in the future on this matter with rather more restrained language than they have employed this evening.
I come to the dog-licence question. That is a fair point. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, and by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who has just spoken. The position of dog licences is indeed a rather anomalous arrangement, as I concede immediately. It has indeed

1731
operated for, I think, about 100 years at its present level. Of course, dog licences are a totally different matter from what we are discussing at the moment. I shall give the reason why. They were conceived as an entirely revenue-raising method for Governments. That is why dog licences were instituted. In fact, to answer the point, the cost of administering the scheme is still covered by the amount of money that is received. That happens to be a position which I checked only today. It remains true that, notwithstanding the fact that these fees have not been increased for such a very substantial period of time, the cost of administering the dog licences scheme is still covered by the revenue which is raised by it—which, if I may say so, is a total answer to the point made. I do not believe that a single noble Lord can give another example, or any example indeed—none has been given, except this particular point—whereby there are any exceptions to the policy that I have indicated, which has been the approach of both Conservative and Labour Governments.
The fees for firearm and shotgun certificates are set at the level required to recover the costs of administering the certification procedures—no more. In this respect the shooter is treated no differently from any other licence-holder whose activities are regulated in the public interest. Let me explain briefly how the present fees came to be fixed. They are based on a review of the costs, during the 12 months ending 31st March 1977, of dealing with successful applications for firearm and shotgun certificates and for registration as a firearms dealer. In calculating the costs, police forces were specifically asked to exclude the costs of dealing with unsuccessful applications, attending court in connection with appeals and other enforcement aspects of the firearms controls. These were all excluded from these calculations. The estimates therefore reflect only the costs to the police of granting and renewing certificates and registrations.
Because of the criticisms of the costing methods used in the 1975 review, which were repeated here today—and this particular calculation formed the basis of the fees which were introduced in October 1976—we went to considerable trouble to prepare far more detailed guidelines for
1732
the forces taking part in the 1977 exercise. Before the survey commenced, Home Office officials discussed with the police the best method of ensuring that all participating forces used broadly comparable costing methods. I am satisfied that, as a result, the returns submitted in response to the 1977 survey are as accurate an assessment as we can get of the properly attributable police costs. These, I should add, do not cover only police time. They include an appropriate proportion of the costs of office accommodation, common services, items such as stationery, printing and postage and, where appropriate, computer time.
A number of forces, as the noble Lords will be aware, have computerised their firearms records. In my view, it would be quite wrong not to take into account an appropriate share of the overheads involved. This principle is applied in assessing the administrative costs of other kinds of licences and certificates. In other words, similar methods are used in calculating any other charges of a kind to which I have referred in my speech this evening.
The review that I have just described showed that the fees fixed in 1976 fell a long way short of recovering the costs of administering the firearms certification and registration procedures. Allowing for an inflation rate of 10 per cent. in 1977-78, the expected revenue from fees was some £850,000 less than the estimated costs of administration. Clearly this could not be allowed to continue. There was no alternative in this situation to increasing the firearms fees, unless they were to be subsidised by taxpayers at large, and the Government have no intention whatever of allowing this.
A number of noble Lords asked how these figures were calculated. The answer is that they were calculated by the police. I was not absolutely clear, in the light of some of the speeches made, whether it was being suggested seriously that the police were in some way rigging these figures. There was, I regret to say, an implication in one or two speeches that that was so. I very much regret it, if that is the suggestion, because I do not believe it is a charge which should be made against chief officers of police, who are responsible for calculating these fees. I must say that was a very clear indication.
Several noble Lords: My Lords—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Let me finish this point. I shall then give way. There was a clear implication in at least two speeches that were made earlier by noble Lords.
Lord LYELL: I wonder whether the noble Lord could possibly be a little more particular with his fire. That is a particularly apposite comment this evening. Certainly, in the course of my remarks, and of at least two other remarks, at no time did we suggest that there was any rigging of figures. I asked the noble Lord a plethora of questions. At no time did anybody say that there was rigging. Nor do I think it reasonable to suggest that the tone of the debate was that the police were involved.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. If he will study Hansard tomorrow, I shall be surprised, when he reads some of the other speeches, if he takes that same view. I made no such suggestion. The noble Lord made that suggestion. If he reads Hansard, he will find that implication clearly in at least two speeches.
Lord BURTON: I think the noble Lord may possibly be referring to some of my remarks. But I did ask the noble Lord how he could possibly justify the cost of fl 3 when adding a weapon to my certificate. That is just not feasible. It would not cost £13.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord is a very helpful ally. He has justified precisely the point that I was endeavouring to make. The point is that these figures were calculated by the police on the basis which, as a result of criticisms made in the past, has been most carefully refined. I do not believe that there can be any truth whatever in the suggestion that the police force deliberately rigged this matter in the way that has been suggested this evening.
A number of questions were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, raised a question about the situation of the Metropolitan Police Force area. It was
1734
raised by a number of those who spoke. I take the point completely that there is a problem here, in that costs in the Metropolitan Police Force area are undoubtedly a great deal higher than they are in any other part of the country. That is certainly true, but of course the reason for that is a simple one, that the Commissioner of Police takes the view that it is necessary to devote far more resources to firearms control in London than is the situation in any other part of the country.
The reason for that is a very simple one and it is this. Of the 1,068 robberies in 1976 which involved the use of firearms no fewer than 767 were committed in London. That is why the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police takes the view that it is necessary to devote far more time and resources to this task. After all, he has the responsibility for ensuring law and order in this city.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, were these 760-odd crimes in London which involved firearms committed by people who had firearm certificates? If they were not, that does not help the Minister's argument. The people who have firearm certificates are law abiding citizens.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: We have gone over this ground on a large number of previous occasions and I regret to say it goes rather outside the confines of this debate. The Commissioner takes the view that it is necessary to have a particularly rigorous system for ensuring proper control of firearms in the Metropolitan Police district. I think an overwhelming majority of people in this country would agree that that is a proper and responsible attitude for the Commissioner of Police to take, and I would find it very surprising if many actively disagreed with it.
We have gone over this ground tonight in some detail and I have made the Government's position absolutely clear, that firearms and shotgun licence holders are being treated in the same way as anybody else. There is no way in which it would be possible to take a different decision in terms of the financial basis for the licensing arrangements for shotgun

1735
and firearm licence holders. How could such an exception be justified? Why should shooters alone be excluded from this policy? Why should they and nobody else be subsidised by taxpayers? With great respect, not one noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has answered or even thought to answer that question. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that many people who pay for licences in this way do not like it and their motives and attitude are perfectly understandable when, as a consequence of inflation, it is necessary to increase the cost.
I would add this point. A number of points have been made by one or two noble Lords about police practices and they have asked whether the police do not on some occasions go into this matter more thoroughly than they should—for example, two policemen arriving when one might do the job. I have pointed out already to representatives of shooting organisations that there is a way in which complaints of this sort can be ventilated. If in fact allegations of this sort are going to be made there is a well devised system for complaints against the police. They are constantly made, but unfortunately those making them do not often come forward and give detailed evidence. If they wish to do so I suggest that they make it to the local chief officer of police, who I am sure will be glad to carry out an investigation as to whether there is any justice in the complaint.
Lord TORPHICHEN: My Lords, are not those complaints a reflection on the complexity of the rules for procuring licences, which in fact contribute to the cost which noble Lords consider unjustified? If these rules are not amended or looked at more carefully it will mean that this is going to be only a rich man's sport. Noble Lords here, I am sure, can afford it, but the noble Lord opposite probably knows many people who would not be able to afford this.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I can understand the point which the noble Lord is making but 1 think it goes rather wider than the terms of the order we are discussing today. Obviously I have strayed beyond it myself because I have been dealing with a number
1736
of points raised by noble Lords. The issue which the noble Lord has raised now would require amendment to the legislation itself and that is not an issue which is before us today. Because of the widespread interest in this House, I have gone over the ground in some detail, but I repeat: shooters are not being treated any differently from any other section of the community. I must tell the House bluntly that in the event of this order being negatived tonight the police who carry out the day-to-day responsibility for organising firearms control would face a situation tomorrow morning where they would be plunged into a degree of administrative chaos of the greatest complexity and seriousness. I would put it to the House that at a time when the police are carrying out responsibilities on behalf of the entire community, on an occasion such as this it would not be right to put them in that situation.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, having listened to the whole of the debate, and certainly not having heard any accusations against the police, may I ask whether it is not a contradiction about the taxpayer paying for the licences? This came out from what the noble Lord said about the higher cost incurred by the police in London where they had to be so very careful. Is it not the legitimate applicant who is having to pay for the applicants who have to be turned down? Is there not there a discrimination against the legitimate applicant?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not think so. I think the situation as I have described it is more favourable to the shooter than would be the position if the present situation were changed. I repeat that I think I have put the argument as fairly as I can. I am well aware of the anxieties which have been expressed today. I have met representatives of the shooting interests on a number of occasions. I find those meetings agreeable. I think noble Lords may find it rather surprising in the light of some of the speeches that have been made, but when we have met together Mr. Wegdwood Benn's name, so far as I can recall, has not been raised and some of these darker fears have not been expressed. Nevertheless, if representatives of the shooting interests

1737
would like to meet me in the future to discuss these wider questions, I of course would be very glad to meet them.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned that there were problems in the Metropolitan area and I think he justified his case in detail, but would he also accept that the vast proportion of shotgun and firearms certificates are held outside the Metropolitan area? Indeed, we had one very short intervention from my noble friend Lord Tryon. I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and indeed the House would agree that a quintupling of charges in three years would require a little more detailed comment. Possibly it could not be done tonight, but if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, could give us some indication as to where we, or any interested organisation, could find these details it might help.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if I may respond to this particular point for the third and last time since I concluded my speech a few minutes ago, I will gladly see what additional information I can give the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and write to him. He will appreciate that the point which I was dealing with dealt with the most difficult question of all from my point of view, and that is the police force which has the highest costs so far as its certificate registration procedures are concerned. All other police forces have significantly lower costs. I think that deals with the point, but I will gladly write to the noble Lord and give him any further information I can.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, first I wish to thank all noble Lords on both sides of the House who have taken part in this short, but very interesting debate. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, at once that it was never in my mind to accuse any police force of deliberately cooking the books and rigging the figures. I hope that when he reads the report of this debate tomorrow he will not read into my speech anything of that nature. Indeed, if he finds anything suggesting that, I shall gladly buy him a drink!
The noble Lord said that although the fees for licences of various sorts were being increased right across the board, the shooters were the only people who had
1738
so far objected. Are we not entitled to object? I am tempted to quote from The Merchant of Venice, but I shall not take the time of the House to do so now. I do not see why we should accept exhorbitant fees of this sort lying down, unless the Government can justify the figures. If they are prepared to publish the figures and give details of how they have arrived at the costings, then we may be prepared to accept them as fair and reasonable, but not until then.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Gravesend, made a short intervention much on the lines which I had expected in view of his previous interventions on this subject. He declared what he described as a non-interest and it was easy to see why. He is not interested in shooting of any shape or kind. The noble Lord was more interested in putting his views on blood sports to which he is entitled. I respect his views on that subject, but they are not really relevant to the present debate. I should like to invite him to look tomorrow not only at the report of this debate but also at the reports of other debates in which I have taken part over the years, some before he came to this House. If he can find anything that I have said at any time which indicates that I should like to see the total abolition of all forms of firearms control, I shall buy him a drink too!
I recognise that there must he controls of some sort, but they must be sensible and workable and must not bear too hardly on the law-abiding citizen. Stop clobbering the shooter and clobber the villain instead. If the Government do that they will have my wholehearted support.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. I should like to express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I should like to console the noble Lord, Lord Harris, by saying one kind thing about the police before I sit down. I received a stock letter from my local police force in Wales along with the notification that my firearms certificate was due for renewal. That letter bore the name of the chief constable and it was couched in very fair and reasonable terms--terms that were much better than any other letter that I have seen from any chief constable. The letter inquired courteously whether

1739
the recipient would not consider reviewing his need for the firearms that he held and invited him—if he had any firearm that he no longer needed--to dispose of it. He was further informed of his rights as regards the manner in which he could dispose of it. That letter should serve as a model to other chief constables throughout the country and I wish that there were many more like that chief constable around.
I was very tempted when I put down this Motion to ask for your Lordships' opinion on these orders. However, I think that I had better not do so, although that is much against my inclinations. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his reply, which I shall study carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTLAND BILL
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 36 [Power to prevent or require action]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 17, line 23, leave out from ("indirectly") to end of line 24 and insert (" unless any action capable of being so taken is taken; ").
The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment because I suggest that, on this occasion, the drafting leaves something to be desired. My Amendment relates to subsection (1)(b). At present, the subsection reads as follows:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State—…
(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"—
that is, in subsection (1)(a)—
"or, as the case may be, that the action capable of being taken shall be taken ".
Have we all understood that? Who is to take the action? There is no indication whatsoever. As this is drawn, it says:
1740
"if it appears to the Secretary of State— …
(b) that any reserved matter would or might be affected directly or indirectly by any action capable of being so taken;"—
that is taken by a Scottish Secretary— I take it, or by or on behalf of a Scottish Secretary. 1 had to read this subsection again and again before I could make any sense of it at all. I do not think that it is right. As I understand it, this is the counterpart, from the point of view of the Scottish Executive, to the clause which we dealt with just before we had a brief recess and which dealt with the legislation side.
Perhaps I may indicate to your Lordships what I think the clause means. I think it means that, if the Secretary of State thinks that the Scottish Secretary is about to do something which is within his competence, but which would or might affect a reserved matter directly or indirectly, the Secretary of State may direct him not to do it. Then, not only must the Scottish Secretary comply, hut, if one reads on through the clause, no other Scottish Secretary must do that thing either, unless the Secretary of State changes his mind and gives the Scottish Secretary another direction varying or revoking the first direction. Then it goes on and says that if the Secretary of State thinks that there is something that a Scottish Secretary could do to help him in his responsibilities for reserved matters, he can direct the Scottish Secretary to do it. That, as I understand it, is what this very complicated clause means.
My Amendment is perfectly simple and greatly clarifies the issue. By inserting my Amendment, the provision would simply read:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State— …
(b)that any reserved matter would or might be affected directly or indirectly unless any action capable of being so taken "—
that is, taken by a Scottish Secretary—
"is taken".
I should have thought that that clarified the situation and avoided some difficulties that could arise in identifying what is meant by "any action". The phrase, "any action" goes very wide indeed. One does not cure that by referring to "the action" at the end. This is a piece of drafting that lawyers may understand, but I do not think that the ordinary person would. However, with my Amendment they certainly would. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right in his understanding of the clause; but by tabling this Amendment and by what he has said lie has raised a doubt in my mind whether the clause is drafted to achieve precisely what it is that he described and what we had in mind. For that reason, I should like to reconsider its drafting, as he invited me to. I am reluctant to accept the Amendment precisely as it stands, as I hope he will understand, because this is a matter upon which I ought to consult the draftsman. However, at the moment my inclination is that he is right and that we ought to meet him. But, with his permission, I should like to speak to the draftsman about this. On that basis, perhaps he might withdraw the Amendment.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Before the Amendment is withdrawn it would be helpful if some explanation could be given of the purposes of this clause, which has somewhat puzzled me, although the noble and learned Lord may prefer to leave this to a later stage. What are the problems which the Government foresee as being necessary to meet, and to the meeting of which this clause is directed? It might be helpful to the Committee if we could be given some explanation.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the Committee would like an explanation, I think that the proper context for it would be in relation to the clause stand part debate.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Yes, indeed.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.53 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 17, line 38, after (" may ") insert (" subject to subsection (7) of this section ").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment goes with Amendment No. 142, and it might not he inconvenient if we discussed with it also Amendments No. 146 and 147 on Clause 37 because the points, which I intend to be points of principle,
1742
and, indeed of exploration, were all dealt with together. If I may, I shall try to set the framework because in so doing the very first thing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will be able to do is to tell me that I have totally misunderstood the whole thing and he will put me right.
As I understand it, when one deals with primary legislation there are two stages of possible intervention by the Secretary of State. The first is that we have pre-Assent scrutiny under Clause 19 for consideration, first of all, whether the Bill is within the powers and, secondly, whether there is any incompatibility with Government-orientated EEC obligations or other international obligations. That is the first thing that happens with primary legislation. Then, if the Bill has not been tripped up on those grounds, under Clause 35 there is still the opportunity, after it has passed and before it is submitted for the assent of Her Majesty in Council, for it to be vetoed on the other grounds that we were discussing, which are really policy grounds under Clause 35. That is why, as I understand it, there is no reference in Clause 35 to international obligations, whether they are European or whether they relate to any other country of the world; that has already been dealt with under Clause 19.
When it comes to executive action, which is what Clause 36 is about, and very much in the same way when it comes to subordinate instruments under Clause 37, we do not have that dichotomy of control in the Bill, but rather the two processes are rolled together. Instead of there being a two-stage inquiry, first, as to powers and, second, as to policy, we have the whole thing wrapped up together all in the same clause.
The purpose of Amendment No. 139, and so on, is really to probe again the situation that was raised earlier on Clause 19 by one of my earlier Amendments. I appreciate that in the terminology of Amendment No. 142, which I adopted because that was what was in the Bill, it does not draw particular attention to directly applicable European legislation. That is really what I am about. 1 think I conceded on Clause 19 that where it was a matter for the Government to decide as a matter of executive action whether or not they would legislate

1743
so as to bring the United Kingdom into line with a requirement that had come from the Commission or Europe in one form or another, then it was right that it should be a political decision whether or not to object to Scottish legislation, Scottish executive action, Scottish subordinate instruments and so on, if they ran foul of the requirement.
However, I think that by this time the noble and learned Lord has been apprised of my intention, which is not so much to probe that, which I can understand, but to see how it works in the case of directly applicable European legislation. What will happen? What will the Secretary of State in London do if he sees either the Scottish Secretary about to take an action which he knows is incompatible—or, indeed, which he perhaps thinks is incompatible—with an obligation which is directly applicable to each and every citizen of Scotland in so far as it is relevant to them? Alternatively, what will he do if there are incompatibilities in the terms of a Statutory Instrument, which I should think the Secretary of State was bound to have seen in draft—on account of the consultation process, minute by minute, that we heard about before the dinner hour?
At present he simply vetoes the thing in the same way as he vetoes the obligation, the action or the instrument that is incompatible with the Government-orientated obligation. But that does not seem to me to be in the least suitable for an executiveaction or a subordinate instrument which will infringe a directly applicable European Community right. The Bill simply does not provide for this, and I think it ought to. I hesitate to go back over anything that I said on Clause 19, but if we have a case where the Secretary of State knows very well that there is a conflict of this sort, I would prefer that the matter should be nipped in the bud before it ever comes into effect, and, therefore, before it ever impinges upon the life of any individual, rather than as it is left at the moment, where the individual has to take expensive action in the courts afterwards to put it right. I would suggest that that is not cheap!
I know that quite junior courts can refer these matters to the European Court of Justice. Nevertheless, the requirement
1744
in the European Communities Act is really only that a court of final jurisdiction should so refer them, and it could go all the way up the hierarchy of the courts—if it was a criminal matter obviously it would go no further than the Court of Session, but if it was a civil matter it could go as far as this House sitting judicially—before it could be sent to Europe. At least, that is probably what would happen. That is a very expensive process to impose upon the individual, as one or other of the parties in the end would pay the costs and, of course, there are the costs of going to Europe as well.
I put down these Amendments, imperfectly drafted though I have no doubt I will be told they are, really in order to explore this because I think that if the matter was referred—and that is my suggestion in these Amendments—by the Secretary of State rather in the same way that I believe lie could refer under Clause 19 (if it means what the noble and learned Lord said it meant) both directly applicable conflicts and Government-orientated conflicts, we ought to have powers (and of course they are discretionary powers) for the Secretary of State to take the initiative and, in exactly the same way, refer the thing to the Judicial Committee.
I expect we shall be told that this would be slow and cumbersome and that it does not fit in very well with the 28 days period. I have here tried to fit in the concept of Parliament having 28 days in which to decide with the decision of the Judicial Committee, and I have made the 28 days start running only when the Judicial Committee has made its decision. But if we are going to be thoughtful about this, I believe we ought to have a compatible arrangement, a comprehensive arrangement, and one which fits all the activities of the Scottish Assembly, and the Scottish Ministers, executives and Secretaries, so that, in the case of Clauses 36 and 37 activities, we do not have the burden falling upon the individual citizen whereas in the case of primary legislation it would fall upon the Secretary of State and the public purse. It is a tentative matter, but I do not believe that it has been discussed anywhere else. and I think it could be important. I very much look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say about it. I beg to move.
9.2 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: When we last discussed the related matter in the earlier discussion to which the noble Viscount referred, it became plain that we were thinking primarily in terms of obligations which fell upon the Member State, and the noble Viscount was thinking primarily in terms of the directly applicable obligations. When this failure, as it were, to meet the lack of a consensus in idem on the point was disclosed in the course of these discussions, I undertook to look at the matter again. I confess that 1 have not yet had time to come to any definite conclusion. Of course the noble Viscount is quite right in thinking that if one carries something into the earlier provisions of the Bill, one has to carry it through here as well. Therefore, I think we are largely in sympathy with his aim in this matter. I have undertaken to look at the matter. cannot go any further at the moment.
There may well be a distinction between primary legislation on the one hand and the kind of thing we are talking about in Clause 36, and for that matter in Clause 37, on the other. What is not absolutely clear—and this again was a point I mentioned in relation to Article 177 of the Treaty when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, intervened at one stage—is that there is a justiciable issue here. But that again is a matter which I have to look at in the light of the comments last time and in the light of what has been said tonight.
I think that the noble Viscount is right in saying that the matter can be resolved by the ordinary courts. if in fact the Community legislates so as to create an obligation upon the citizen being an obligation which is directly applicable whether it is in a Directive or a Regulation, and the citizen finds that the Scottish Executive has taken action which runs counter to his Community directly applicable obligation, then he can take this quandary to the courts and the courts will resolve it presumably in favour of the Community obligation.
The noble Viscount is right in saying that that might be expensive, and it may be that the better course is that it should be picked up at an earlier stage if it can be identified and picked up. So I think it would make consistent sense only if I were to say that while looking at the whole
1746
matter of Community obligations as raised on the earlier occasion I were to look at this matter as well. If it can be accepted on that basis, I would express my thanks to the noble Viscount for raising it again and drawing attention to wider applications than we discussed on the earlier occasion. I will take it away on that basis.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I say a word on this as I have had to deal with quite a number of EEC regulations and Directives. 1 wonder whether in most cases it will be rather easier than this. Most of us will have in mind certain regulations about equipment to be fixed on a freight vehicle, for example. Supposing the Scottish Secretary was proposing to legislate that there should be quite a different arrangement which would preclude that kind of instrument, then surely it would be quite simple for the Secretary of State to direct him not to proceed with that action. Conversely, it might be necessary to require him to proceed with the action that the Community was requiring in its Directive or its regulation. I should have thought that this was the common way in which this kind of matter would arise. When I raised it, this is what I thought the clause was intended to convey.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps 1 should have drawn the Committee's attention to Clause 60(3) which appears on page 29 of the Bill:
"If it appears to a Minister of the Crown—
(a)that the implementation of a Community obligation"
et cetera,
"requires the exercise of any power to make a subordinate instrument; and
(b)that the power could be exercised by a Scottish Secretary; but
(c)that it is desirable that it should be exercised by a Minister of the Crown, he may exercise the power…".
That may have some bearing on the matter, although perhaps only a marginal bearing in relation to what is directly applicable.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I should think that it has a bearing, but a fairly indirect one when one is making certain that one has the terms of Clauses 36 and 37 right. Certainly it ought to be knitted into the pattern and made consistent with anything we may do. My

1747
noble friend has given one example about the tachographs. If, when we come back to discuss these matters we can think of examples of areas of legislation or action or whatever that everybody agrees could be a forum for the sort of problems we are considering, it would be easier to direct our minds to the whole issue, rather than trying to do so in a complete vacuum.
A possible example occurred to me. wondered whether under Schedule 101 admit 1 may be wrong about this—when we have Group 7 control of pollution, we might get the position of a Scottish factory owner with effluent being subjected to controls by Scottish legislation which may be stricter than that imposed by Europe on all his competitors in the rest of Europe. That sort of area of devolved power might give rise to an occasion of this sort. If that were a good example, we could easily discuss on that basis primary and subordinate legislation as well as Executive action covering the whole field. I give that example only for the noble and learned Lord's consideration so that when we return to this matter we have something concrete to consider, and I do not ask him to comment on it now.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The example which the noble Viscount just gave might not be one, because it is difficult to see the incompatibility there. The tachograph instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may not be one either, because my impression at the moment is that it would not he covered by "devolved matters". Accordingly, what we lack, if I am right on both those points, is an instance where it really matters. Perhaps the noble Viscount and his noble friends will think of an instance which is real and, if they do, no doubt they will let me know, and we shall he doing precisely the same.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The one thing 1 would have expected is that, if this legislation is to last for any length of time, an example will occur. It is no use our supposing that there is nothing in the devolved matters which will never give rise to a conflict of this sort, and we must make certain that whatever machinery we set up is equipped to deal with this sort of problem. I tend to agree
1748
with the noble and learned Lord about the tachograph, and if he says I am wrong in my pollution example, then we must talk about it, but for the moment I am entirely happy with the answer he gave. I look forward to his further consideration of the matter and I will do my best to give it the same treatment. 1 beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.12 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 17, line 42, leave out from ("Scotland") to end of line 43 and insert—
("or
(b) concerns any other part of the United Kingdom (whether or not it also concerns Scotland); but in either case").
The noble Viscount said: I move this Amendment only to make sure that I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, alright when he said that when looking at Amendment No. 253 he would also be taking into account the question of the definition of "legislative competence" as it affects the powers of the Scottish Secretaries under Clause 36 as well as the power to make subordinate Instruments under Clause 37. I do not think there is any doubt about Clause 37; the subordinate Instruments would be bound to be made under competent Assembly Acts and if they were to have incidental provisions which strayed across the Border that must be all right within the terms of Schedule 2(8).
What I am not certain about is whether there is any similar implication in relation to the powers of a Scottish Secretary to act executively. The direct connection between the competence as set out in Schedule 2 and executive powers—which could come under the provision we were discussing about prerogative and other executive powers being devolved, which is Clause 20(3)—does not look to me as though identical terms of reference are provided so far as powers are concerned. This would be particularly strange when one has a definition of reserved matters which is common both to the Executive action under Clause 36, and to the subordinate Instruments under Clause 37. On the face of them they ought to mean the same. but for the reasons I have suggested I am by no means sure that they are.

1749
This is a very complicated point, and I am certainly not asking the noble and learned Lord to make any definitive answer about it tonight. I add this only because I believe it is another dimension to his consideration that he has, I think, promised in relation to both these clauses and paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I hope that I make myself plain to the noble and learned Lord, and I am certainly not trying to be obstructive in any way. I think merely that there is an unexplored area here, certainly one in which I have not succeeded in getting to the end. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: First, I affirm that in my view the noble Viscount is being entirely constructive. There may well be another dimension here, though I am not sure that there is, and this perhaps is the least strong of the cases. But I think that it would be logical to say that as we have started off down this particular road—and it is right that we should do so and as we have done so in consequence of the matter being discussed here in any detail for the first time, we should go to the end of the road. In a sense Clause 36 is the extreme case at the far end, so let us look at that as well. I apologise to the Committee if I cannot appear more definite. Sometimes when I am definite I am criticised for being definite but negative, but here I am being indefinite but mildly positive. I hope that that can be accepted.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am certainly not going to criticise the noble and learned Lord in any way at all. He is being totally constructive. If the matter is off the end of the road and has fallen over the cliff, we need to do something about the definition of reserved matters in Clause 36, because it is no use having a common definition with Clause 37. A different one would be needed. I do not think I very much mind for the moment whether or not in the end this situation allows a Scottish Secretary to take executive actions which cross the Border. If I knew whether or not the Government intended that he should take such actions, I would then apply my mind to that, but at the moment I cannot detect which way it is. It may be that he ought to be tied down to act in Scotland alone, and I think we would be prepared to accept that, but the matter
1750
must be made clear, and the noble and learned Lord has now said that he will do that. I am grateful to him, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.16 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 18, line 8, at end insert (" and shall be judicittlly noticed.").
The noble Viscount said: Here is a truly arcane matter, but it is not my fault that I have had to raise it. This is due to something which is already in the Bill. Actions by the Executive tend to have an effect upon the individual. They are also matters which, in the terms of the Bill, it appears to me the Government may he expecting law officers to take before the courts. I am not sure about that. One sees in subsection (5) that
"A direction under this section shall be binding on every Scottish Secretary ".
Thus I would tend to suppose that the renegade Scottish Secretary who refused to be bound could, at the very least, be taken by the Lord Advocate perhaps to the Court of Session for whatever is the correct Scottish legal remedy to make him do what he was told. I believe that that would be an implication which it is not unreasonable to draw. It also seems to me not improbable that if a Scottish Secretary, having been directed under this clause, and having purported to ignore that direction, has imposed a licence fee, or whatever it was, upon the unfortunate citizen, despite the direction not to do so, then the individual in question would, I suppose, refuse to pay, and would defend his refusal when taken to court by the Scottish Secretary, or otherwise brought to book in some form.
My difficulty about this is that I do not know how one gets the direction before the courts. It may be that this problem does not arise in Scotland, though I doubt that. It must be remembered that in the Bill the direction under this clause is said to be binding on every Scottish Secretary, but nobody says anything about. judicial notice. But in Clause 17 a much more important matter is discussed; namely, the legal status of a Scottish Assembly Act itself. Of the two matters, if it was a question of getting

1751
them before the courts, I should have thought that if one did not say anything at all, it would be very much easier to get a Scottish Assembly Act before the courts so that the courts would recognise it as being a valid Act of the Scottish Assembly. But we find in the Bill that it is the Scottish Assembly Act that is judicially noticed, so that the courts can take account of it, hut not the direction on the Secretary.
That casts doubt in my mind upon the admissibility of the direction of the Secretary of State on the Scottish Secretary when it comes to litigation. If there is any doubt about admissibility, how on earth does the individual prove it? The Lord Advocate could probably do so because I expect that he can produce the original of the direction, but I should be very much surprised if anybody can tell me that the individual citizen could produce the original direction; and with that juxtaposition I would strongly suspect that we ought to say something about it in terms in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Viscount has referred to Clause 17(5). I think we discussed that earlier, when I had the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in my answer. That was intended to put Assembly Acts on the same footing as Acts of Parliament so far as recognition by the courts is concerned, so that Assembly Acts do not need to be proved to be Acts before they are recognised by the courts. The idea behind Amendment No. 141, as explained by the noble Viscount, appears to be to ensure that a direction will prove itself in legal proceedings. Our view there is that this is not a precaution which it is necessary or appropriate to take. I can very briefly say, of Acts themselves, that judicial notice is taken of every Act passed after 1850. That is because of Section 9 of the Interpretation Act 1889. Indeed, judicial notice may be taken of other matters as well: for example, up to a point, anyway, some international law. Outside the purely legal field, judicial notice is taken of ministerial seals under paragraph 5 of Schedule I to the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.
But to prove a ministerial letter—and that is what the Amendment is about,
1752
because that is the form this direction would take—is quite different. The enactments constituting particular Departments invariably provide that documents signed or executed by a Secretary to the Department or by a person authorised by the Minister to act in that behalf shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be made or issued without further proof unless the contrary is shown. A direction letter can be protected to this extent and should not, despite its importance, be accorded any other status. The provision on which the Scottish Office rely is Section 1 of the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Act 1939, which is Chapter 20 of 2 and 3 George VI.
Perhaps I might say just a word on the general matter which was raised by the noble Viscount. The Government are not intending to make directions of this kind free from judicial review; but, in answer to the specific instance which was taken by the noble Viscount, he envisaged proceedings in the Court of Session by the Secretary of State against the Scottish Secretary. Our view of that is that they could not take legal proceedings against one another of the kind he has in mind because they are both agents of the Crown. Accordingly, one would not envisage proceedings of that kind. In any event, leaving aside the fact that they are both agents of the Crown, given that the Scottish Secretary is, in this context, an agent of the Crown, there could be no coercive remedy against him because of the Crown Proceedings Act. So, at the most, if someone other than the Secretary of State were able to bring proceedings it would presumably be what we in Scotland call an action of declarator. It would not in fact compel him to do anything: it would merely be the court making a declaration about what the legal position is, and then, of course, it is hardly conceivable that the Secretary, the court having declared his position, would not act in accordance with it. So we do not think that this particular Amendment is necessary, but it may be that the noble Viscount would like to consider my answer and at the moment not press this Amendment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I think the noble and learned Lord is probably right about this, but I think it is something about which it is

1753
desirable to be absolutely certain. Prima facie, I can conceive of litigation between a subject and a Scottish Secretary, brought by a Scottish Secretary in order to enforce actions by himself under what purport to be the provisions of this Act. In such circumstances, the action of the Scottish Secretary might be impugned by the subject in the course of that litigation, whether it was one way or the other.
In that case, the subject ought to be in a position to prove the direction of the Secretary of State which was rendering the Scottish Secretary's authority ineffective. He ought to be told in the legal textbooks exactly what he has to do to prove it. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will have the answer because it must be familiar ground in the law of Scotland. What the law of Scotland says about the Secretary of State's directions given under a Statute I do not know, because the law of evidence in Scotland is not identical with the law of evidence in England. But it is a point which can arise and it is a point which ought to be rendered certain.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I believe that the noble and learned Lord will find the answer to the instance that he has given, which I am convinced is a real one, where the subject wants to found upon the Secretary of State's direction, in Section 1 of the 1939 Act which I quoted.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That has produced the sort of answer which I had hoped for. All that we wanted was to make sure that the subject could get at the direction in a form in which it would be acceptable to the court. My noble and learned friend has elaborated on this and the noble and learned Lord opposite has given an answer. I shall look up this Act, with which I am not totally familiar, and shall consider it. It would be very surprising indeed if the noble and learned Lord was not right. In the circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.26p.m.
Earl FERRERS Moved Amendment No. 331:
Page 18, line 13, leave out from ("Parliament") ("and") in line 14.
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the one which follows are both consequential upon Amendment No. 330 which we approved earlier this evening. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 18, line 15, leave out ("the House of Commons") and insert ("each House of Parliament").
On Question, Amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 36, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I shall be brief. The point I want to register is similar to the point made on Clause 35. We had a debate on Clause 35, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has already replied and what he said then will probably apply to what I am going to say now. This clause gives the Westminster Government powers to over-ride actions by the new Scottish Executive and, again, I would draw attention to the wording which is vague and very wide. It reads,
"If it appears to the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is desirable in the public interest".
So it is not only a matter of opinion on the part of the Secretary of State but it is also a matter of judgment as to what may or may not be in the public interest.
As I understand the Government's view, they foresee that this clause will seldom be used apart, perhaps, from where Community or international obligations are concerned under subsection (2), because it may be that, there action may be necessary because of inadvertence on occasions. But the wording again raises the risk of conflict and collision as on Clause 35. The provisions are such that they will no doubt be kept continually, under consultation, as the noble and learned Lord has said with regard to Clause 35; but I think that occasions will arise where there will he conflict and this wording does not really meet the case.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I think there was a paint which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, was desiring to raise.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I am grateful. I hoped we might have some explanation in general terms about the purpose of this clause. I was wondering whether, for example, it might have any bearing on the various committees about which we heard last night on such matters as Outspan oranges, foreign policy and defence.
I was wondering, for example, if any action taken by these committees might be open to action in terms of this clause. I would be inclined to doubt it, but as several noble Lords wish to give consideration to the question of the operation of these mysterious committees about which we have heard, it will be helpful to know whether it might in any circumstances be conceivable that the powers under this clause could be used to control these bodies, if anything they did were done on behalf of a Scottish Secretary, and if anything they did would or might affect a reserved matter. I should certainly have thought that if committees of this extraordinary description were really envisaged—and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, referred to them when he was speaking earlier—it is difficult to conceive that they would not do things which might affect a reserved matter.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I may seek to answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, it is true that statutory bodies are born naked. They have no powers other than those that Statute confers upon them. The committees envisaged under the earlier clauses of this Bill are not even statutory bodies; they are simply committees. They have no powers at all. The word used in connection with them is "functions". It is used in the general sense. They have no powers, no duties, at all. Therefore they are not the bodies that we have in mind when we come to Clause 36. In Clause 36 we are really talking about the exercise by a Scottish Secretary of powers of the kind that he has under the Bill, being powers which are referred to in Clause 59(3). I hope that that answers the point made by the noble and learned Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that the clause was very vague and wide. We have been over this particular course before, and he acknowledged that. I simply have to say that,
1756
as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, pointed out, the matter is basically subjective here. It is a matter of political judgment for the Secretary of State and that is true of this clause as it was of others. I agreed with him that the Government's view here is that this kind of power will seldom be used. Indeed, as I said earlier in another instance, the number of concrete examples one can identify when one goes on a trawl through the possibilities are few. I must confess that I have deep sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that here is machinery which we all hope will rust through disuse. But, none the less, the Government feel that it is proper to have it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I hope that the noble and learned Lord is right, but I suspect that when we reach Schedule 10 we shall have found quite a lot of fish in the trawl.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Power to revoke subordinate instruments.]:
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 146 not moved.]
9.35 p.m.
Earl FERRERS moved Amendments Nos. 333 to 335:
Page 19, line 1, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("or") in line 4.
line 12, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("and") in line 13.
line 14, leave out ("the House of Commons") and insert ("each House of Parliament").
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 333 which is consequantial on Amendment No. 330 which we passed earlier. With your Lordships' permission, I would also beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 333, 334 and 335 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 19, line 21, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Viscount said: Those people who are able to decipher mysteries tell

1757
me that subsection (7) of Clause 37 is an attempt to do away with the procedure of this House, as laid down in Standing Orders Nos. 216 and 216A of the Private Bills Standing Orders of the House in relation to hybrid Instruments. If there was a subject which was likely to arouse the passions of the Committee at this time of the evening, that seems to me to be one of the first contenders I can think of. Nevertheless, I am afraid it is something which I consider to be of some importance and which needs to be discussed by the Committee. I may say that it is a peculiarly House of Lords matter, since it is only in this House and not in another place that any remedy is given to the individual subject to come to Parliament to deal with the way in which a hybrid Statutory Instrument affects his own affairs in a particular way. Therefore it is particularly apt that this Committee of your Lordships' House should discuss it.
A hybrid Instrument—and I hope I have got this right—is the same sort of animal as a hybrid Bill. I think I may justifiably be allowed to say that by this time I have discovered a certain amount about hybrid Bills. Hybrid Instruments are probably smaller animals, but they raise the same issues, in that, whereas they purport to have a general effect, their terms are such that they can, and indeed may, be construed to bear particularly and discriminatorily upon an individual.
In those circumstances, your Lordships have devised over the years a complicated system whereby the individual may come to complain, and indeed, having got through a positive croquet lawn of hoops, if he succeeds and hits the post at the end he comes in front of a Select Committee, which will then consider his Petition. The "croquet lawn" is set out in Standing Order No. 216, and I may say that the various stages of the consideration of a Petition on a hybrid Instrument are very far from four. The noble and learned Lord will find this matter on page 92, and page 93 has more of it, together with pages 94 and 95. If the noble and learned Lord has not looked at it before, he has a big treat coming.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Viscount should be less trusting. If he consults his noble friend Lord Campbell
1758
of Croy, he will find that he and I have been over this ground many times in connection with the recent Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That had not escaped my notice. I have been looking up the winged words in the Official Report—but not, I think, in quite the same context as we have here. All I was saying was, when I had stopped teasing the noble and learned Lord, that he will recognise at once that the whole process of screening a Petition is a very careful one, and it certainly makes sure that there does not come forward for a decision by this House any Petition which lacks merit. Even when it does come before this House, if it gets through to that stage, there is still the opportunity, as I believe happened in the HoffinanRoche case, that, although it has merit and has passed through all these procedures, nevertheless the House itself decides on the individual case not to send it to a Select Committee.
So it is certainly no formal matter, and the occasions when hybrid Instruments get on a Petition to a Select Committee are comparatively rare. I think it is necessary to say that, so I would not suggest that, in tampering with the Bill as it now stands, I am likely to unleash a deluge of petitions and Select Committees upon your Lordships.
There have been a number of occasions, and not only the Local Government Act-I am not sure whether it is still current—that have given rise to arguments about this point. It goes back over a period of time and, indeed, I see that it was the Party to which I belong which first started this, on, I think, the Local Government Act 1972 for England. Although it was my noble friend Lord Sandford who moved that Amendment, I moved the next one. I did not understand it when I read it in Hansard, but I suppose that I understood it at the time, and it has been used by both Parties since.
In fact, there are now two ways in which it is handled. First, there can be a straight exclusion of hybrid Instrument procedure and this, I think, has happened three times. 1 have tried to find out what happened. On one occasion it was debated. On the second occasion, which was the Water Act 1973, it was for some reason

1759
not debated at all, and so the criteria which had been adduced by the Government for making this alteration in our Standing Orders were never tested or explained. In the third case, it occurred on a Money Bill which for obvious reasons was not discussed at all in this House. So I have only some fairly general principles upon which to go.
Before I seek to ask what the principles are and how they apply in this case, I must ask for the noble and learned Lord's help to see whether I can identify what kind of animal it is that this hybrid Instrument might be, because it is not by any means easy to do. First, if one starts at the beginning of Clause 37 we have an instrument made by a Scottish Secretary. Of course, it is not that Instrument which is liable to be the hybrid instrument, because that is not an instrument which, in itself, would ever come before this Parliament at all. For all I know, the Assembly's standing orders may have some equivalent of our Private Bill Standing Order 216, in which case you might be able to do something about it before the Assembly or one of its committees.
But that is not the case that we have to deal with in subsection (7) of this clause. What we have is a United Kingdom order made by the Secretary of State, which proposes that the Scottish Statutory Instrument should not be approved. If that is the kind of order that we are dealing with—I believe that it is— it is very difficult indeed to say, in the generality of the way in which this clause is drafted, what the Instrument might be about. It might be about almost anything. There is no telling in what form or in what context the hybridity may arise. Therefore, one cannot say, as one can in the case of the individual instances where this has been done before, that, for instance, it would be a matter of urgency, or it would be a matter which was so incredibly boring that nobody could possibly wish to take the point—such as who were to be the members of the Water Authority, or something of that kind—or that any of the other criteria that I have been able to find could possibly be said at this stage to apply.
One simply does not know. All that one does know is that here is envisaged a subordinate instrument order, made by the Secretary of State, which is, in itself,
1760
bound to be, for the purposes of this hypothesis, hybrid in some form or another. In what way it is hybrid, it is impossible to forecast, and, in whatever way it may turn out to be hybrid, in no circumstances is anybody to petition against it. That is a fairly tall order.
When we have ruled this out altogether on previous occasions, there has been, as I have said, only one occasion which I have been able to find when it was explained. It related to the orders dividing non-metropolitan counties into districts under the Local Government Act 1972. So far as I could detect the criteria in the fairly short discussion, there were two. First, it was most likely that the orders for all of the metropolitan counties would be made at the same time. If they were all comprised there would be no room for hybridity because only one of them would be treated in a special way. Nevertheless, it was possible that there might have to be a residual order that dealt with just one metropolitan district, in which case I can quite easily see that one might say that it was being dealt with in a discriminatory fashion as opposed to the way in which all of the other metropolitan districts had been dealt with. So I can see that there could be a case of hybridity there, but it was being suggested that it was very unlikely to occur because of the fact that it was probably going to be done all in one order. This is one criterion that is not likely to occur. I hope that that is right.
The second criterion that I can see in that particular debate is that before any order of this kind had been made the Boundary Commission would have had a look at it in any event and, after the necessary investigations, would have reported on how it should be done; so the matter would already have been discussed. Knowing the way in which the Boundary Commission works, it would have been open to the various contender authorities to put their points, probably in public at the kind of hearing or meeting which one has under Boundary Commission type of reviews where everybody can have a say.
That is another criterion whereby people might perhaps say, "No, don't come back to the House of Lords. You really ought to have exhausted your remedies in the inquiry before the

1761
Boundary Commission". In fact, that is a point which is made in Standing Order No. 216. One of the reasons why a petitioner may not get through all of the hoops is because the Hybrid Instruments Committee inquires whether the petitioner may have failed to avail himself of opportunities to have matters complained of properly inquired into. That would seem to me to be the same point.
I pause there in midstream to make just one other point. The other thing that has happened is that there has been invented, starting off with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Bill, a kind of truncated procedure whereby, in cases of urgency, there can be a speeded up petition and a speeded up procedure; and if it does not get through in 28 days that is too bad, and the whole process falls. 1 mention that point only to make perfectly certain that the noble and learned Lord realises that I know about it, and also to remind the Committee of what I am sure they themselves already know very well. That is not being suggested here. We are having a complete exclusion, not the truncated version.
With that preamble, I want to ask the noble and learned Lord this question: First, in so far as I have attempted to isolate from discussions on past occasions what are the criteria that have led this House to abandon the hybrid Instrument procedure, have I got those right? If there are more criteria in other debates when we have decided to do this, could the noble and learned Lord tell me what they are? And when we have identified the full range of criteria, will he tell us how they are to be applied to the situation under subsection (7) particularly as, whatever the criteria may be, it is totally impossible to tell whether any Statutory Instrument could or could not fall within them, since there is no way whatever of knowing what the Statutory Instrument will consist of?
I truly believe that there is a conundrum here. I think that the power to petition against a Hybrid Instrument is a matter of substantial value to the subject. I have read with interest what my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has said in the past on this. His emphasis has been on the protection of the individual which only your Lordships afford to the indivi
1762
dual at this stage of a Statutory Instrument's process. It is something that I truly believe is an important safeguard which we should not abandon and, in particular, I am quite certain that we should not abandon it unless there is a really good reason for doing so. I am bound to say that unless the noble and learned Lord can provide me with a good deal of information which my own researches and imagination have wholly failed to provide, I cannot see what justification there can be in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I hope the Committee will find that my explanation is at least as clear as that of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. If one looks at subsection (7) one sees, as the noble Viscount has made clear, that the Bill is envisaging that in certain circumstances there may be a departure from provisions contained in Standing Orders, being provisions which arc designed to protect private right. He is quite right in saying that such a departure is important and that a step of this kind should not be taken lightly, because the effect is to take away certain provisional petitioning rights of individuals in cases where, were they not taken away by Statute, they would be exercisable. It does not follow, of course, that there will be many such cases. Once again this is an instance where our view is that override orders which take advantage of this provision would be rare, and override orders made under Clause 37 and potentially falling within the scope of the Standing Order will be rarer still. However rare they may be, as the noble Viscount has outlined, the principle is one of some importance.
I believe the noble Viscount found difficulty in relation to the matter with which we may be concerned. But I think the correct answer is that if we look at Clause 37(1) we find that there are two instruments there: one is referred to in line 19, the instrument made by a Scottish Secretary, and the other one, under the title "order" is the one referred to in line 25. So the Secretary of State makes an order and its effect is to revoke the Scottish Secretary's Instrument. I believe that the order of the Secretary of State takes its character from the Instrument which it revokes, because if the Scottish Secretary makes an Instrument

1763
which is, in the ordinary meaning of the word, "hybrid"—if I dare use the word "ordinary" as the epithet, and if one gives a normal meaning to the word "hybrid"—and the Instrument made by the Secretary of State is hybrid in that sense, then necessarily the order which revokes it is itself of a hybrid character.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do not think that necessarily follows, because if the Scottish Instrument is hybrid it may be that the hybridity is cured by the Secretary of State's order revoking it. Therefore it does not follow that the Secretary of State's order is in its turn hybrid.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I accept that it may he, but it may not be.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That is so.
Lord McCLUSKEY: So I am wrong to say that it necessarily takes its character; but it can be infected with hybridity, and that would be a serious condition.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Serious indeed.
Lord McCLUSKEY: So I think my central proposition is still sound, that if in fact the order made by the Secretary of State is an order to which subsection (7) would apply, it would be so by virtue of its having been contaminated by the hybridity in the Instrument made by the Scottish Secretary. I hope that gives some content to the point about which the noble Viscount asked.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I think the other possibility, if I may speculate wildly, is that the Scottish Instrument was made in order to cure a situation which would otherwise be hybrid and the United Kingdom Order by revoking it recreates the hybridity.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the noble Viscount speculates wildly I shall ruminate fiercely, but I do not think I have anything to add to what I said in relation to how the order acquires its character which brings it within the ambit of subsection (7). Let us suppose, then, that
1764
we are within the ambit of subsection (7) in the way I have indicated; then, given the other contents of Clause 37, of public interest and matters of that kind, and the effect upon a reserved matter, I think the noble Viscount would acknowledge that, once you have got into the ambit of Clause 37, you have the potentiality of a question arising which is both urgent and important and has the public interest which I mention—in fact, it has to have that before it comes into Clause 37 at all. So the public interest is then involved and the issue cannot properly be described as a purely local issue affecting only Scotland or a part of Scotland.
Again, I indicate that I do not believe override proceedings under Clause 37 for revocation of subordinate Instruments will he set in motion lightly hut, when they are, because of the impact upon reserved matters and because of the public interest which I mentioned, they should, in our view be treated as a matter within the control of Parliament. The matter should be subject to a vote on the Floor of the House because of the public interest, and that should be the end of it. Of course, both the House and the Government will bear in mind that private interests might be involved, but this is not a matter, because of that public dimension, on which it would be appropriate to allow the usual petitioning procedure to operate.
I do not think that there is any exact parallel to this; at least I do not know of any. I was not aware of the water provision referred to in 1973 that the noble Viscount discovered in his scholarly examination of this matter. Certainly, the one which I was involved in before, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and 1 looked at on several occasions in the course of the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill last year, was rather different; it was a cousin to the present example, but that was a truncated procedure and I agree that it is different, although there is a relationship.
In other words, one is always saying, at the end of the day, that, given that there are perfectly good reasons why we have Standing Orders like Standing Order No. 216 for protecting private interests but that, in some instances, the public interest may require modification or

1765
indeed total derogation from the ordinary procedures, we must look at the particular circumstances. I hope that the explanation I have offered in relation to how the order may acquire its character will satisfy the noble Viscount that such circumstances may arise, and that that will satisfy him as to the desirability of subsection (7).
9.58 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I wonder whether I may say a word about this. I am bound to admit that this discussion has been carried on at an intellectual level somewhat above my head, but there is a point which now arises out of the noble and learned Lord's reply to my noble friend and which I think is within my compass. I would like to explain exactly what it is. I was originally in considerable doubt as to whether either my noble friend's Amendment or the subsection itself were necessary, and I should like to explain first of all what my doubts were.
I, like the noble and learned Lord, had come to the conclusion, before the more refined point was put to him by my noble friend, that the only way in which an order under this clause could be hybrid was by infection; that is to say, the original Instrument created by the Scottish Secretary would be hybrid, and, therefore, the order revoking it by the Secretary of State would be infected with the original hybridity of the Instrument made by the Scottish Secretary. I wondered how that could be so. This is the reason why I had that doubt. The order made by the Secretary of State revoking the offending Instrument by the Scottish Secretary would ex hypothesi be restoring the legal status quo, because it is the offending Instrument created by the Scottish Secretary which alters the status quo, and the order made by the Secretary of State revokes it.
Therefore, the order made by the Secretary of State restores the original status quo before it was interfered with by the Instrument. Ex hypothesi, this was my doubt. Lx hypothesi the legal status quo cannot itself be hybrid. This is not a possible conception in Parliamentary law. The law, as it stands, cannot be hybrid. Only an alteration in the law can be infected by hybridity. Therefore, I thought
1766
that Clause 7 was unnecessary because it seeks to bypass a hybridity which cannot take place. My noble friend's Amendment omitting it is equally unnecessary because subsection (7) deals with a situation that cannot possibly happen.
The one point of agreement between the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend is that I am wrong about those doubts that there is a real danger of hybridity in the order of the Secretary of State revoking an Instrument by the Scottish Secretary. It was starting from that common ground that the noble and learned Lord proceeded to defend subsection (7).
However, it was at this stage that began to think that there was something in what my noble friend was saying, because I cannot for the life of me see why the mere fact of public interest and urgency should deprive the subject in this case, and this case only, of the rights which he would otherwise be able to invoke by reason of hybridity. In other words, if the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that the rights inherent in hybridity ought not to exist in this case, I cannot see why they should exist in any other. But if Parliament, for very good reasons, over the centuries has given the subject a right in cases of hybridity which he is able to invoke, even though the public interest is urgent, I cannot see why an exception should be made in this case. That is where the answer of the noble and learned Lord failed to satisfy me.
Lord McCLUSKEY: It seems that should not have spoken—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: But the noble and learned Lord still has feet!
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is the trouble. I recently read a book by the noble and learned Lord entitled The Dilemma of Democracy. In the chapters the noble Lord allocated various cheers for different things: two cheers for collective bargaining and one cheer for the incomes policy. I am not sure how many he would award for hybridity. Perhaps very few. I have found ill my six or seven, or 46 or 47, days in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, that it

1767
has been an educative process. I have been educated out of my mind, to use a colloqualism. I think that the wise thing for me to do, rather than to accept the Amendment because I do not know where it would take me, would be to say that I will take no further interest in this matter other than to pass it on to those who understand these matters. In due course, I hope to stand at this Dispatch Box and read out a convincing answer.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: We shall await that day. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that that answer was not such. There is no reason given at the moment by the Government for this. Certainly, if there is no convincing reason given—all joking apart—I do not think that this is justifiable, if we cannot have the kind of specific cases on which it has been argued before and accepted by the House. There is no way in which one can be specific about this. If one cannot be specific, the case must fall. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will come back at the subsequent stage merely to remove the subsection. In order to give him an opportunity to do so, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of ONSLOW: May I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to help me on this? The first part of Clause 37(1)(a) refers to an instrument made by a Scottish Secretary. Earlier the noble and learned Lord was talking about naked statutes being conferred, or something was produced by statute and the powers were naked, or something along those lines. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord how these Scottish Instruments are made by the Scottish Secretary? How are they going to be made? What checks and balances will there be on them? Who is going to make sure that the standing orders of the Scottish Assembly on Scottish Instruments are actually fair, right and above board?
1768
The question of hybridity comes in yet again and if the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, tend to be frightened of treading upon hybridity I confess that I am totally terrified about it. I will make one tiny effort. If we do have a question of hybridity or the personal rights of the subject being offended by a Scottish instrument or by the Scottish Assembly, how are these rights going to be protected and how are we going to make sure that this process of making Instruments is legally and morally and ethically sound?
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I might seek to answer these questions, first of all the Instruments referred to in Clause 37, which are made by the Scottish Secretary, I presume will be made under Standing Orders of the Assembly. That is the first point. The second point: who will ensure that they will be fair and above board? Once again, unless one supposes that the role of Parliament is to nursemaid the Assembly into producing standing orders which in the judgment of this Parliament are fair, then the control over the fairness lies with the Assembly itself. The Assembly itself looks at the draft standing orders. It may model its own draft standing orders upon the direction it receives from the Secretary of State under Clause 7(1), but ultimately the control as to fairness and to ensure that the standing orders are fair and above board comes from the political control within the Assembly itself.
As to hybridity, again this is not a matter which this Bill seeks to determine in relation to the Instruments made by and which may be made by a Scottish Secretary. As the noble Viscount mentioned when he spoke to this Amendment, he would contemplate that hybridity would be a matter that would be dealt with within the standing orders of the Assembly itself. I would hope so. He reminds us it might be. One would hope that they would have to deal with it. After all, the kind of problem which has produced Standing Orders here for hybrid Instruments is the same kind of problem as will exist in Scotland in relation to similar matters, and one would expect that the Scottish Assembly will bring not only robust political maturity but even a little humility to bear. It can model itself on Standing Orders which have stood the

1769
test of time and examination in this Parliament. They will model themselves on that and produce appropriate Standing Orders to cover this kind of question. I hope that is a satisfactory answer to the noble Earl.
The Earl of ONSLOW: It satisfies me a little, but let us take ourselves back to Sinn Fein and the 1919 Election.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: May I suggest that if the keen legal brains of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, have already admitted that they need to take these matters away for further study, then the same might be said, or more might be said, in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and his own equipment!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Do not be put down, my dear friend!
The Earl of ONSLOW: After naked statutes and the noble Lord's equipment, I should like to say that I am not really addressing my mind totally to hybridity. I am trying to assume, and I am not casting aspersions. However, politics is a hot business and people become cross and angry with each other, and it is possible-1 am not saying that it will happen—that totally unsatisfactory Standing Orders could be produced on the question of Statutory Instruments. Let us assume, again, for the sake of argument, that a rather nasty collection of Scot Nats. come to power. I am not saying that it will happen, but it is possible. What check is there? That is all that I am asking.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to say that we have already spent literally hours discussing the kind of question that he has raised tonight. No doubt he has not yet had an opportunity to study the Official Report but we discussed this matter in relation first, to Clause 3 and then to Clause 7. There is a whole fasciculus of clauses—if your Lordships will forgive me, at this time of night, for using that legal expression--commencing with Clause 23 and going right through to Clause 28. Therefore, we discussed these matters repeatedly and to the immense satisfaction
1770
of all who were present. I am sure that if the noble Earl cares to read what was said on those occasions he would find the answers not only to the questions that he has asked but to many other questions.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: As a matter of fact, I think that I am partly responsible for my noble friend's intervention because it arose out of a question he asked me and to which I was unable to give a rational answer. However, I think that I understood the question more when it was put to me privately in my ear than when it was put across the Floor to the noble and learned Lord. I should like to put it in the following way because I think that the noble and learned Lord could be forgiven for not understanding the same point as I understood from the question which was put to me. Quite clearly, subsection (1) of this clause implies that a Scottish Secretary can make subordinate legislation of one sort or another by Instrument. What my noble friend asked me, and what I was unable to give an immediate answer to—which 1 think prompted this question—was, where is the power to make subordinate legislation to be found in the Bill? The Scottish Legislative Assembly has certain powers of legislation. Does that inherently carry with it the right to confer upon one of its officers the right to make subordinate legislation? I think that that was what my noble friend was asking, and it is my fault that I was unable to give him an immediate answer.
Lord McCLUSKEY: It is no doubt my fault for not recognising that that was the question. The answer appears on page 79 of the Bill where, in Schedule 16, under the reference to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, we see that there are certain Amendments carried by virtue of Clause 78(2). Indeed, this takes the matter a little further than I signified in relation to my rather tired answer about Standing Orders because, of course, it says—and I shall simply read one of the new subsections of the Statutory Instruments Act added by this Schedule:
"In relation to a Statutory Instrument required to be laid before the Scottish Assembly the foregoing provisions of this section"?
that is to say, Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946—

1771
"shall have effect as if for any reference to Parliament or to each House of Parliament there were substituted a reference to the Scottish Assembly ".
I have obviously satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint
1772
Marylebone, who is looking very satisfied; I hope that through him I have satisfied the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, whose question was interpreted to me through the noble and learned Lord.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38[Industrial and economic guidelines]:
10.16 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH moved Amendment No. 336:
Page 19, line 29, after ("Treasury") insert ("and after consultation with the First Secretary").
The noble Earl said: I could wish for several reasons that this clause was being considered early in the day rather than late at night. One is that the attendance in the Committee on what, I think, is one of the most important clauses is naturally rather smaller than it would be earlier in the day. When 1 look round I see a rather meagre attendance on the Labour Benches; ditto on the Cross-Benches; the Liberals, as one might expect, arc somewhere in the middle and the Conservative attendance is very good.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of PERTH: Be that as it may, we have up to now today discussed things which are entirely negative—that is, Clause 35, dealing with power to move the rejection of certain Assembly Bills; Clause 36, dealing with power to prevent or require action; and Clause 37, dealing with power to revoke subordinate instruments.
Now we are coming to something which is quite different and which potentially provides a constructive and very important role for the Assembly to play. Indeed, I would go further and say that, if this question of the economic functions of the Assembly had been handled properly by Parliament in days past, we might never have had any need for an Assembly. It is a fact that over the years in Scotland we have again and again had the feeling that our economic development and our economic problems were not being properly considered by Parliament. This has led to a very strong movement in Scotland to rectify the situation and has encouraged not only the growth of the Scottish National Party but also a general feeling that we must have an Assembly to do the sort of things that have not been done in Whitehall.
I shall not elaborate further on this because it is something which I have
1774
touched on again and again. Indeed, I spoke about it during the Second Reading debate. Many other noble Lords have made the same point and have had the same feelings. However, I think that this clause becomes even more important because, as your Lordships know, oil—which is one of the key resources today and which has in some degree supported the economy of Scotland—will not last for ever. In 10 or 20 years' time, I can see the same sort of thing happening in Scotland as happened before when shipbuilding, steel-making and heavy engineering left Scotland and when the coal ran out. As a result, we were faced with all sorts of economic problems.
How can that best be remedied? I should have hoped that the Assembly would have had more powers than it is being given to take the action which is necessary now rather than waiting until later. However, let us look at what we have. We have the Scottish Development Agency; we have the Highlands and Islands Development Board; and we have the local authorities in relation to economic development. All these will come under the powers of the Assembly. With the help of the Assembly one may hope that they really will make a good job of it.
But it is not as easy as that, because what happens under this Bill?—the Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, prepare guidelines on all these matters. The Secretary of State will not have consulted, as things stand now, with the Assembly in any way before he has prepared the guidelines. Far worse, he has to have the approval of the Treasury. I should have thought that really the Treasury has enough when it controls the purse-strings, without needing to approve the guidelines set out by the Secretary of State.
I should indeed have liked to move an Amendment which was wider and excluded the approval of the Treasury, but I have been told by others who are wiser than I am on these matters that this is a necessary sentence to include in the clause and that the Treasury always has the last word. Be that as it may, I feel that for these guidelines to be formulated by the Secretary of State in what I would call a vacuum—that is to say, without any reference to the Assembly at all—must be wrong.

1775
A noble Lord with whom I consulted before I put down this Amendment made a point which I take seriously, as indeed I take all the points he makes; namely, that if, as my Amendment suggests, the First Secretary of the Assembly has first to be consulted, then it may mean that things are delayed and that the Assembly cannot get down to the business of trying to work with the Scottish Development Agency or the Highlands and Islands Development Board from the start. I thought seriously of making an Amendment to my Amendment which would say that after the Assembly had been set up, then it would be for the Secretary of State in subsequent guidelines to consult with the First Secretary.
I thought, after reflection, that it was better to delay the guidelines coming into effect, or indeed being promulgated, until the Assembly had met and until the First Secretary was established and could be consulted, because to me if you set out guidelines without the chance anyhow of the First Secretary saying something about them, then you are going to have deep resentment on the part of the Assembly when it finds out what the guidelines may be. So I have put down my Amendment which says:
"The Secretary of State shall with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the First Secretary prepare guidelines".
In other words, I am asking that before the guidelines are promulgated we wait until the Assembly has been established, until the First Secretary has been chosen, and then the Secretary of State can consult with him—consult; he has not got to take what he says—and has a chance to know how the Assembly feels on these vitally important matters.
The only other thing I would say at this moment is tnat I hope that the noble Lord who is to teply will give us some guidance on the thinking of the Government at the present time on these guidelines. Therefore, my Amendment has a dual purpose: first, to suggest that it is really something on which the Assembly should be given a chance via its First Secretary to take a part in drawing things up; secondly, it is a probing Amendment to find just what the Government have in mind when they talk about "guidelines". I hope that that is
1776
clear enough as an introduction, and I beg to move.
10.25 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before we can consider this matter rationally we must know from the Minister what the guidelines will be about. I hope he will deal with the subject so as to show the broad aims of the guidelines, bearing in mind that under Schedule 10(2) the Act relating to the Scottish Development Agency is not included, apart from references to a long series of matters which are quite difficult to decipher. My understanding is that the provision means, in effect, that those subjects which deal with the environment —the building of premises, the acquisition of land and so on—fall under the Scottish Assembly, while the actual economic development is retained by the Secretary of State, and no doubt to some extent by the Secretary of State for Industry through the National Enterprise Board. The Highlands and Islands present a very curious case because they are lett out entirely. That comes in Schedule 10 where it says:
"The Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Acts 1965 and 1968 … Not included".
Section 8 of that legislation says, however:
"In accordance with arrangements approved by the Secretary of State and the Treasury, the Board shall have power to give financial assistance by way of grants or loans … to any person
I take it that the guidelines will establish a Scottish Secretary as agent for the Secretary of State, otherwise I cannot see how guidelines can be given as to the exercise of power by a Scottish Secretary under an Act which does not come under the Assembly with respect to the functions of the Highlands and Islands Development Board; it seems that it can be done only in an agency capacity. I hope the Minister will tell us about that. The other matters are more straightforward, concerning the limits of expenditure, the mechanics of providing loans and so on.
The most important point to remember in economic development is that it has two sides. The first is the encouragement and development of employment and the second is the encouragement of industry. To that extent, the more the powers can be put into one agency the better. If

1777
industry must go through a great many different sources for its grants, loans, permissions, certificates and the rest, that is a handicap, particularly when enterprise comes, as it so often does to Scotland, from abroad. I hope, therefore, that in the guidelines that point will be borne in mind. We look forward to hearing from the Minister, and let us not be in any doubt about the great importance of this clause.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was perhaps wanting to hear what the noble Lord had to say before he made his points, but as he has laid them out very clearly I should like to make my own, and my Party's, position on this miserable clause perfectly clear. This is a supreme example of what I was talking about earlier, regarding the need to appreciate the fears of certain people about an Assembly. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has done a great service in bringing forward this Amendment, if only so that we can express our fears and our displeasure as to this clause which 1 accept only because it probably is necessary so that we can get the Bill through at all. But really it is quite ludicrous that we should have a phrase like this:
"… as to the exercise by a Scottish Secretary of the powers under the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 with respect to … the promotion, financing, establishment, carrying on, growth, reorganisation, modernisation or development of industry or industrial undertakings;".
How the devil can any organisation promote industry when every single thing that it does is the subject of guidelines from the Treasury? The Treasury is a marvellous body for laying down the conditions, and making people economical, and that kind of thing, but it is not a body to guide the development of industry. The Government ought to have taken the example of the protection of industry carried on by the Oslo Parliament in the successful years since the war. During that period they were about eight times —I would not stick rigidly to that figure —as successful as we were in Scotland in developing industry.
The reason for that was that they had a small, tightly-run Government Department which knew what it was doing, and which was able to deal directly with
1778
industrialists and to offer them, within the confines of the money supplied from this country, admittedly, a personal service which was of tremendous advantage to the Province. The same is true of the Highlands and Islands Development Acts. and their function as related to economic development is also to be subject to guidelines, which has not been the case in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, talked about ill-disposed people who wanted to alter the future, to advance from the position laid down by this Bill with regard to the Scottish Assembly. That includes me because, although I am not ill-intentioned, I certainly want to see the kind of condition we have been talking about altered in the future when confidence is established.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be able to satisfy us on these points—though I am perfectly sure that he cannot because in itself this is an unfortunate clause which will not promote the advancement of industry, but will in fact hamper it. However, I hope that it will establish confidence among people in the rest of the United Kingdom that a Scottish Assembly will not harm them, although it can do considerable good to Scotland.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I agree with my noble friend Lord Perth that this is an extremely important clause. Since Second Reading, I have tried to persuade the Government to clarify for what the Assembly, Convention, or whatever you call it, really is responsible. Like my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, I have sought to understand what on earth the Scottish Development Agency has to do with the Scottish Executive, and it is confusing beyond belief. I do not know what the guidelines are to be.
I should like to give one or two examples of what I have in mind. The Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act is not included in Part III of Schedule 10. I thought that, if it was not included in Part III, it had nothing to do with the matter; but then one finds that it turns up in Schedule 7. What the connection is between Part Ill of Schedule 10 and Schedule 7, I do not know. In Schedule 7

1779
there is, apparently, a reference to three sections of that Act, which have some bearing on the matter in question, though what bearing I do not know. In these sections the Act refers to directions and advice to be given to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and it deals with the duties of the Board. Presumably a report is made, and there is also something to do with the acquisition and disposal of land.
Then there is the Scottish Development Agency, also not included in Part III of Schedule 10 except for 14 mysterious items, as my noble friend said, which apparently are included: financial assistance, compulsory acquisition, reconstruction of premises, managing sites, developing environment and derelict land, and, finally, it can do anything to discharge its functions. Then we come to another one in Schedule 10 which is also not included in Part III of Schedule 10. That turns up in Schedule 5 and in Schedule 7. In one case it deals with the comprehensive acquisition of land and in the other case with the disposal of land.
What is really intended? Can we really chuck this sort of stuff at the benighted Scots and expect them to understand what on earth it is about? I know that the Secretary of State can give guidelines and can ask for Parliament's assurance on it, but what is it? Are they going to have little executive powers under one or two sections from each of these two or three Acts? What is it? Can we see the guidelines? Why not state in Parliament what their responsibilities are? Is it not really grossly unfair to the Assembly to leave them an utterly vague statement of this kind which really means nothing to anybody? I ask that of the noble Lord, though he probably will not answer it tonight; but may we say that we really would like to have an answer. I know these matters are not easy, but perhaps we can have some answer, because I think it is very unfair not to say what their responsibilities are.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Selkirk on this. As a matter of fact, this seemingly simple clause goes to the heart of the dilemma of the Bill. On the
1780
one hand, the cry in Scotland is for a better economy; on the other hand, the United Kingdom says that you cannot have fiscal, tax and other advantages that would be disruptive to the United Kingdom, and the only way to establish such would be behind a Customs wall, which means separation. So the Bill comes down on the side of a horrible sort of hybrid compromise. We know that, fundamentally, no amount of incentives to industry are as important as the level of inflation, the control of the money supply and the banking system, which is the economic case for United Kingdom coherency. Having said that, we therefore get the attempt to try to compromise some regional advantages to Scotland within a unitary economic system, and hence this extraordinary guideline business.
I should like to support very much what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said in asking for some indication as to the kind of guidelines that are to be given. Can we know what the Government's thinking is, if not tonight then the next time the Committee meets? For example, there are questions about the location of industry and regional development which are to some extent questions of financial and other fiscal incentives, coupled with questions relating to the development of the infrastructure. Will it be possible? Will the guidelines make it possible for Scotland to offer differential incentives to incoming industry? We realise no tax differential is possible unless or until the Assembly has taxation powers, but, meantime, will the guidelines make it possible for differential incentives to be offered to industry?
Furthermore, will it be possible to widen the definition of industry? Up to now it has been manufacturing industry. What about service industry, what about commercial enterprise, what about office development, what about the improvement of communications? These are all matters which are very germane to the economic health of Scotland, on the one hand, and, on the other, the ability to develop a neglected region of the country within the structure of a coherent unitary economic system. They are matters which are very relevant to the various sub-headings of this clause and the related Schedule; and I think we are entitled to have some idea as to the sort

1781
of guidelines, relevant to the points I have mentioned, which will be forthcoming and, indeed, as to what is the Government's thinking.
At present we are invited to say: "There shall be guidelines!". You might say, "There shall be fresh air; there shall be whisky galore; there shall be all sorts of things!". Seriously, let us know what the Government have in mind. We are not trying to be negative; and, certainly, when the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is on the Front Bench preparing to reply, he elicits from me a sympathetic approach rather than the somewhat abrasive approach elicited from me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I am not trying to "needle" him or to be awkward or to put negative questions. But I think we are entitled to some sort of indication of the Government's thinking and intentions.
10.41 p.m.
Lord KIR KHILL: It has become evident from all that has been said thus far in relation to this Amendment that noble Lords would appreciate a very clear, and I hope concise, expression of the Government thinking on this very important matter. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in placing this Amendment before the Committee has done all of us a signal service. I will attempt—but I must crave the indulgence of noble Lords on this—to express the Government's view. This occasions my reading at some length; I apologise beforehand for so doing, but I think that it is necessary, in so far as it is possible, to dot the i's and cross the t's. This is what has been asked of me. Whether or not it will enable the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, subsequently to feel less or more disappointed or of a comparatively happier disposition, the next ten minutes will show.
This is the first of a number of Amendments, as the Committee will realise, relating to industrial and economic guidelines. I think that they apply in three broad areas: the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and in the more general area of the disposal of premises or land for industrial purposes. It has been made perfectly clear on many
1782
occasions that the Government intend to retain responsibility for regional and industrial policy. But it has also been made clear that, in the Government's view, it is entirely appropriate that the Scottish Administration should become responsible for certain functions of the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board which are purely Scottish bodies with an important role to play in aspects of Scottish life extending beyond matters of regional and industrial policy. To cater for this, the Government have provided arrangements in the Bill under which the administration of these bodies by the Scottish Administration will be subject to guidelines. This is the point at which we begin to discuss these matters.
The aim of the guidelines is to avoid unfair distortions of competition by ensuring that assistance to industries is provided on comparable terms throughout Great Britain, having regard to the different needs and problems of different parts. They will also prevent the bidding up of assistance to firms which could lead to demands for retaliation from other parts of the country and erosion of the Government's policies and also, potentially, to difficulties with the European Commission.
The way in which the guidelines will work is that they will be transmitted from the Government to the Scottish Administration, and subsection (4) of Clause 38 obliges the Scottish Administration to use its powers to give directions, approvals, et cetera, to the Scottish Development Agency and the 1-1IDB and, in relation to the disposal of premises, to those bodies and also to local authorities and new town development corporations in such a way as to give effect to the guidelines.
The implementation of the guidelines and the enforcement of the resulting directions are thus devolved but the Government will have reserved powers to ensure that the guidelines are observed. In particular, Clause 36(1) empowers the Secretary of State to direct the Scottish Administration to use their powers to secure compliance of the guidelines. Subsection (5) of Clause 38 provides that the guidelines must either be contained in an order of the Secretary of State or determined under that order. This means, I am advised, that the main guidelines

1783
will be published in the Statutory Instrument, but that there is also some flexibility to permit more detailed material, for example material concerning minimum interest rates which must reflect changing commercial rates, to be altered from time to time without the need for an amending Statutory Instrument each time. The orders will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure under subsection (6) of Clause 38.
I think that it would be helpful towards a better understanding of the purposes of the guidelines if I sought to explain how they are intended to affect the three different areas in which they apply. Indeed, noble Lords have asked me to do that. First, the Scottish Development Agency. Section 2(2) of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 sets out the Agency's functions. The first three functions in that enactment are to be covered by guidelines under subsection 1(a) of the clause. These functions are:
"(a) providing or assisting in the provision of finance to persons carrying on or intending to carry on industrial undertakings;
(b) carrying on, or establishing and carrying on, whether by themselves or jointly with any other person, industrial undertakings;
(c) otherwise promoting or assisting the establishment, growth, reorganisation, modernisation or development of industry or any undertaking in an industry ".
If these functions were carried out in such a way as to provide assistance to industry on more generous terms than those available elsewhere, it would undermine the Government's regional policies and adversely affect industry in other parts of the country. The guidelines will ensure that this does not happen. The wording of the subsection covers these three functions in the constituting enactment. Reports on these "guideline" functions are to be sent to the Secretary of State as well as to the Scottish Administration and will be laid before Parliament as well as the Assembly. This is the effect of paragraph 47 of Schedule 16 and it will enable Parliament to monitor the effect of the guidelines.
It is intended that the guidelines should oblige the Scottish Administration to require the SDA to continue to operate in a commercial manner and hence to invest in viable projects which are expected to provide a reasonable commercial return over a period. It will, however, be able
1784
to take a longer term view than private sources of finance. The guidelines will therefore cover such matters as: target rates of return; minimum interest rates on loans made by the Agency; and circumstances in which the Agency may make grants.
In addition, the guidelines will provide for the observance by the Agency of proper standards of commercial behaviour —for example, avoiding giving any unfair advantage to companies in which they have an interest in competition with other companies. The Scottish Development Agency is already working to similar conditions to these and, in England, the National Enterprise Board is required to observe guidelines on similar lines.
The powers under Section 5 of the Scottish Development Agency Act, which permit the Secretary of State to direct the Agency to exercise his powers of selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972, are excluded from groups in Schedules 10 and 11 and are not, therefore, within the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly or the executive powers of the Scottish Executive. No guidelines are, therefore, needed for this reserved matter. The environmental and derelict land functions of the Agency are fully devolved in Group 6 (Land use and development) of Schedule 10 to the Bill. Guidelines are not necessary because the exercise of these functions could not be used unfairly to distort competition or to bid up incentives to industry.
As regards the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Administration will be responsible for both the economic and social development functions of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. "Economic development" is not, in general, a devolved matter under Schedules 10 and 11, and subsection (1)(b) of Clause 38 provides that guidelines will be made relating to these functions of the Board, but not to its social development activities. The guidelines will serve the same broad purpose as those for the Scottish Development Agency in subsection (1)(a). They are designed to ensure that there can be no conflict between the economic development activities of the Board, for which the Scottish Administration will be responsible, and the Government's national economic policies for the whole of Great Britain.

1785
The procedures for these guidelines are the same as those for the Scottish Development Agency, and reports on the "guideline" functions of the Board will be sent to the Secretary of State as well as to a Scottish Secretary: this is provided for in paragraph 18 of Schedule 16. The Board has wide powers to give selective assistance to industry, to make investments, and to carry on businesses, and the guidelines will, therefore, cover matters such as criteria for considering applications for financial assistance for industrial and commercial enterprises, overall limits of assistance in individual cases, whether by grant or by loan, and terms of loans.
The third area for the guidelines is the disposal of premises or other land for industrial purposes. The guidelines relating to disposal of premises or other land for industrial purposes will nave the same aim as other industrial and economic guidelines: to prevent unfair competition and bidding up of industrial assistance. If public bodies in Scotland with powers to dispose of industrial property were permitted to do so on terms involving a greater degree of financial assistance than was available to industry in comparable other parts of Great Britain, this would constitute a significant new regional incentive. Such an arrangement could undercut the Government's regional policies and lead to irresistible pressure for similar measures elsewhere. The aim of the guidelines will be to secure broad comparability of disposal terms throughout Great Britain.
The disposal guidelines will apply to all public bodies capable of exercising this land disposal function. Subsection (2) of Clause 38 lists these bodies. They at present cover local authorities and the new town development corporations in addition to the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The enactments concerned are listed in Schedule 7. Subsection (3) of the clause ensures that if the Scottish Assembly equips other bodies with equivalent land disposal functions the Secretary of State will have powers to extend the guidelines to the exercise of the Administration's powers in relation to these bodies.
If I may turn now to Amendment No. 336 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, what I have said will' I hope,
1786
have made it clear that the provisions of Clause 38, as they stand, are an essential feature of the arrangements for the future administration of the industrial functions of the Scottish Development Agency, the economic development functions of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the industrial land functions of various other public bodies.
I have explained in some detail the kind of matters to be covered in the guidelines, and this will, I think, have served to demonstrate that there is no room for effective consultation between the Government and the Scottish Executive about the essential contents of the guidelines, as distinct from points of detail.
As a matter of practice, it would be very strange indeed if the Government did not consult the Scottish Administration, which at that stage would be a "shadow" Administration still to assume its full executive powers in the course of preparation of guidelines, and again later before any changes were made to them. The Government expect that regular consultations will take place at the appropriate level on all matters of common interest, initiated by themselves or by the Scottish Administration, as appropriate. The Government have already announced their intention to propose arrangements for consultations of a more formal kind. This assurance which I give to your Lordships may, in part at least, reassure the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
If I may elaborate, in his Statement in another place on 26th July 1977, which was repeated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in your Lordships' House, the Lord President of the Council said:
"Additionally, on the establishment of the new administrations, it is the Government's intention to seek their agreement to the establishment of Joint Councils for Scotland and for Wales, on which representatives of the Government and the new administrations could consult as necessary on matters of common concern. These would provide a valuable means of ensuring continuing co-operation and consultation."— [Official Report, Commons, 26/7/77; col. 315.1
The Government consider that the arrangements for consultation should rest on this non-statutory basis. it is not practicable to specify all the circumstances in which consultation will be desirable, or even essential, for the

1787
working of devolution. To pick out certain instances could only throw doubt on the importance of consultation in others, and could provide scope for challenge as to the propriety of action taken by Ministers in particular cases, by encouraging arguments as to whether or not contacts which had taken place amounted to statutory consultation.
The inclusion of a statutory consultation requirement in Clause 38 would be a cause of particular embarrassment, if it resulted in the impression that the intention was that the guidelines should be, in effect, agreed between the Government and the Scottish Administration. The guidelines will, in practice, delineate the boundaries of the executive discretion to be available to the Scottish Administration on matters of great political sensitivity. The form of the guidelines, and the manner in which they operate, will be closely watched by those concerned with industrial development in the English regions and other counties of the United Kingdom. It should, therefore, be clear, without scope for misunderstanding, that they are in a statutory sense the responsibility of the Government and Parliament and of no one else.
The Government are therefore unable to accept the noble Earl's Amendment, because of the difficulties which it could raise in the context of consultations on many other important matters, and because of the particular importance of making it clear to people throughout the United Kingdom that the guidelines are entirely the responsibility of the Government and Parliament, acting in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and taking into account the interests of all its parts.
That is a rather extended reply. I think that it is as complete a reply as I can give at this stage. But there were a number of specific points put to me before I rose to speak. May I say, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in an attempt to be as helpful as I can at this stage, that the economic functions of the Scottish Development Agency are devolved executively in Schedule 11. In regard to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the powers are devolved executively in Schedule 11, Group D. The reference to Schedule 10 concerns legislative corm
1788
petence. That is to be found at page 58. This means that the Assembly will have no power to alter the existing legislation on the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked me two specific points. The key Schedules defining devolved matters are Schedules 10 and 11. The other references to the HIDB and the SDA Acts in this Schedule are incidental and do not relate to what is and what is not devolved. The HIDB are listed in Schedule 7 because, under Schedule 11, all existing executive powers are devolved. These include the powers of Ministers to approve in certain circumstances the terms on which land is disposed of, and enactments conferring such powers are listed in Schedule 7. t apologise again to the Committee for being somewhat lengthy—perhaps more verbose than is my wont but your Lordships wanted, I thought and felt, the Government's thinking to be clearly on the record.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: May I intervene for one moment at this juncture. The noble Lord was certainly not lying when he said that he had made an extended reply. Obviously this is a very complicated matter. It would even have taxed the powers of comprehension of all our legal friends, most of whom have had the sense to go home. May I make a suggestion, therefore, to the Government: that this evening we should not attempt to take the clause stand part debate on this clause, which would give a chance to those noble Lords who are interested in this complicated and important subject to read the noble Lord's extended reply and then come back to him with points which are still unresolved at a later date. We have time to go through the Amendments all the same.
Lord KIRKHILL: I am always willing to accept what appears to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and of course I quite agree with that suggestion.
11.3 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like to make one or two comments. First, I am reminded that I should declare an interest before the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, puts me in the "cooler" for six months. I am the chairman of a firm in

1789
the far North of Scotland—Caithness Glass—which has the HIDB as a minority shareholder. The HIDB have loaned us some money which we have repaid, and this year I am happy to say that we are paying them 15 per cent. on the money which they have invested in ordinary shares --which miracle has not, I understand, happened in the case of any of the other companies in the Highlands in which they have invested. I say this not only to declare an interest but also to declare some knowledge. I was perturbed by the guidelines, and I am well aware of the political sensitivity or jealousy, to use another word, which this subject invokes.
If we are to lay down substantially, I think the noble Lord said, the same guidelines for the HIDB as regards conditions of loan as we are for the SDA, then it will be wrong. We have to vary those conditions in the case of the Highlands and Islands. I can tell the noble Lord from my own experience that it is infinitely more difficult to develop a factory in Wick than it is to develop one in Perth. Again I have to declare an interest. We hope to rent a factory from the SDA in Perth as well.
The levelling out of the inducements allowed to be given throughout the United Kingdom must be wrong. I hope that the Government will consider doing something about this, or at least that they will be able to vary somewhat the inducements as between the different areas. I should have thought that the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, about the total amount of money allowed for different areas was surely fair. If one region is able to offer certain inducements as against another, then it is open to another region to vary its inducements in the same way.
However, when you come to attract to an area this essential thing, which is first-class young managers, there is a whole degree of different inducements which will bring them there. The most important thing you can do in starting a new business anywhere is to get the right man to run it, otherwise all the other things matter not at all. I know perfectly well from my experience in the Highlands that we have had very good men wanting to come to Wick, for example; they bring up their wives and they run a mile when they see the place. Others may like it, but it is twice as difficult and there are more
1790
factors to be overcome in trying to get good people into an area which is remote from their normal environment, however beautiful it may he. They also have a large amount of extra expense.
For this reason alone, I think the standard guidelines must be wrong. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the guidelines will not be that standard that one cannot vary; for example, conditions between areas of the Highlands and areas close to a good aerodrome beside Edinburgh. What I fear is that what the noble Lord has told us so far merely confirms my fears that these guidelines will be a grave hindrance to the development of industry in Scotland.
Lord BROWN: I should like to make a small contribution through some knowledge of the working of the 1972 Industry Act. When I heard the proposers of the Amendment and those who followed, I thought to myself, "My goodness, this argument sounds right and if there is a Division I may have to vote against the Government on it"; but when I heard my noble friend's reply from the Front Bench it awoke in my mind certain views which I should like to put before your Lordships, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. It may not be known to him that every one of the schemes to help industry under the 1972 Industry Act has to be approved by the EEC. As a member of a Party which has always been keen for us to continue membership of the EEC, the noble Lord must know that the EEC is hell-bent on equalising conditions throughout the countries which are members. That is for a good reason.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The EEC has special schemes for areas of social deprivation.
Lord BROWN: That is so, and I have no doubt that the result of the EEC recognising such areas of deprivation would feed through to the Scottish Development Agency, and so on. I do not think that is really a main point of argument. The point is that, unless one gets some equalisation of incentive from the members of the Common Market and, at the same time, from the Scottish Assembly, there will be an increase of the present activity where great international

1791
investment projects are, as the saying goes, "internationally mobile". That is the position which exists at the moment, and one country after another offers to these international companies increasingly large incentives out of the taxpayers' pocket to try to induce them to come and invest their money in a particular country.
We are putting international corporations into a situation where they cannot resist the temptation, when they have a large extra plant to build, to tout countries to see where they can get the biggest boost from the taxpayers' resources. It seems to me to be quite clear that, regrettable as it may be that the Scottish Assembly will not have the degree of discretion over the way in which they use such monies as are made available to them, to create a situation in Scotland which is directly contrary to the principles which the Commission are trying, rather unsuccessfully, to follow, and which would be contrary to the principles of the giving of aid to companies in England, would be regarded by everybody South of the Border as the most grossly unfair thing which one could possibly imagine; and in the long run it would not help Scotland.
I agree it is true that the Ulster Administration had these powers and, as a Scot with connections in the West of Scotland, I was made well aware of it at times by the fact that competing incentives offered by the Ulster Government which could not be offered in Scotland attracted investments out of Scotland into Northern Ireland. The noble Lord is probably aware of this. We cannot go on with this competition with taxpayers' funds for ever. I found the arguments used by my noble friend very convincing, and if there were to be a Division f would certainly vote with my Party.
11.10 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, as I expect he is going to do, may I say something to the noble Lord, Lord Brown? I remember very well the Highlands and Islands Development Board Act being introduced in 1964. It started in this House. The whole purpose of it was to give differential incentives to the Highlands and Islands. This remains so.
1792
If it can be done for Northern Ireland, it can be done for any section of the United Kingdom. I am only saying this because I am not sure the noble Lord will be here at the start of discussion when we next reassemble. I should like to study very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said, and I should like to intervene again on the Question that the clause stand part.
The Duke of ATHOLL: The more this goes on the more convinced I become that it will be a disaster if this Bill goes through. I would ask the noble Lord one quick question. What is to prevent the Scottish Secretary and the Scottish Assembly setting up another body which can make grants to attract industries to Scotland? So far as I can see, these guidelines apply only to the SDA and the Highlands and Islands Development Board and to the sale of industrial land. I imagine somewhere in the Bill is a prohibition on them setting up what might be called a Scottish Economic Development Council, or something like that, for the purpose of getting round this particular clause. I myself have no objection to this clause.
Lord KIRKHILL: There is no prohibition in the Bill at that point. The Scottish Assembly will be determining its policies in many directions once it assembles.
Lord BURTON: Could I ask the noble Lord one question? He may have explained it, but I did not catch it. On page 58 at Schedule 10 it would appear to insinuate that nothing in relation to the Highlands and Islands Development Board is delegated, so the Highlands and Islands Development Acts 1965 and 1968 are not included in the matters delegated. I may have got it wrong.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord for revealing as much as he has from behind the dark curtain of which we are still substantially ignorant. There is rather a euphemism in the word, "guidelines"; it should be directions and powers. That is really what it is. It is giving clear-cut instructions as to what he is to do and what powers he shall have. I take it this money, which will be from the block grant, will be included when this comes

1793
to be considered, and I take it the Highlands and Islands Board and the Scottish Development Agency will be responsible to two bodies, the Secretary of State and the Executive. I wonder whether we could not be told which of the powers it is proposed to give. I looked at Schedule 7, and it mentions several clauses, but really it is utterly obscure. Even if you arc giving the Executive powers in those clauses, what is intended? Are we going to be told a little more. I think it is desirable that we should be told. I am not underestimating our gratitude to the noble Lord for telling us as much as he has; I feel much wiser than I was two minutes ago. But I wonder whether we can be told a little more of what is intended.
Lord KIRKHILL: Might I say quickly, in reply to the noble Earl, that I should have thought that that was perhaps as comprehensive a statement as this House has heard from a Government Minister for a long time. I am reluctant to say that I am going to tell the noble Lord anything more, when I say to Lord Burton that I did reply to the point that he made. I replied earlier to the point made by Me noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. If he will look at the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that that point was covered. May I make one point more before I resume my seat, I hope finally. The guidelines for the HIDB will not necessarily be the same as the guidelines for the Scottish Development Agency. That is a point worth making.
The Earl of PERTH: I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on the Amendment, because it is a very important Amendment, as we have all heard. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for giving us such a full explanation of what are the proposed guidelines. The more I heard of them the more I became depressed, and the more I felt, with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that they are not guidelines at all. They are instructions. They are orders to the Secretary of State, the First Secretary, or the Secretaries of the Assembly.
There are powers of enforcement and powers to insist that this, that, or the other thing may be done. As I understand it, there is really very little power
1794
left to the Assembly or to a Secretary to do what they think is right for the development of the economy of Scotland. The noble Lord made great play with the fact that there must not be unfair distortions; there must not be bidding up. If you do one thing for Scotland, then that might be true; that might be fair, the one thing being an equalisation of transport costs throughout the country. But you seem to be totally unaware of this fact.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board and most of Scotland are greatly handicapped by the enormous differences in costs. "Oh, but we must not bid up. We must not be unfair to the rest of the country". If I had to say who was unfair, I would say that the Government over the past years have been wholly unfair to Scotland in relation to such matters as subsidies and the building of the motorways, all to the benefit of the other parts of the country, and not to Scotland. This to me is the position and yet it is said: "We must not be unfair; we must not distort". That is not being realistic on what it is all about.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, said that we must conform with what the EEC is up to. If I recall rightly, the EEC is only too ready at one time or another to encourage those areas which are handicapped for one reason or another. We all know that in the middle of Italy, or Southern Italy, they give every encouragement to remedy distortion and unfairness. But that is not really unfair or distorted. It is perfectly proper, given the handicaps under which they operate.
I am really deeply distressed at, as I think, the misleading features of this clause. We are told that they are guidelines. We were hoping that the Scottish Development Agency could carry out promotion, financing, establishment, growth, reorganisation, modernisation or development of industry, or industrial undertakings. That all reads very well, but we must not do it if it is going to give us any compensation for our handicaps elsewhere. I think that this clause, as it stands, is misleading. It will give great disappointment to those who believe that the Government were trying to do something to set up an Assembly which will help Scotland in its economic reconstruction.

1795
I come back to my Amendment. I would say this: on the question of not allowing consultation, I think that the noble Lord said that it would be embarrassing. I hope that it will be embarrassing. Why would that be embarrassing? Because the Government could not face up to criticism. I think he gives the excuse that we cannot consult with the First Secretary or with the Assembly because it would be embarrassing. It is really one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard. Having spoken with considerable feeling about this, I do not propose at this late hour to move my Amendment to a Division, more particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, made what seemed to me to be an eminently constructive suggestion; namely, that we should consider this later when the Question comes up, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
So far as I am concerned, in the next day or so I shall try to study what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, but I doubt that I am going to find anything to be satisfactory. While we may not be able to go further on it during this Committee stage, I certainly have it in mind, in the light of what I have heard tonight, to move something different at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la and referred to the Examiners.
  BROOK ADVISORY CENTRES: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
  BROOK ADVISORY CENTRES: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS