Sitting of 22 February 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Marcus Lipton, Esquire, CBE, JP, Member for Lambeth, Central, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Rhodes Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates have been made of the total monthly costs of a United Nations peacekeeping force in Rhodesia; what proportion of those costs would be met by Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): These estimates must depend on decisions which would have to be taken by the Security Council. The size and extent of any United Nations involvement, anyhow, depends on the nature of any ceasefire agreement.
    Mr. Rhodes James: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Can he indicate whether the Government still consider that this is a practical possibility? Is he aware of the considerable difficulties already facing the United Nations in its other peacekeeping activities?
    Dr. Owen: I am aware from our experiences in Cyprus that the cost of
    1408
    peacekeeping is a considerable problem. Under discussion is the possibility of using the United Nations in Namibia in a peacekeeping role, and in Rhodesia. Some people believe that there is also a possible role in the Horn of Africa. All of these would stretch the limited resources of the Secretariat, probably to the limit. There is a role for the United Nations, not always in a force presence but in an observer capacity—to see free and fair elections, for example.
    Mr. Hooley: Whatever the cost in money, does my right hon. Friend agree that the advantages of achieving a peaceful transition to constitutional rule in Rhodesia would be enormous? Does he agree that we badly need support for the United Nations peacekeeping efforts in various parts of the world and not continual criticisms and objections?
    Dr. Owen: I agree that the United Nations has a very important role. I do not believe that questions of finance should be the dominant issue when deciding this. For instance, in the talks that I had in New York recently about a peacekeeping force to go to Namibia, one of the anxieties expressed by SWAPO was that permanent members would use their financial interests to restrict the level of forces. We made clear that we would support whatever level of support the Secretary-General thought appropriate for Namibia.
    Mrs. Knight: Before a United Nations peacekeeping force can go into a country, the agreement of the Government of that country is required. Has the Foreign Secretary had any talks with Mr. Smith on that issue?
    Dr. Owen: General Prem Chand accompanied Lord Carver to Salisbury and discussed this with all the parties there. It is true that a ceasefire is the only circumstance in which the United Nations peacekeeping force would go in. I have never tried to hide the fact that I believe that it is ambitious to seek a ceasefire, particularly between two armies neither of which has won or lost.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the various negotiations about Rhodesia.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will refuse to recognise any internal agreement in Rhodesia that does not embrace the principle of one man, one vote.
    Dr. Owen: This week I have been seeing the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole and we have been in contact with representatives of Bishop Muzorewa. I am speaking this afternoon to the United States Administration and I hope to continue private and public discussions with all parties to the dispute to try to widen and build on the existing areas of agreement.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Government endorse a settlement that is within the Six Principles and which enables the people of Rhodesia democratically to elect a majority-rule Government? On a settlement being reached, will they end sanctions? If not, why not?
    Dr. Owen: As the House knows, successive Governments have fully supported the Six Principles. The first four are not as appropriate as they might have been when first drafted, because events have moved on. The whole objective is contained in the fifth and sixth principles. The lifting of sanctions is an issue for the United Nations.
    Mr. Molloy: If, as reported, my right hon. Friend may be meeting Mr. Richard Moose, of the United States State Department, to discuss the problem of Rhodesia, will it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to consider calling a meeting with Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe and persuade them, even at this late hour, to join the talks on the future of their country? In all fairness, they ought to be offered the opportunity for the Patriotic Front to join the forces of the new Zimbabwe.
    Dr. Owen: It has been a central objective of mine, despite all the difficulties, to get all the nationalist leaders together. I agree with my hon. Friend that even at this stage it is worth trying to get greater unity among the nationalist movement, in which event we shall be able to ensure a ceasefire and peaceful
    1410
    election period. That is a prize which we must all fight for.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the voting formula that has emerged from the internal talks is not in accord with the Six Principles that had previously been accepted by both parties to this dispute during the past 12 years? If there is to be a departure from the Six Principles, should not we be made aware of it?
    Dr. Owen: As my hon. Friend knows, the sixth principle protects the rights of minorities. It is because of the protection of the rights of minorities that we ourselves proposed specially elected Members. The anxiety that has been caused, both in Rhodesia and outside, concerns the large number of specially elected representatives—28—but it appears that there will be agreement that those 28 will never form the Government of Zimbabwe. That would avoid the situation of those 28 Members being able to link up with a minority to subvert the results of the election. I also think it important that those 28 Members should not elect a President of Zimbabwe or be able to impeach the President of Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: We agree—I think that the right hon. Gentleman agrees, also—that any settlement has to be based on democracy. Would the Foreign Secretary like to hazard a guess about the potential vote of Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo? Does he seriously think that there is the least chance of their joining in with any settlement while the Western world, the international community and the United Kingdom Government are in a total state of indecision?
    Dr. Owen: I would not like to hazard a guess about that, nor would I like to hazard a guess about the vote that the hon. Gentleman will get at the next General Election. I suspect that he would not hazard a guess with regard to what my vote will be at the next General Election.
    Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the things which concerns the Patriotic Front is the question of an amnesty for Mr. Smith and his associates? Does he agree that it is as psychologically impossible to expect African nationalists who have been

    1411
    imprisoned, tortured and seen their friends executed by Smith and his friends over the last 12 years to grant an amnesty as it would have been to expect the Free French to give an amnesty to Petain?
    Dr. Owen: The amnesty was part of the proposals put before the House in the Command Paper. I believe that if we are to get a peaceful settlement for an independent Zimbabwe we shall have to turn that page of history and not look back. Although I accept that it is asking a great deal of people to accept an amnesty, I am convinced that an amnesty is an essential ingredient for a new independent and stable Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Amery: I hesitate to give the Foreign Secretary advice or guidance, but may I suggest to him that his blatant advocacy of the Patriotic Front, has only made it put up its terms? If he wants to bring in the Patriotic Front he would do better not to run after it. I should also like to venture to correct one of his statements—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? He may do that in the form of a question.
    Mr. Amery: May I also ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that when he said that the issue of sanctions was a matter for the United Nations it was almost a contempt of this House, because if this House does not renew the sanctions order in the autumn there will be no sanctions?
    Dr. Owen: There will be no sanctions at all in the United Kingdom, but that is a very different question. If I understood the question, it related to the renewal of sanctions under the mandatory order of the United Nations, of which we are a member.
    As to my "blatant advocacy", I am an unrepentant believer that it is my task to try to bring all the nationalist leaders together, despite the attacks that are frequently made. The right hon. Gentleman has not been slow in coming forward on this issue. I shall continue to try to get Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe to recognise the need for a peaceful settlement, but not, as I have made clear, to give them a veto.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is not the essence of the Six Principles that any settlement
    1412
    should be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe as a whole? Does my right hon. Friend think that the present arrangements give anything like adequate coverage to those people in Zimbabwe who support the Patriotic Front?
    Dr. Owen: It is difficult to make a judgment of what is or is not acceptable until the people of Zimbabwe have made their view clear. It is for the people as a whole to come to a decision, because, as my hon. Friend knows, there are still very important discussions going on and quite obvious disagreements on major issues, such as whether the transitional Government will reflect the balance of the executive council, as has been asked for, as I understand it, by Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and Chief Chirau. There is some dispute about the nature of the transitional Government. The greater the extent to which the world can see a movement towards black majority government, the more credible it will be.
    Mr. John Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the House welcomes what appears to be the markedly more conciliatory tone that he has adopted today to the whole question of an internal settlement? Will he also take advantage of his discussions with the United States representative this afternoon to make clear that careful reflection and consideration of the whole matter is desirable before giving vent to what might be very damaging statements?
    Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. On Thursday I suggested that careful consideration and thought would provoke a thoughtful response, and I did not get the understanding from Conservative Benches that I have received today. In the light of the events of the past few days, more people have come to recognise that my initial response of caution was wise.

    Nuclear Suppliers' Group
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in the light of the guidelines recently agreed and published by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): The Government's policy is to ensure that exports of nuclear material and technology can be used only for peaceful purposes. We have succeeded, with the other 14 members of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, in preparing guidelines which form a minimum agreed standard for this policy. The Nuclear Suppliers' Group will continue, in our view, to have a useful role, under United Kingdom chairmanship, in strengthening international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome that statement. Does the Minister agree that all these efforts in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group are little more than a brave but belated attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable? What are the provisions, in the event of a violation of the guidelines, for members to act? Is it a question of unanimity or of carrying along as many suppliers as possible?
    Mr. Luard: I cannot agree that these efforts are of no value. They represent a valuable minimum standard. I hope that we shall see them applied as widely as possible. At present they apply to members of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. They have been notified to the International Atomic Energy Authority and we hope that as many other Governments as possible, including those that may become nuclear Powers in the future, will adopt the same policy for nuclear exports.

    Human Rights (Helsinki Final Act)
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made at the Belgrade conference on the issue of human rights.
    Dr. Owen: Not a great deal. I would, however, claim that for the first time ever all countries that signed the Helsinki Final Act have had their record on human rights systematically examined and criticised and have been given an opportunity to respond.
    Mr. Sims: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply, limited though it has to be. Has he seen the report this morning about the arrest of the eighteenth member of the so-called Helsinki Group
    1414
    in Russia, Mr. Vins, whose name is likely to be added to the list of Scharansky, Ginsberg, Orlov and many others whose names we do not know and who are imprisoned without trial in Russia? When the right hon. Gentleman took office, he made a robust speech on human rights. Will he confirm that this is still the Government's policy.
    Dr. Owen: Yes, Sir. I stand by every word of that speech. I have repeated many of those views since. I do not believe that any of us would accept that it could be an offence to monitor the progress of the Helsinki Final Act, which was signed by the Heads of Government of all the attendant States. Therefore, one would have expected all the member States to give facilities for people to monitor the implementaton of the Final Act, but they have not been given in a number of the member States.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Was anything said about the proposal in Great Britain to withdraw the human right of a woman to live with her husband here in this country?
    Dr. Owen: I do not think that that specific issue was raised, but our record on human rights was subjected to criticism, and rightly so. If the Belgrade Review Conference is to have any success, all member States should accept scrutiny and criticism. We were criticised for some of the things that have occurred in the United Kingdom, and rightly so. We rebutted those criticisms. I regret that we have not made progress on human rights in the sense that we can achieve, at the end, a communique which will reaffirm in a way that I would like a commitment to human rights.
    Mr. Blaker: Has the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Government of the Soviet Union that they cannot expect to pick and choose which parts of the Helsinki agreement they observe and which they do not? They should not expect to benefit from the economic sections of Helsinki if they flagrantly break the human rights sections.
    Dr. Owen: It has always been part of our policy that the Helsinki Final Act must be seen as a whole, in all its aspects. That is why we have been willing to discuss the military confidence-building measures, and scientific and technological

    1415
    exchange and communication, but have also insisted on human rights. The Soviet Union on a number of occasions seemed to resent the fact that human rights were legitimately discussed under the Final Act.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Soviet Union has stonewalled consistently at Belgrade, that it is vital that there should be mention of human rights in the final statement, and that to have no such statement would be an absolute mockery of the Helsinki agreement?
    Dr. Owen: I think that the final statement will reflect that. We have not been able to reach massive agreement, but I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that I prefer that to a cosmetic communiqué which pretends that there is more agreement than there is. I prefer to live to discuss these matters another day, to go to Madrid and cover the same ground, hoping that by then there will have been further progress towards implementing the Final Act.
    Mr. John Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but will he confirm that in ensuring that there should be a continuation of the dialogue and discussion he will not let the Government be drawn into being party to such an emasculated statement, after the Belgrade conference, as to undermine people's confidence in their defence of human rights?
    Dr. Owen: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "emasculated statement". If one fails to agree, one will effectively end up with a minimalist statement, virtually saying that one has met. If it is to be an agreed communiqué, it will not cover many of the grounds. What we have done is to table the sort of communiqué that we, the Western Powers, think should have been the accumulation of our efforts. Unfortunately, the full realisation is not likely to be so successful.
    Mr. John Davies: Yes, but a communiqué would not be invalid which rehearsed on the one side our views of what the conclusion should be and on the other the Soviet Union's rebuttal. To my mind, that would not be an emasculated statement and would therefore be a valid one.
    Dr. Owen: I agree, but at present that sort of statement does not look as though it can be achieved. It is not finalised yet, but I think that it will be a fairly bare statement of fact.

    Disarmament (United Nations Special Session)
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the forthcoming Special Session on disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he will make when he attends the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this spring.
    Dr. Owen: The Government attach great importance to the Special Session. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will speak, and I will accompany him.
    On 1st February in the United Nations we tabled, with a number of Western co-sponsors, a draft for the Programme of Action, which will probably be the most important document adopted by the Special Session. I shall circulate our draft proposal in the Official Report. This was prepared in consultation with friendly Governments, with non-governmental organisations in Britain and with the Advisory Panel on Disarmament, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) is a member.
    Mr. Cook: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the importance that the Government attach to the Special Session in particular and the considerable work that has gone into the draft Programme of Action are very much appreciated? As one of the matters to be discussed in New York is the conventional trade in arms, however, does not my right hon. Friend think that his own position at New York would be much strengthened if he could persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence not to hold an international exhibition of arms available for export from Britain at the very time when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be addressing the conference in New York?
    Dr. Owen: This is no more than an ongoing part of British policy, which is to sell arms to those countries where we think it will not affect the balance in a particular region. The real question is whether we can achieve a multilateral agreement to reduce arms sales, particularly among some of the Western industrialised Powers, to follow up the initiative started by President Carter to try to achieve some voluntary limitation.
    Mr. Jenkins: Apart from the question of armaments sales, which some of us on the Labour Benches wish was not part of Her Majesty's Government's policy, will my right hon. Friend suggest to the American Government that their decision to go ahead with a massive programme of rearmament is a poor preliminary to the conference, and suggest that they hold their horses a little while until the conference is over, when they might be able to modify the programme to some degree?
    Dr. Owen: The United States and British Governments are involved in detailed negotiations on a comprehensive test ban. The United States has tabled very ambitious proposals for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and I believe that it will achieve a SALT agreement this year. It is showing in a number of areas that it is genuine in its intent to have serious disarmament measures, as, indeed, we are. What we are not in favour of is cosmetic or propaganda disarmament statements.
    Mr. Kershaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the country will have heard with relief yesterday what the Prime Minister said about his estimation of Russian progress with very dangerous weapons such as the SS 20, and will he avoid allowing himself to be boxed in to any kind of corner by propaganda in this matter but make sure that the people realise what the Russian position really is?
    Dr. Owen: We shall state the factual position of the arms race clearly and unequivocally to the House. However, we shall be constantly working for sensible multilateral disarmament measures—the policy which will safeguard the interests of this country and the world.
    Mr. Faulds: What contribution does my right hon. Friend think the latest
    1418
    French proposals will make to the discussion of disarmament?
    Dr. Owen: It is rather early to analyse them. Until after the French election it will be difficult to enter into the sort of detailed negotiations that I should like to see on them. The views of the French Socialist Party, expressed in fighting the election, show that there is a greater readiness by the French to enter into discussions on disarmament, particularly in Central Europe, than hitherto.
    Mr. Luce: I attach the greatest possible importance to the proposed Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament, but is it not self-evident to the Secretary of State that one major threat to peace is the lack of military balance between East and West, and that the Soviet criticism of the proposed deployment of the essentially defensive neutron bomb in Europe is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the Soviet Union is developing a wide range of devastatingly dangerous aggressive weapons, such as the SS 20? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear these factors in mind?
    Dr. Owen: Certainly the Soviet Union's protests about the enhanced radiation weapon would carry a great deal more conviction if they were not accompanied by a substantial increase of its gross national product devoted to defence and the introduction of a whole range of new weapons.
    Following is the document:
    DRAFT PROGRAMME OF ACTION ON DISARMAMENT FOR THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
    Put forward at the UN on 1st February 1978 by the United Kingdom and other Western states.
    I. GENERAL
    The states members of the United Nations at the Eighth Special Session of the General Assembly solemnly affirm that their ultimate goal is general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. They recognise that this goal requires an increase in international confidence and security to remove the incentive for states to acquire weapons and to encourage them to reduce these from present levels. The states members therefore believe that a serious world-wide disarmament strategy must be accompanied by a greater and sustained effort to eliminate the sources of tension and injustice in the world and to increase the effectiveness of international machinery in the United Nations and elsewhere

    1419
    for the peaceful settlement of disputes: to uphold the international rule of law: and to promote the political, civil, social and economic rights of man. This strategy should take into account not only the quantitative but also the qualitative aspect of disarmament, and should result in the release of resources for the satisfaction of the economic and social needs of humanity particularly in the developing countries.
    This Programme of Action sets out in Chapter II priority negotiations for completion over the next few years. In addition it proposes concurrent measures and studies to prepare the way for future negotiations and for progress towards general and complete disarmament. It gives practical effect to the principles set down in the declaration on disarmament. A prerequisite for a successful disarmament strategy is the adherence of all states to existing arms control and disarmament agreements.
    II. IMMEDIATE MEASURES OF ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT

    i. In the nuclear field, in which the nuclear weapon states have a particular responsibility, the realisation of the central objectives of preventing both horizontal and vertical proliferation by:

    —the halting and the reversal of the nuclear arms race in its quantitative and qualitative dimensions: especially by a second Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, to be followed urgently by further strategic arms negotiations with the objective of reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons.

    —the earliest conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty banning all nuclear explosions in all environments, which should be adhered to as soon as possible by all states, particularly all nuclear weapon states, and should contain verification provisions giving maximum confidence that no party would conduct clandestine tests.

    —further measures to develop an international consensus on the strengthening and consolidation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, based primarily on adherence of all states to the NPT and on the system of safeguards of the IAEA. Measures to be pursued should include assistance to the IAEA in its attempts to strengthen its safeguards systems: the application of IAEA safeguards on all source and special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities: agreement on adequate standards for the physical protection of nuclear materials: study and possible development of alternative and more proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies: an examination of the possibility of giving a suitable international character to appropriate nuclear fuel cycle operations and to effective measures for the control of plutonium in civil nuclear programmes: and support for the work currently being undertaken in the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. These measures should be designed to facilitate international access to the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and take
    1420
    account of the particular needs of the developing countries in this area, as well as to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    —the establishment of additional Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones, suitable to specific conditions in the regions concerned, through agreement between all the states in the region and with effective co-operation from nuclear weapon states.

    ii. Assurances, as appropriate, by nuclear weapon states designed to increase the confidence of non-nuclear weapon states in their own security from nuclear attack.

    iii. Other Weapons of Mass Destruction

    —a convention prohibiting the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and regulating their destruction:

    —a convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of radiological weapons:

    —continuing review of the question of new weapons of mass destruction based on new scientific principles with a view to consideration of agreements on the prohibition of any new weapons which may be identified.

    iv. Conventional Weapons and Armed Forces

    —agreements or other measures on a bilateral, regional and multilateral basis for placing restrictions on the production, transfer and acquisition of conventional weapons:

    —Conventions prohibiting or limiting the future use in armed conflict of certain conventional weapons which may be indiscriminate in their effects or may cause unnecessary suffering.

    —agreements or other measures on a regional basis, aiming at strengthening peace and security, in particular urgent efforts to contribute to a more stable military relationship in Europe.

    v. The measures listed above should form part of a balanced programme of disarmament and provide for adequate verification including, if appropriate, the possibility of on-site inspection. Verification provisions should be so designed as to ensure the effectiveness of agreements and to enhance mutual confidence.

    III. THE FURTHER STRENGTHENING OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND CONFIDENCE
    In addition to undertaking the specific arms control and disarmament tasks described above, the states members of the United Nations, in order to strengthen international confidence and deepen the dialogue between those involved in defence matters in different countries, should:—

    (i) support the Secretary-General in his efforts further to strengthen the expertise and capability of the United Nations to play its essential role as a catalyst in the disarmament process;

    (ii) encourage the further discussion and development by the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament of a Comprehensive Programme for Disarmament;

    (iii) publish detailed information about their armed forces, and the total value of

    1421
    their arms production and of their transfers of arms to other countries;

    (iv) supply full information on military budgets using the method shortly to be finalised through a Pilot Study by the Secretary-General for the standardised reporting of such budgets, as a step towards verified and balanced reductions in military expenditure.

    (v) assess the possible implications of military research and development for existing agreements as well as for further efforts in the field of arms control and disarmament.

    (vi) seek to restrain the world-wide build-up of conventional weapons, utilising all means which could lead to bilateral, regional and multilateral measures of control, limitation and balanced reduction of such armaments.

    (vii) accept adequate provisions of international control as appropriate to facilitate the conclusion and effectiveness of disarmament agreements.

    (viii) stimulate public awareness of disarmament issues by:—

    —publicising the Final Documents of the Special Session, in particular through non-governmental organisations, mass media and educational systems:

    —facilitating public access to information on disarmament questions:

    —improving mechanisms for the dissemination of relevant UN publications; and

    —encouraging study and research on disarmament.

    (ix) take the following actions to increase confidence between states bilaterally, regionally or world-wide:—

    —to inform states on a regional basis and in accordance with regionally established criteria 21 days or more in advance about their intention to carry out major military movements or manoeuvres;

    —to invite observers from states on a regional basis to manoeuvres and encourage military visits and exchanges of all kinds on a reciprocal basis;

    —to improve communications between governments, particularly in areas of tension, by the establishment of "hot lines" and other methods of reducing the risk of conflict due to misunderstanding or miscalculation.

    IV. STUDIES TO FACILITATE FUTURE MEASURES
    In order to facilitate further steps in disarmament and parallel measures to promote international peace and security, the Secretary-General is requested to carry out studies relating to:—

    (i) the strengthening of the security role of the United Nations in peacekeeping and the peaceful settlement of disputes, to enable it to anticipate and resolve international crises.

    (ii) ways of limiting the build-up of conventional weapons regionally and throughout
    1422
    the world, taking into account all relevant aspects, inter alia:

    —the international transfer of conventional weapons;

    —the possibility of reciprocal limitation of the level and types of conventional weapons;

    —the proposal for a United Nations Register of Weapons Transfers;

    (iii) the relationship between disarmament and development, to be initiated as soon as possible after the Special Session. The terms of reference of this study should be on the basis of the report of the Ad Hoc Group of governmental experts.

    (iv) all regional aspects of disarmament, including further measures designed to increase confidence and stability as well as means of promoting disarmament on a regional basis;

    (v) the possible contribution to confidence-building among states of technical measures such as demilitarized zones, zones of limited forces and surveillance and early warning systems which could be used as appropriate in areas of tension; and on the use of some of these measures in the verification of arms control agreements.

    V. IMPLEMENTATION
    All states undertake to work towards the fulfilment of this programme and to respect agreed measures relating to it. The General Assembly should examine its implementation as appropriate taking account of the recommendations on disarmament machinery made later in the Final Document.

    Concorde
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the negotiations with the Malaysian Government on Concorde over-flying rights of the Malacca Straits.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): Further talks were held with the Malaysian Government in Kuala Lumpur from 25th to 27th January, and on 13th and 14th February, and will be continued in a fortnight. We have provided the Malaysians with further material on environmental matters and believe that we are close to meeting their concern.
    Mr. Adley: Will the Minister accept that most people believe that the wrangle has to do either with money on behalf of the Malaysians or spite on their behalf that Singapore Airlines is gaining an advantage by flying Concorde? Is not the net result of this continuing damage to the

    1423
    future marketing prospects of the aeroplane?
    Does not the Minister think that it is about time that Her Majesty's Government took some steps to bring this negotiation to a conclusion? Is he considering calling for the cessation of traffic rights between Malaysia and Britain in order to bring this about?
    Mr. Judd: The intention of the Government is to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. We believe that the prospects are good. I do not believe that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will consider that his remarks have helped us in that respect.
    Mr. Watkinson: Can my hon. Friend say whether there has been any talk between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government on the question of Concorde and the recent Press reports that France is considering cancelling the whole project?
    Mr. Judd: I have no information whatsoever which would support that thesis.

    New Hebrides
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Condominium Assembly in the New Hebrides.
    Mr. Luard: Yes, Sir. Following uncontested elections on 29th November last year, the new Assembly met for the first time on 5th December and elected its Chairman and a Chief Minister. A Council of Ministers was appointed on 13th January following a visit by the British and French High Commissioners.
    Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that this present Assembly is an unelected minority body, and that the British Government hold a grave responsibility for allowing a predominantly Francophobe Assembly to govern the country?
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the urgent need now is to encourage all parties to participate in elections so that the country, when it becomes independent, will not be dominated by French economic interests from New Caledonia?
    Mr. Luard: It is not the case that the present Assembly was not elected. There
    1424
    were elections, but the elections were not contested.
    My hon. Friend knows quite well that the other major party, Vanuaaku Pati, made proposals at the very last moment for changing the arrangements for the election. The two metropolitan Powers are not necessarily against those proposals, but they came much too late to be considered; therefore, the election went ahead on the previous basis.
    We have recently made proposals for the setting up of an ad hoc committee, in which all parties will be represented, to consider the reform of electoral law. I hope that Vanuaaku Pati will take part.
    Mr. Speaker: I appeal to the House for shorter answers as well as shorter questions.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When looking at the Assembly, will the Minister bear in mind that there is grave doubt as to the legality of the present judicial system in the country? It appears that His Majesty the King of Spain has a right of arbitration under treaties which have not been abrogated.
    Mr. Luard: I know that there is a very complicated judicial system in the New Hebrides. I will take account of the hon. Gentleman's observation.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why not hand the Scotland Bill to the New Hebrides?

    Africa and South Yemen (Cuban and USSR Forces)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the Security Council the presence of 27,000 Cubans in Africa as a threat to world peace.
    Mr. William Sheltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the Security Council as a threat to world peace the existence of Soviet and Cuban armed intervention in the internal affairs of Angola, Ethiopia and South Yemen.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): We have for some time been trying to bring the situation in the Horn of Africa before the Security Council and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Wall: Were not these numbers verified by the American Secretary of State, and do they not present a much greater threat to the people of the world than does the situation in South Africa? Will he recognise this and do something about it?
    Mr. Rowlands: We have taken considerable political and diplomatic initiatives, in conjunction with our Western partners, to try to get negotiations going in the Horn of Africa, where the issue is of paramount importance. We shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Shelton: Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government believe peace and detente to be indivisible? Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government let the Soviet Union know that our trade links and our economic links with that country will suffer until they call off their Cubans and East Germans?
    Mr. Rowlands: The issue of trade is much wider, but we make the point—and have made it repeatedly—that detente cannot just be an East-West and European question but must extend universally and include Africa.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Has my hon. Friend or his right hon. Friend taken any active steps to talk to the Soviet Union, at either ambassador or Foreign Minister level, about the presence of the Cubans, however many there may be, in the Horn of Africa?
    Mr. Rowlands: Yes, most certainly. This issue has been raised with the Soviet Union on many occasions.
    Mr. Amery: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that unless some counter-action is taken the influence of the Western Powers—Britain and America—and of Japan, and so on, is very likely to go by default? Although we all understand the importance of the Organisation for African Unity's principle of respect of frontiers, is not response to the advance of the new Soviet colonial empire something which should have priority?
    Mr. Rowlands: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should embark on a great arms race in the Horn of Africa. What we have said repeatedly is that we certainly cannot get arms involved in the present Ogadenese situation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what is import-
    1426
    ant is to try to get negotiations going. That has been the main burden of our effort.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the situation in the Horn of Africa is possibly a threat to peace, greater threats to world peace are the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, the illegal regime in Rhodesia, and the apartheid system in South Africa? In view of the fact that the United Nations has declared this coming year as a year against apartheid, surely that is the issue that the Security Council should be considering.
    Mr. Rowlands: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of trying to find a settlement of the Namibian problem. We have been very much involved, with the five Western Powers, in trying to find an international acceptable solution to the problem of Namibia. That is where our efforts should be directed.
    Mr. John Davies: Is the Minister concerned that the prospect of Cuban involvement is tending to become part of the permanent landscape of Africa? Does he not agree that this seems to be a very real danger?
    May I revert to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)? Is not this matter really a threat to peace, which should be discussed further in the Security Council?
    Mr. Rowlands: We do not disagree about the importance and seriousness of Cuban intervention in a number of parts of Africa. What we are discussing is how to deal with it. We believe that, particularly in the context of the Horn of Africa, we must get negotiations going and try to solve an extremely difficult problem. We must try to find the best way forward to deal with the question of Cuban or Soviet intervention in these very serious issues.

    Turkey (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. Corbettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Turkish Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend met the then Turkish Foreign Minister in London on 14th October. I myself visited Ankara in September last year and also held talks with the then Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he seek an early meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister in order to discuss a reported change of attitude by the new Turkish Government over Cyprus? Does he agree that the British Government in particular have a special role which they can play here in trying to bring about peaceful relations and perhaps better sense between the two communities on this tragic island?
    Mr. Judd: I think that anyone following developments in Turkey must be encouraged by the statement of Mr. Ecevit and the new Government. We shall do everything we can to facilitate the working out of a solution between the Turkish Government and the Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot communities in Cyprus.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: Although there has apparently been a welcome change of heart in Ankara, does the Minister agree that there will also need to be a responsive gesture from Athens if any solution is to be found to these difficulties?
    Mr. Judd: The belief of the Government is that the principal way in which a solution will be found is within Cyprus, because it is the people of Cyprus who must subscribe to a solution and make it work.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Will my right hon. Friend try to co-ordinate the political efforts that he is making to find a solution in Cyprus with the economic attitude of the European Community, which is making it very difficult for the economy of the Republic of Cyprus, with its agricultural exports, to survive? The difficulty is that this attitude may jeopardise a settlement in the meantime.
    Mr. Judd: I am disappointed that it has not been possible for the Community to respond more favourably and readily to the economic needs of Cyprus. I hope that we are making progress and that a solution is within sight.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister confirm reports that there is now a good prospect of a meeting between the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers? In view of the great importance of such a meeting, which is planned to take place, what can Her Majesty's Government do, either directly
    1428
    or through the European Community, to edge such a meeting forward to success?
    Mr. Judd: As I understand it, it has already been agreed that a meeting should take place. We have very good relationships with the two Governments and were at pains, in our discussions bilaterally with those Governments, to make sure that we discussed with them ways in which we could facilitate progress not only on Cyprus but on other issues, such as the Aegean and the problem of defence on the southern flank of NATO.

    China (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. MacFarquharasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite the Chinese Foreign Minister to visit the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend has already renewed his predecessor's invitation to the Chinese Foreign Minister to visit the United Kingdom. No date has yet been fixed.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Whenever that meeting takes place, will my right hon. Friend consider it proper to suggest that when Mr. Hua Kuo-Feng visits France he should also visit Britain?
    Mr. Luard: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend's question and will take note of what he has said. We hope that the Chinese Foreign Minister will visit as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend is himself hoping to visit China soon.
    Mr. Welsh: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets Mr. Huang Hua, will he discuss China's highly successful foreign aid policy to the poorer Third World countries, in order to draw lessons for the United Kingdom based on the Chinese experience and encourage technological aid programmes to such poorer Third World countries?
    Mr. Luard: As someone who has studied Chinese policy for quite a long time, I agree that China's aid programme has a lot that is interesting and perhaps of some value to us. We are already aware of the kind of programmes in which China has engaged.
    Mr. Hooley: When the Foreign Minister of China comes for conversations,

    1429
    will my right hon. Friend discuss with him the anachronistic nineteenth century colonial regime in Hong Kong'?
    Mr. Luard: I think that my hon. Friend knows that we have an extremely friendly relationship with the Chinese Government with regard to the situation in Hong Kong. No major problems arise in connection with that relationship at present. It is most unlikely that this will be a subject for serious discussion between the Chinese Foreign Minister and our own Foreign Secretary.

    Neutron Bomb
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it known to the other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation representatives at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit meeting on 30th May that Her Majesty's Government are opposed to the deployment of the neutron bomb on British territory.
    Mr. Judd: The position on possible production or deployment of enhanced radiation reduced blast warheads remains as described in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on 15th December last.
    Mr. Litterick: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not agree that the original decision to deploy nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom automatically made the British people a target for Russian nuclear weapons? Does he agrees that it would be extremely ill advised, if not on moral grounds, at least on practical grounds, to agree at the forthcoming conference with Carter and other NATO Heads of State to the deployment of this terrifying weapon in Britain—which would automatically subject the British people to retaliation by similar weapons—particularly if the permission of the British people is not asked?
    Mr. Judd: I should like to emphasise that there is no question of a decision being taken on this matter without all aspects of the matter being thoroughly considered. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the rationale advanced for the development of ERW is for a particular defensive rôle against tank forma-
    1430
    tions in the battlefield area if nuclear weapons ever have to be used.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give a definite guarantee not to add to existing nuclear storage risks in Scotland and state categorically that neutron bombs will not be stored on Scottish soil?
    Mr. Judd: There is no question of a decision being taken on this matter until all relevant dimensions of the problem have been considered.

    Falkland Islands
    Sir Bernard Braineasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it plain in any negotiations with the Argentine over sovereignty on the Falkland Islands that the wishes of the islanders will be ascertained directly by referendum before any changes are made and that the arrangements for any such referendum will have to be approved by the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Rowlands: We have made it clear to the Argentine Government that any proposals affecting the future of the Falkland Islands must be acceptable to the islanders themselves. The method by which the islanders may express their wishes on any proposals will first be a matter for discussion with their elected representatives, the Islands councils.
    Sir B. Braine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the distaste felt by many Members on both sides of the House that the Government are holding any talks on sovereignty by a military dictatorship over a free, democratic British community? If the Government are caught in a trap, will the hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance not only that there will be a referendum but that the arangements for it will be discussed in this House and that no steps will be taken in advance to surrender the economic viability of the Falkland Islands to the Argentine without full consultation with Parliament?
    Mr. Rowlands: The House and the islanders have been given the best assurances that any Government have ever given about their future and their economic and political development. My answer on that question was absolute.
    Mr. James Johnson: Since it is evident from their geographical location that the

    1431
    Falkland Islands must live with their neighbour on the mainland, the Argentine, can my hon. Friend tell us, in regard to his talks in New York, what steps he is taking on commercial and other types of co-operation and collaboration with the Argentine, particularly in fishing and oil?
    Mr. Rowlands: Part of the negotiations is concerned with economic co-operation, particularly in regard to offshore resources of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Luce: It makes sense to encourage economic co-operation between the Argentine and the Falkland Islands, but can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the point of having discussions with the Argentine on the question of the Falkland Islands' sovereignty, or with Guatemala on the question of the sovereignty of Belsize, when there is clearly no desire on the part of the Falkland Islanders or the people of Belsize to change their sovereignty?
    Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up two problems. In the case of the Falkland Islands, to which the Question is directed, I had lengthy discussions with the islanders in February before the beginning of the negotiations and I made clear that it would be impossible to talk just about economic co-operation without political issues, including sovereignty, being raised. It would have been unrealistic to think otherwise.

    Human Rights (European Convention)
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of individual applications made against each of the States which have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction under the European Convention of Human Rights for each of the last three years.
    Mr. Judd: As the list is long, I will arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Silvester: I look forward to the Official Report with interest. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this matter has not been debated in the House, and will he therefore undertake that there will be a thorough public review of the advantages and disadvantages of compulsory jurisdiction, as it affects this country, before we renew it in 1981?
    Mr. Judd: I shall take full account of what the hon. Gentleman said. It is our view that the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction is an indication of the seriousness with which the Government treat the issue of human rights.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Although many hon. Members are genuinely concerned about freedom from Chile to Czechoslovakia, many other hon. Members are not—Members who are deliberately using the issue of human rights to wreck detente, disarmament and the Belgrade conference. When my right hon. Friend attends the conference, will he ignore that clamour and put peace first?
    Mr. Judd: Anyone who knows my right hon. Friend will know that peace is at the top of his priorities. His commitment to human rights is illustrated by what he said this afternoon, namely, that we want no charades in this respect; we want substantial and meaningful progress.
    Following is the list:
    The number of individual applications lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights against each of the States which accepts compulsory jurisdiction in respect of individual applications is as follows:

    1975

    1976

    1977

    Austria

    34

    24

    20

    Belgium

    41

    28

    27

    Denmark

    7

    11

    3

    Federal Republic of Germany

    113

    142

    95

    Iceland

    1

    1

    2

    Ireland

    6

    5

    3

    Italy

    15

    18

    12

    Luxembourg

    1

    3

    3

    Netherlands

    7

    9

    15

    Norway

    5

    1

    2

    Sweden

    9

    2

    9

    Switzerland

    30

    30

    40

    United Kingdom

    197

    153

    148

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Presidents of the Council and the Commission
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Owen: I expect that the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th March will be the next occasion on which I shall meet the Presidents of the EEC Council of Ministers and of the EEC Commission.
    Mr. Crawford: Would the Foreign Secretary and the EEC President agree at that meeting that no candidate for election to the European Parliament should be elected unless he or she gains at least 40 per cent. of the votes of the total electorate—I repeat, the total electorate?
    Dr. Owen: It is a little late to move an amendment to that effect in this House, but no doubt the hon. Member will make representations in Brussels.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Foreign Secretary convey to his fellow Euro-fanatics that, when Parliament passes measures which are contrary to the wishes of the great majority of the British people, action must be taken outside the House to put these things right? Will he therefore remind the Europeans that battles may take place on tachographs, fishing and the temporary employment subsidy? There may even be battles on the question of sending Members of Parliament to the European Parliament on £30,000 a year. These matters still remain unresolved. Will my right hon. Friend remind the Europeans of them, especially Mr. Jenkins?
    Dr. Owen: I thought that I was the person who was always criticising people for Euro-fanaticism. I did not quite follow my hon. Friend's remarks about action outside the House. If he is suggesting that people should take action to subvert decisions of this House, I do not share his sentiments and I am sure that other hon. Members do not, either.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will the Foreign Secretary explain how he can have any kind of meaningful supranational discussions with the EEC Commission if the attitude of the British Government is to refuse to make any concessions whatever, even on the most piffling matters such as those mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
    Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend raised issues such as fishing, which is not in any sense piffling. Even the question of tachographs is very sensitive among those
    1434
    people most affected, and the British Government have recognised this fact. We are perfectly prepared to take unpleasant and difficult decisions. With much difficulty, and by causing a lot of disturbance, we have carried the direct elections legislation through this House to another place. The British Government have compromised on many issues and will continue to do so. This Parliament put us in a position to implement the VAT directives when a number of other countries have not lived up to their obligations. We do not castigate them and we do not expect them to castigate us.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity at the next meeting with the President to remind him that the British Government are totally opposed to monetary union? Will he remind the President that there is no evidence whatever to support his view that full employment can be restored to EEC member States only if monetary union takes place?
    Dr. Owen: I thought that most people believed that in its fullest sense European monetary union was still a long way off. It is not something which we should spend a lot of time considering, with our present economic problems. That does not mean that the President, who has a responsibility to Europe as a whole, should not point to the future and explain policies that he thinks should be implemented in future. The Commission has said that it wants a measured programme for five years, and that does not include European monetary union.
    Mr. Hurd: May I press the Foreign Secretary to take up with the European Heads of Government at the European Council in Copenhagen, on 7th and 8th April, the need to find a way of emphasising that membership of the EEC is not compatible with the suppression or erosion of political freedoms, whether this is attempted by the Left or the Right?
    Dr. Owen: I thought that the hon. Member knew that a declaration about democracy at the next European Council has been agreed. People have been drafting this and I think that it will be a useful declaratory gesture. However, it is not as detailed a safeguard as I once hoped would be possible to achieve.

    Direct Elections
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to take the initiative in the next meeting of the Council of Ministers to propose a date for the first European direct elections.
    Mr. Judd: No. The Council of Ministers is already reviewing the situation in member States in preparation for a discussion at the European Council in Copenhagen on 7th and 8th April. It is expected that a decision will be taken then.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister for that reply. Now that the Foreign Secretary has got off his chest the dramatic and controversial fact that Britain is an island, will he redeem our flagging and, indeed, non-existent European reputation by offsetting the appalling delay in taking the direct elections Bill through the House?
    Mr. Judd: It is well recognised that we are fully committed to the Community. On issues of great concern to the United Kingdom we represent our interests. In the context of doing that, we look for solutions that improve the well-being not just of our own people but of Europe as a whole.
    Mr. Jay: Has the Minister any more information about the decision of the French Government to delay direct elections in that country until they have an assurance that the Assembly will not move to Brussels?
    Mr. Judd: We have had no such formal communication from the French Government.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister of State draw to the attention of the President his recent report in which he said that the Commission would do all in its power to ensure that direct elections were fought on major European issues? Will he tell the President that civil servants, no matter how grand and civilised, have no right to interfere in election issues? Will he tell him to mind his own business?
    Mr. Judd: I certainly can tell the House that it is the unqualified view of the British Government that direct elections will be fought by politicians on issues that they think important.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say whether the British Government will put forward their date for direct elections?
    Mr. Judd: We have indicated to the House that this will be considered at the European Council.
    Mr. Hurd: May I press the Minister on this relevant issue? Will he tell us what proposals and what attitudes the Prime Minister will take with him to Copenhagen? The issue of direct elections is not like the date of the General Election, where the Prime Minister, by convention, carries his cards up his sleeve. This is a matter on which the House is entitled to have information about the Government's intentions.
    Mr. Judd: The Bill has gone forward for consideration in another place. We shall have to see what progress it makes there before we can make any proposal.

    Foreign Ministers
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet other Foreign Ministers of the EEC.
    Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Foreign Secretaries of the other EEC countries.
    Dr. Owen: At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th March.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Foreign Secretary recall making a speech in Edinburgh a few weeks ago which greatly disturbed his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in which he indicated that measures would be taken to ensure that the Executive of the Scottish Assembly was consulted on EEC matters? Does he accept that this is something that should be discussed with his European colleagues at the forthcoming meeting?
    Dr. Owen: No, because the Bill has not yet gone through Parliament and the people of Scotland have not yet voted in the referendum. No final decision has been made in this House.
    Mr. Thomas: Will the Foreign Secretary make clear to his colleagues in Europe and on the Commission that the

    1437
    Government intend to continue the policies to protect and create jobs, irrespective of what the European Commission says? Will he remind them that this capitalist bloc in Europe has lamentably failed to deal with unemployment?
    Dr. Owen: I shall make it clear to the Commission and the Council that at a time of stubbornly high unemployment in all EEC States it does seem most maladroit politics to try to examine, in a spirit which may have been appropriate at a time of full employment, the various measures that member States have taken in a desperate attempt to reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his colleagues in the Council of Ministers, will he review the progress being made on the enlargement of the Community, particularly in regard to Greece and the applications of Portugal and Spain, and see what he can do to get matters moving, because they sem to be going very slowly?
    Dr. Owen: We are awaiting the Commission's opinion on Portugal and the Fresco report, which will be an over-view of the whole issue of enlargement which the Commission promised. I agree that the question of enlargement is the most serious issue facing the Community, and it will be under almost continuous discussion.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the criticism being made by our Common Market partners about the assistance that the Government are giving towards the problems of unemployment in this country and the creation of new work schemes? Would he consider it helpful to publish in the Official Report the schemes being operated by our Common Market partners to protect their own countries against the effect of unemployment?
    Dr. Owen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is having discussions with and is convincing the Commissioner and the Commission officials that the various steps that we are taking are necessary and vital and that it would be extremely foolish to interfere with them at this time. No one denies the right of the Commission to look at this sort of area, but it is most inappropriate to do it at a time when
    1438
    unemployment is at such a high level. It is the sort of thing that could be done when the Community is looking at its macro-economic policies in a period of expansion.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the European Convention on Human Rights may come up in the right hon. Gentleman's discussions, will he say whether he feels any embarrassment at the revelations in The Times about the forcible repatriation of Soviet exiles, who went to their certain death? Will he make available under the convention all pertinent documents? In view of the blot that attaches to the reputation of some distinguished public servants in this country, will he make sure that there is the fullest investigation and a report to Parliament?
    Dr. Owen: The decision to publish under the 30-year rule exposes these issues to the public gaze. I strongly supported the change from 50 years to 30 years, and some would argue that the period should be shortened even further. However, there are consequences for individuals and for the House if we reduce the time limit. It is bound to affect people still living. I think that inquiry and scrutiny are in the public domain. If the people concerned are still alive, they are free to comment, and other people are also free to comment, on the documentation, but it would be a major step if, having reduced the period, we felt that every time documents revealed criticism we should set up a formal inquiry. However, this is not a matter for me.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland raised the matter of Northern Ireland and its status at the EEC Council of Ministers; and what reply he made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Judd: No, Sir. This matter has not been raised in any meeting of the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I am much obliged for that reply, which denies the statement made by the Eire Foreign Minister. Is not membership of the Common Market an acceptance of the territorial boundaries of other member States, and would the

    1439
    hon. Gentleman emphatically and bluntly tell the Eire Government to belt up and stop playing politics with the lives of Ulster people by continuing to demand British withdrawal from a part of the United Kingdom and attempting to deny the right of Ulster people to remain British?
    Mr. Judd: Membership of the Community is certainly a recognition of the territorial boundaries of other member States.
    Mr. Madden: Has my hon. Friend received representations from Ireland or elsewhere about the rumoured proposal of the Conservative Party to take away the vote from the Irish community in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Judd: We have had no such representations from fellow members, but, like my hon. Friend, we read the newspapers.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: While the future status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the United Kingdom and the people of the Province, could not the Dublin Government prove helpful to the concert of Europe and to peace in the island of Ireland by signing the European Convention on Terrorism?
    Mr. Judd: The view of the British Government on this matter is well understood by the Government in Dublin.

MISS KWAI YUK TAM
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the removal of Miss Kwai Yuk Tam, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, who is being removed from this country tomorrow on the order of the Home Secretary".
The matter is urgent as Miss Kwai Yuk Tam is to be removed tomorrow and there is no right of appeal.
I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the issue is important enough to warrant interference with the procedure of the House. I could do that on the basis of the human need of this girl. She is being sent back to Hong Kong to live in an attic with her elderly father,
1440
her new mother, who hates her very much, and her new stepbrothers, one of whom has indecently assaulted her twice in the narrow confines of the home in which they are residing together. Miss Kwai Yuk Tam is now living in Scarborough with a constituent of mine who is her brother. He is her natural brother, and the only relative to whom she can turn. Her brother has a substantial income in this country, but he could not afford to maintain her in Hong Kong.
In pursuance of the immigration rules—in my view, far too rigidly applied in this case—this girl is being sent back to a life that I would regard as little short of hell, when she could be perfectly comfortably accommodated by her brother in circumstances that would put no call on the British taxpayer and would give her and her brother immense relief from anxiety and a great deal of future happiness. I do not believe that the House, even in its present inflamed mood about immigration, wants the girl to be removed and taken to Hong Kong.
I could put the case on that narrow basis, Mr. Speaker, or on the wider basis that it was in 1772 that a negro slave arrived in this country and the Lord Chief Justice decided that any person who got into the country would be given refuge from slavery. That is part of our history, because it is that which is part of us. When people ask me about the British way of life, I tell them that that is the British way of life.
It says something about our values today that we can send back a girl in these circumstances without let or hindrance merely because we have fallen below the standards to which I have referred. I do not believe that the House wants that to happen. I believe that it would be to the enlightenment of the country as a whole that we should explain to the people in detail why it is that a girl of 18 years is being treated in this way—in order to justify their resentment against coloured immigrants.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) did me the courtesy of giving me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he wished to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter

1441
that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The removal of Miss Kwai Yuk Tam, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, who is being removed from this country tomorrow on the order of the Home Secretary."
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and to the matters that he raised. The House knows that I am obliged to take into account several factors but not to give my reasons. I fear that I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you will give some guidance to the House, Mr. Speaker, in respect of charges of blatant racialism that were made during the Scotland Bill debate by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). This issue is raised, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege. Will you, Mr. Speaker, give some guidance as to how you feel—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the House decided only last week that questions of privilege are now raised with me by letter and that it is not necessary for me to inform the House when I do not accept that privilege is involved. When I agree that it is a matter that should have precedence, I call on the hon. Member concerned to rise in his place. The House decided that only a week ago.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 10TH MARCH
Members successful in the Ballot were:
Mr. John Cope
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
Mr. William Hamilton

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS
3.37 p.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give powers to residents of purpose built blocks of flats in private ownership jointly to purchase the premises of which their flats are part; to specify the procedures to be adopted; to make consequential provisions as to the management and upkeep of premises so purchased; and for connected purposes.
I am seeking leave to introduce this Bill because in certain respects the occupants of flats seem to be second-rate citizens by comparison with the occupants of houses. I believe that this is an anomaly that the House should seek to rectify.
The immediate problem that concerns me arises partly from a difficult and urgent situation in Inner London, but a continuing problem is also arising from the application of the fair rents system. I do not complain about the application of that system, but at a time of inflation it leaves people in flats at a disadvantage, especially if they are living on fixed incomes. The owner of a house has a bulwark against inflation that may have a considerable value, but the tenant of a flat is unlikely to have found such a reliable hedge against the predictable rises in his rent and has to calculate that it is only a matter of time before he may be forced out, with nothing to sell to pay for another flat or house elsewhere.
The flat tenant's apparent security also becomes a sham if the policy for the management of the block is changed with a view to the realisation of the break-up value or an effective change of use. In Inner London it is possible very quickly to increase several times over the net return from an established mansion block by winkling out or driving out the tenants and turning over the accommodation to furnished letting. Thus stable, established communities in city centres are being destroyed and a new class of resident created, who has no interest or involvement in the local community and is merely seeking something comparable to an hotel for a short stay. I have no objection to new buildings being put up, if necessary, to cater for this market, but I object to existing flats being taken over from stable residential occupation and diverted to serve a transient community.
This area is a minefield of technicalities. I hope that the House will excuse

1443
me if I touch only briefly on the solution that I recommend within the confines of the Ten-Minute Rule.
The House has long agreed on the principles of security of tenure, of the enfranchisement of leasehold and of the need to provide special protection to the occupants of flats over, for instance, service charges.
The Conservative Party is dedicated to the idea of a property-owning democracy and the Government's recent Green Paper on housing policy lays emphasis on the importance of home ownership and the value of the co-ownership principle. I believe, therefore, that the general outline of my Bill is not controversial, but, as to the specific recommendatons, there is still room for a good deal of discussion and debate.
The object of my Bill is to give impetus to the moves already under way to give more powers to tenants' associations, and I wish to make certain specific suggestions of my own which I hope the House will think are of value.
Tenants' associations representing the occupants of flats in purpose-built blocks in private ownership should have the power to acquire the head lease of the block or the freehold, as appropriate, in certain closely specified circumstances. They should have this right at any time after the block has passed out of the ownership of the original builder.
A tenants' association, to qualify, should be able to speak for the occupants of at least 75 per cent. of the block in terms of rateable value. It would not be helpful if the regime were deeply divided inside the block before a move of this kind were made.
The price should be calculated by reference to the current fair rents for the block, capitalised on a basis to be laid down from time to time by the Lands Tribunal and obviously related to the current rate of interest.
The tenants' association should be formed as a company—a formula which is well established and understood—coming within the definition of a housing association and with a memorandum and articles following a specified model. There is a danger that tenants' associations might indulge in experimental forms of management, or there might be con-
1444
troversy over the remuneration of the officers of the company and such matters as that. Therefore, I think that it would be wise for Parliament to lay down a model memorandum and articles to be adopted by a tenants' association incorporating itself with a view to exercising the power that I envisage. Such a body should be eligible for loans or guarantees from the Housing Corporation—I believe that it would be eligible under existing legislation—from the local authority or from building societies or other appropriate sources of finance.
It might be desirable, where large sums of money are involved, for the Housing Corporation to take up a debenture and to appoint a debenture holder's trustee to ensure that the management of the block is continued on businesslike lines and that there is not a steady deterioration in the value of the block due to circumstances such as the tenants having over-reached themselves in making the initial purchase and having to recoup by skimping on the service charges afterwards, to the ultimate disadvantage of all concerned.
I hope that the House will approve the principle of my Bill. I recognise that it will be extremely difficult to achieve legislation in the present Session, but if it is clear that opinion here is moving in this direction, I believe that it would have a salutory effect on the market in mansion blocks particularly in the part of London which I represent, which has lately had an unhealthy and speculative character.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Stephen Ross and Mr. Nicholas Scott.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS
  CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to give powers to residents of purpose built blocks of flats in private ownership jointly to purchase the premises of which their flats are part; to specify the procedures to be adopted; to make consequential provisions as to the management and upkeep of premises so purchased; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th April and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND BILL
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.44 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Now that we have completed the long Committee and Report stages of the Bill and reached Third Reading, I hope that I may start what I have to say this afternoon with one matter that will be uncontroversial. Although my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and myself dealt with a number of matters in Committee, the vast bulk of the work has been done by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office. I think that the House as a whole—particularly those Members who have taken an active interest all the way through—will agree with the tribute that I should like to set on record to my hon. Friend not only for the long hours that he has put in on the Bill but for the extremely capable and carefully argued contributions that he has made in Committee. We are grateful to him for that.
  Since Second Reading the Bill has had a number of changes made to it. Some of those changes have been unwelcome to the Government. I shall refer to some of those changes later.
  The claim that has been made in certain quarters, that the changes make the Bill unworkable or incapable of getting the necessary support of the Scottish people, is grossly exaggerated. The fact is that the basic structure of the Bill stands as it was on its introduction to the House. It still provides for a legislative Assembly with a wide range of functions.
  A number of changes have been made, as I said, and I should like to explain briefly what the Government intend to do about the more important of those changes.
  First, the old Clauses 1 and 40—concerned respectively with the unity of the United Kingdom and pay policy—were basically declaratory. The Government
  1446
  have already made clear that they will not try to put them back into the Bill.
  New Clause 81, which deals with the date of the referendum if a General Election comes first, is, we believe, unnecessarily restrictive in view of the undertakings given by the Government on the date of the referendum. But, again, we shall not attempt in another place to change the Bill in that respect.
  I shall not go over our previous debates on the 40 per cent. test of the electorate. There is considerable doubt about the drafting of Clause 80, but I do not want to deal with that matter on Third Reading. I simply reiterate what we said during the debate on this matter: that the Government believe this clause to be damaging. We believe that it could have potentially serious political repercussions in Scotland. Indeed, I think that it has already had such repercussions. The clause is unnecessary also because the referendum was and is to be consultative anyway. The matter will ultimately come back for final decision by this House. Therefore, we do not believe that any further test need be written into the Bill.
  I mention this clause because I believe that Members who are against the Bill and devolution and who believe that with this test they have put an insuperable barrier in the way of devolution are deluding themselves. The test means that those who are in favour of the Bill and who will campaign in the referendum in support of it will campaign all the harder. I believe that we shall get a result that will meet the test that the House has written into the Bill. Therefore, it will ultimately be implemented.
  Mr. Ian Cow: Will the Secretary of State make this matter clear beyond doubt? Is he saying that the Government will not seek to amend Clause 80 in another place?
  Mr. Millan: We have already said that, and I am repeating it today. We shall not seek to amend that in another place.
  I want to deal with one other change in the Bill concerning Orkney and Shetland. I am referring to Clause 80(3). It states that, assuming the Act were to come into force generally in Scotland, but that Orkney and Shetland had voted "No" in a referendum—incidentally by a simple majority with no question of the 40 per cent.

  1447
  test—the Act would not apply to Orkney and Shetland, but that a commission would be set up to look at the future government of Orkney and Shetland.
  Let me make it clear, because there is some misunderstanding about this, that that does not exclude Orkney and Shetland from becoming a part of the Assembly in due course. Some people seem to imagine that it does. The commission could presumably recommend that Orkney and Shetland should be incorporated in the general provisions relating to the Assembly. Following such a recommendation the House could make that its ultimate decision. I also understand that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) accepts—I am sorry that he is not here to hear this, but I think I represent his views accurately—the position that ultimately Orkney and Shetland should participate in the work of the Assembly.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As one of a number of hon. Members from all sides who went to the Shetlands to discuss this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that in the event of the Shetland Islanders not wishing to be included in the Assembly, it would be for the commission to report that, through the Government, to this House, where a further decision would be made? Would that affect the Zetland County Council Act as this House has given effect to it?
  Mr. Millan: It is not affected by devolution in the matters that are worrying the Shetland Islands Council, at the moment in any case. However, I shall come to that specific point.
  I understand that the two islands councils want certain safeguards on devolution. Their view on this has not changed since we have had earlier discussions with them during the preparation and earlier stages of the Bill. At that time the discussions related to a number of specific matters about which they were anxious. But on some of these matters—for example, port and oil development generally, which are very much the kind of thing that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned—we were able to give assurances that the Assembly would not affect their powers in these matters. These are reserved matters which are not affected by the Bill. Therefore we took the view, and we still
  1448
  take it, that, looking at the Bill in terms of the normal drafting of legislation such as this, no specific safeguards require to be written into the Bill because they already exist.
  There were, however, other matters that the councils raised with us where that is not true and on which there are no specific safeguards in the Bill and no general safeguards to take account of the position. One of these is the desire of the two islands councils to retain their present all-purpose status, whatever might happen in the future in terms of local government reform in Scotland. We were not able to give undertakings on these matters, although all the main political parties in Scotland have, outside the question of the Bill, given certain assurances on these matters.
  These discussions have been related to specific safeguards, and we note, having had meetings with both islands councils since the amendment was passed, that it is on specific matters that they have anxieties. In view of the decision of the House, and given the general situation, I accept that the House wants some special provision written into the Bill for Orkney and Shetland and I shall come in a moment to what that might be. But the Government accept, and we have told the islands councils, that some special provision should be written into the Bill.
  If we accept that, there are two basic possible approaches to this. The first would be by way of specific safeguards in the Bill related to matters on which the councils have anxieties. The second, of course, is to proceed by way of the sort of provision we already now have in the Bill.
  Let me say a word or two about the provision already in the Bill because it has considerable disadvantages, and the House should be aware of them. First, the effect of the provision is that Orkney and Shetland would be in a kind of limbo after the Assembly was set up for the rest of Scotland because they would have been excluded from the Assembly. They would presumably then be governed from Westminster for what I believe would be essentially quite a long period while the commission was established and made certain studies and recommendations, and before this House took

  1449
  certain decisions about those recommendations. It would be a great mistake to believe that that could be done within a few weeks or months.
  During that period there would be considerable administrative complications because the Scottish Office would be considerably reduced after devolution, most of the matters on which we have a relationship with the islands councils having been transferred to the Assembly along with the corresponding civil servants.
  Thirdly, there will be legislative complications because the Assembly would not of course be legislating for Orkney and Shetland, and it is unlikely that this House would devote a great deal of its time to that task. Fourthly, there are problems concerning certain agencies such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board which operate in Orkney and Shetland at the moment but which will, post-devolution, be the responsibility of the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive and not that of the Westminster Government or the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  In addition, there are a number of services, health services being a conspicuous one, for which the islands are dependent on the mainland for many of the most important provisions. Of course, the continuance of these provisions would depend upon the good will of the Assembly and the Scottish Executive. I am putting all these matters on record because I want to make it clear before the Bill goes to another place that the present provision in the Bill concerning Orkney and Shetland has serious disadvantages for them. I am talking about disadvantage or inconvenience not for the Government, the Assembly or the Scottish Executive, but for the islands themselves.
  I am arranging further meetings in Orkney and Shetland, and we shall see how things go and whether the Government will want to introduce amendments in the House of Lords. I simply wanted to get these facts on the record at the moment.
  Mr. George Gardiner: May I, as one of the hon. Members who visited Shetland at the end of the Summer Recess and has had contact on this matter with the Shetland Islands Council and
  1450
  with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), put forward a couple of points? The Secretary of State said he understood that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland accepted that ultimately Orkney and Shetland should participate in the Assembly. From his discussions with the representatives of the Shetland Islands Council, can the Secretary of State say whether they accept that proposition? I put a point to him arising from what he said on the dangers to Orkney and Shetland of them possibly finding themselves in a limbo after the Assembly is set up. Would he confirm that it is the view of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that, given the work that the Nevis Institute has already undertaken, there is no reason why a commission should not complete its task between the conclusion of the referendum and a possible Assembly commencing its work?
  Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's second point is completely unrealistic. Any commission that is, among other things, considering whether there should be some relation between Orkney and Shetland and the Assembly and the Assembly Executive could not reach a conclusion on that or put forward a particular proposal without consulting the Assembly and the Executive. The idea that this could be done in a few weeks or a few months is completely misguided.
  I am glad that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has come into the Chamber. I think that the views that I attributed to him are accurate, and that he is on record as being in favour ultimately of Orkney and Shetland participating in the work of the Assembly. If I am wrong about that, no doubt he will correct me. I find some difficulty in obtaining from the councils a firm view of what they believe should be the ultimate solution. I am having another meeting with them on that matter.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I recognise the difficulties posed by my right hon. Friend, but are we not exaggerating? Would it not be simple to make an amendment in the House of Lords to the effect that existing relationships between Orkney and Shetland and the present Scottish Office which would be transferred to the Assembly would continue until such time as the commission had completed its task?
  Mr. Millan: What my hon. Friend is saying is that the Bill as it stands will not do. That is all I was saying to the House at rather greater length. I thought it was worth putting those views on record before the Bill passed out of the House.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I must apologise for not being here when the Secretary of State mentioned my constituency. I am attending another meeting dealing with civil aviation in my constituency and I cannot be in more than one place at one time. I cannot in an intervention deal with the question of what will happen, but I confirm that I have always said that in the long run I hope there will be safeguards for Orkney and Shetland and that they will have a special relationship. Clearly, education, crofting and other services must be dealt with from Edinburgh.
  Mr. Millan: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming the views I attributed to him.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Not quite.
  Mr. Millan: I think he has. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of looking after himself and, if he wanted a bit of help, he would not go to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I hope that I shall be able to travel back to the mainland in a moment.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Before my right hon. Friend does so, without suggesting that the considerations he mentioned are not an important part of the question, may I ask whether he agrees that, if the old Amendment No. 149 as it is in the Bill now is sustained, all the options available to Orkney and Shetland, including participation in the Assembly and non-participation in the Assembly, remain open, whereas, if it is knocked out, non-participation in the Assembly is an option which in practice becomes closed? Therefore, the freedom of the people of Orkney and Shetland to make up their minds after they know what is to happen to mainland Scotland is preserved only by keeping the Bill as it is now. Is that a reasonable way to put it?
  Mr. Millan: No, I do not fully accept what my hon. Friend said. If there is to be an ultimate solution which involves
  1452
  Orkney and Shetland participating in the Assembly with perhaps some safeguards, presumably the Assembly and the Scottish Executive will have a view on that, and that view might not necessarily get the acceptance of the majority of the House.
  I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), or whoever else is opening for the Opposition, will talk about the guillotine on the Bill. The Government are completely unrepentant about the use of the guillotine. No Bill of this nature is possible without a timetable motion. That is the practical reality. It is not possible to get through the House a major constitutional measure if there is disagreement about that measure or active opposition even from a small minority in the House without at some stage introducing a timetable motion.
  The Bill had a majority of 44 on Second Reading. The Scotland and Wales Bill last Session had a majority of 45. Both Bills had substantial majorities on Second Reading. On the Scotland Bill we spent 109 hours, over 18 days, in debate. That has to be added to the 127 hours, over 16 days, on the Scotland and Wales Bill, apart from additional debates on the subject of devolution over recent years.
  Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Millan: If my hon. Friend will allow me to finish what I am saying about the guillotine, I shall allow him to intervene.
  It is true that many clauses were not debated, although it is fair to say that no amendments were put down to many clauses that were not debated. It is also true that virtually all the major issues have been debated. The questions of finance, revenue-raising powers, method of election, the referendum and most of the major issues raised by the Bill have been debated adequately. I should like to make one comparison, not with the European Communities Bill, for which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was responsible, but with the Industrial Relations Bill of 1971, which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) did not favour. Only 37 out of 150 clauses and one out of eight schedules were debated on that Bill.

  1453
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire had some responsibility for these matters. In a fit of frankness, when he was making a speech in Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The Government is right in one matter. Under the present procedure no constitutional Bill could get through Parliament without a guillotine."
  I am delighted to have that confirmation from the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that we shall not have too much cant about the guillotine in the debate today.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Without wishing to interfere with the Secretary of State's successful effort to put the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in the dock, I intervene merely to register a dissent. Will the Secretary of State please remember that there is another explanation of the doctrine of the guillotine—that the guillotine should be brought in by a Government only if there has been proved obstruction? I have attended many debates of this kind when the Government have given chapter and verse. What many of us disagree with is that the Government should have the right to introduce the guillotine merely because there is opposition.
  Mr. Millan: I would accept that doctrine in general terms but not in relation to a Bill of this sort. As a matter of practical politics it is not possible, without a timetable motion, to get a Bill of this nature through a House that is not 100 per cent. behind it.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: The Secretary of State has just told the House that in his view there was no important issue that did not receive adequate discussion. One extremely important issue that was not discussed was incomes policy. The right hon. Gentleman said in a rather airy way that he did not mind losing Clause 40; it was declamatory and did not mean anything. One of the strongest criticisms of the scheme put forward by the Government is that it would be possible for a Scottish Assembly to have no regard for the incomes policy. The Assembly could go for 20 per cent. payments to its servants when the country was thinking in terms of 10 per cent. That has never been discussed. It is a matter of major significance. Surely the Secretary of State accepts that he cannot toss that on one side.
  Mr. Millan: I am not tossing incomes policy on one side. The point I made applies, and the clause that dealt with incomes policy was taken out of the Bill.
  I was going on to some of the more general arguments about the Bill, including the general case for devolution as expressed in the Bill. I repeat my belief that the vast majority of people in Scotland do not want independence or separation. I also believe strongly that independence is completely irrelevant to Scotland's real problems at present.
  As for federation, I agree that that solution has a certain logic and coherence—the Government have never denied that—but there are considerable difficulties in the United Kingdom, when the four units of any federation are of such widely disparate size and when England has 83 per cent. of the total population. That would make a workable federation very difficult.
  But even more important in terms of the immediate reality, there is not the slightest sign that the English want a federal system. I do not see why the government of England as it were should be substantially altered in a way that the English do not want, simply to suit the Scots and the Welsh. Equally, however, I do not see why, because the English may not want any particular change in government at Westminster, a long-expressed desire of the people of Scotland and Wales should be constantly and permanently frustrated. I think that the argument works both ways.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the argument that federation would be totally unbalanced because of the great size of England vis-à-vis Scotland applies equally to the independent country of Eire, which is dominated in almost precisely the same way, although it is totally independent. Does that not detract from the argument that it would not be possible to operate a system of self-government satisfactory to the people of Scotland while recognising the realities throughout the United Kingdom? Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman says that the argument for the English—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that points which could be made in debate by hon. Members who are hoping to catch my eye would be much better reserved until then. Interventions have been rather long,

  1455
  but my list of hon. Members wishing to speak is also very long.
  Mr. Johnston: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, and will withdraw my second point.
  Mr. Millan: That is a pity, because it might have been relevant. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's first point was. We can argue this at greater length on another occasion, but his argument about Eire is not a good parallel when it comes to federation. However, in deference to your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I shall not develop that point.
  There is overwhelming evidence that the Scots want change and that what they want is devolution within the United Kingdom. First, the case for special features in Scottish government has always been recognised. Indeed, it was recognised in the Treaty of Union itself. Secondly, since the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was created in 1885, the powers of the Scottish Office have been continually extended. The Scots have a strong sense of national identity. They have maintained a separate legal system and separate administration; there are cultural, historical and even religious differences. Scotland is a discrete entity, an historical nation, which has maintained its identity over many years.
  Thirdly, the way in which we have dealt with the problems of Scotland by continually extending the powers of the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State has an ultimate limit. I believe that we are pressing that ultimate limit now. Every Government—not only Labour but Conservative Governments—have been pushed, or have moved willingly, as this Government have done over the last two or three years, towards giving more powers to the Scottish Office. In our case, since 1974, industrial assistance powers under the Industry Act and powers in relation to the Manpower Services Commission have been decentralised to the Scottish Office. But there is a limit to what can be done within a United Kingdom system of administration in that direction.
  All Governments, because of the political, administrative and economic realities of the situation, have added to the powers of the Scottish Office. It would be utterly repugnant to Scottish opinion and this House, whatever any hon. Member feels about devolution, for
  1456
  any of those powers to be taken back to Westminster and United Kingdom Departments, and away from the Scottish Office. But there are limits to how we can run the Scottish Office by continually adding these widely disparate powers to the Secretary of State's responsibilities.
  That is because—fourthly—there is a problem of democratic accountability. I do not believe that this is unique to the Scottish Office or our arrangements for dealing with Scottish affairs: it applies to other Departments as well. I believe that there is a general feeling in he House that we could improve our systems of democratic accountability. But we can do it for Scotland in a way which, the Government believe, will not prejudice the unity of the United Kingdom and which will meet the long-expressed desires of people in Scotland. That of course is a strong argument for the devolution proposals.
  Fifthly, I believe that devolution will lead to better government for Scotland, that it will lead to government which is more responsive to Scottish needs and which determines policies in relation to these matters more closely and independently than is possible when Scotland is governed through the Scottish Office, as happens at present.
  I have felt that the more strongly since I have been Secretary of State over the last two years and I believe that most people who have held Scottish ministerial office share that view—that there are certain divergencies of policy and administration at the moment but that they could with great advantage to Scotland and with no detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom be considerably increased under a Scottish Assembly. I believe that that would be better government and that there would be better determination of priorities and a better expenditure of the money available for financing those services.
  However, I also believe that it would be a great mistake to break the connection with the rest of the United Kingdom, either explicitly, by going separatist, or by determining a range of functions for the Scottish Assembly which would ultimately lead to that result. The way in which we have determined the split of functions between the Scottish Assembly and the United Kingdom Government in the Bill gives, I believe, wide scope for

  1457
  independent decision-making in Scotland while reserving to this House and to the Government here the basic decisions about the economy and the rest on which an integrated United Kingdom approach is required.
  I believe that the kind of system proposed in the Bill is good for Scotland and for the United Kingdom and that it will increasingly be seen to be good for the United Kingdom as the devolution proposals take effect.
  We are implementing in the Bill proposals based on the 1974 Labour Party manifesto, in which we said that we would introduce an Assembly for Scotland. The Liberal Party position on these matters is clear. As we heard the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) explain in an intervention just now, they support the Bill—at least, I hope, they do—but they believe in a federal approach. We know what the position of the Scottish National Party is.
  But what about the position of the Conservative Opposition on devolution? They also, in their election manifesto in October 1974, pledged themselves to setting up a Scottish Assembly. At that time they said that they were preparing proposals. It is now four years later and we have not seen these proposals.
  All that we have heard from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, in the debates in this House, is a call for more consultations—for more talk about talk about talk. But we have had ample opportunity for talk on this matter, because, quite apart from the debates on this Bill, the Kilbrandon Commission was set up in 1968, which is 10 years ago now, and it reported in October 1973, which is more than four years ago. The Government issued a consultative paper in the summer of 1974 inviting comments on a number of different options identified by Kilbrandon—no fewer than seven options then.
  Only a fortnight ago, in a speech in Edinburgh, the right hon. Gentleman unveiled four options which he said his party would submit to a constitutional conference. It is a pity, incidentally, that the party with this great enthusiasm for reform and with all these ideas fermenting did not take the trouble to submit evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission in the first place, because it was the only
  1458
  party represented in the House that did not do so.
  However, at any rate, after these four years we have now four options. The first is the status quo, but with a Select Committee of Scottish Members of Parliament to investigate legislation and propose measures. But that is not new. It is the old proposal, as far as I can see, of the Douglas-Home Committee, and even the author of that proposal has publicly admitted that that is no longer a valid option for Scotland, and—if I need say it—it does not, of course, provide for an elected Assembly. Therefore, it does not provide for the promises made by the Conservative Party at the last General Election.
  Then we have an inquisitorial Assembly, perhaps directly elected but with no executive and only limited legislative powers. But that is not a new idea. It was one of the options published in the present Government's White Paper of June 1974. It was one of the seven options. It is not something that has suddenly come to light or has suddenly been developed by the right hon. Gentleman or the Conservative Party. It was there in the 1974 White Paper.
  Then there is the quasi-federal system, which I gather is the third of the options that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. But again, so far as one can make sense of that—it is a bit vague as the right hon. Gentleman describes it—that is rather similar to one of the options, option B, in the Government's 1974 consultative document, so there is nothing new about that, as well.
  The right hon. Gentleman's final option is a separate Scottish Assembly, with executive and legislative powers. That is very much what is provided for in the Bill.
  The point about all these so-called options is that they have already been explored at very considerable length, going back at least to the establishment of the Kilbrandon Commission and, for those of us who have been involved in Scottish politics, they are familiar for years before that. What the right hon. Gentleman is involved in is not a serious study of the problems but a continuation of delaying tactics.
  If one looks at the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made on 23rd January

  1459
  this year, the same speech from which I have already quoted, one can see it actually spelt out. This is how the right hon. Gentleman explained what we should do about devolution:
  "First, there should be an all-party constitutional committee to examine the options.'
  Presumably the right hon. Gentleman was referring to his four options and anything that anyone else would like to think of. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "Second, its conclusion should be put to the House of Commons as a whole."
  The House would then indicate which option it preferred and
  "consider the implications for other parts of the United Kingdom."
  Then,
  "Third, the Government should produce a draft Bill containing various options"
  —so that we could all have another go at deciding what we want. As the fourth bit of the proposal, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should then set up a Select Committee
  "to examine the detail of the Bill, but not the principles."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Finally, with the Select Committee's report to hand, the House of Commons should deal with the Bill in the normal way."
  The next sentence is understandable:
  "this procedure is rather lengthy and a guillotine may be needed in the end."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "In fact, the procedure may take up to three years."
  It would take that long on that basis.
  The fact is that the Conservative Party has not the slightest intention of doing anything about devolution for Scotland. It will not set up an Assembly. It has abandoned its commitment to an Assembly. I think that it would be more honest if the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Opposition Front Bench would simply say that. We would have some respect for that. There is a perfectly acceptable argument for no Assembly at all, but there is no argument for continually delaying a decision on this matter by constitutional conferences or anything else.
  It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Cathcart in a speech the other day, said:
  "The issue of devolution has been a bit of a political nightmare for the Conservative Party."
  1460
  The hon. Gentleman is a bit of a political nightmare himself.
  We believe that our proposals are what the people in Scotland want and we believe that they are workable proposals. We have improved them as the debate has gone on.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman has been scathing about the difficulties. We admit that devolution has been a nightmare for the Tory Party in dealing with a very difficult constitutional issue. However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman a straight question. Would he care to give us an assessment of what would be the result tonight, on Third Reading, if the House of Commons were to express its real opinion about this Bill on a free vote?
  Mr. Millan: That is a very inadequate answer to what I have said about the hon. Gentleman. The House will give its view tonight, and I believe that it will be a view for the Third Reading of the Bill.
  I was about to make one final point. During the course of the debates on the Bill, we have been told that there are possible sources of friction here between the Assembly and Westminster. Of course, I admit that. Any system of this sort has possible sources of friction. Any system of this sort and any scheme of devolution ultimately depends to some extent on good will and common sense. I have never denied that. In fact, I assert it. I believe that we shall get that. I have much more faith in the common sense virtues of the Scottish people than apparently the Conservative Opposition have.
  I want just to make the additional point that this House and the way in which we govern the United Kingdom from this House depend on good will, moderation and common sense as well. Even the internal workings of this House depend on good will. But again, in the wider profound sense, what we do here about the Government of the United Kingdom depends ultimately on the general acceptance of the people who send us here, the electorate of the United Kingdom.
  If we in this House were to deny Scottish people a change in the government of Scotland for which they have expresed a desire over many years and about which they will soon have a right to take the

  1461
  ultimate decision, subject to final authority of this House, and if we ignore that feeling in Scotland and deny people there the right to make that kind of choice, the acceptance by them of the House of Commons is called into question as well. I ask hon. Members who may be disposed to vote against the Bill tonight to take that into consideration.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Millan: I am literally finishing my speech.
  This Bill, when it leaves here, will go to another place for further consideration. I do not in any way devalue the consideration that it will have in the House of Lords, but I believe that, more important than that, it will go ultimately to the people of Scotland at the referendum for their consideration and for their decision. I believe that the debate now is moving out of this House and to the people of Scotland. I believe that when it goes there we shall have their support and the implementation of the Assembly.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Pym: I should like to say to the Secretary of State, in view of the fact that the House of Commons is so profoundly uneasy and disquieted about this Bill, that there is a very good argument for saying that we ought to find a better way of improving the government of Scotland. As I have listened to and participated in debates on this Bill, or at least on those parts of it that we have had time to discuss, I have felt that I have been through the same experience before. I had—and so has the whole House. It has been a repetition of the late though unlamented Scotland and Wales Bill, one anniversary of which happens to fall today.
  I say that because day after day hon. Members in all parts of the House have risen to speak on the Bill but for almost all of the time there has been but one lone voice raised in favour of the proposals it contains—that of the Minister of State, sitting much of the time in splendid isolation on the Government Front Bench, though there were others there from time to time. I support what the Secretary of State has said: we on this side wish to thank the Minister of State for the patience and courtesy he
  1462
  has shown. Whilst we did not always necessarily accept his arguments, we appreciated the way in which he conducted his business.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot have the argument both ways. In one breath he says that because of the guillotine hon. Members have not had sufficient time to debate the proposals in the Bill, and in the next breath he is criticising the fact that we who supported the Bill on this side gave ample opportunity to the Opposition to destroy it.
  Mr. Pym: Behind the Minister of State there was the Under-Secretary and sometimes the Lord President, who were all enthusiastic supporters of the Bill but there were very few others. The Benches behind were empty and the Whips were very reluctant to fill them because they were probably rather afraid that hon. Members might hear the arguments overwhelmingly against the Bill. Hon. Member after hon. Member has criticised each and every aspect of the Bill, founded, as it is, in political expediency.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler rose—
  Mr. Pym: I will get on with my speech, otherwise we shall be here for two hours. I do not mind, but some hon. Members might regret it.
  There are those who oppose the whole concept of devolution and there are some who prefer some other kind of devolution. There are those in the Scottish National Party who support independence and who have voted enthusiastically for this Bill simply because they know that it is so bad that it must inevitably lead towards that separation they desire. Their national chairman admitted as much.
  But where are the supporters of the Bill, the protagonists? Who is proclaiming all the benefits to flow from it? The answer is—nobody in this House or outside, except the Minister. And so, just as with the Scotland and Wales Bill, time and again the Government have lost the arguments although they have won the votes—or most of them. No wonder they were at such pains to introduce the guillotine right from the start.
  The Government well knew that if every clause were properly debated, it

  1463
  would be overwhelmed by the logic of the argument against the Bill. I accept that the Secretary of State quoted accurately what I said on the timetable motion. I also said that the background to any such motion, the processes and procedures gone through before it is ever introduced, are very important and that the procedure he had outlined would be rather lengthy, taking three years. Where are we now after three years of the Government's endless Bill? We are still in a state when the House genuinely does not believe in it.
  When the guillotine motion was introduced, I warned the House that if it was passed many important clauses and constructive amendments would go undebated. Little did I realise that so many would receive neither word of comment nor scrutiny. Little did I think I would see entire sections of a major constitutional Bill go through the House without any consideration. That cannot be right. It is a dereliction of our duty. It is irresponsible in an area where this House has responsibility. Yet at this time the Minister of State said:
  "The sensible thing for the House of Commons to do is to examine the Bill carefully, to test Ministers on the arguments they put forward. Hon. Members can do that only in an organised way if there is some structure to the discussion, and that is what the guillotine motion provides."
  We know now what kind of structure it gave the discussion. A little bit here and a little bit there, and over half of the Bill neglected altogether. Some 58 clauses and 14 schedules went through on the nod, including crucial clauses on finance, the powers to veto Assembly Bills and, perhaps most surprisingly of all, the actual powers to be devolved. On top of that there were 68 Front Bench amendments from this side all designed to test the Bill at a specific point and all actually selected by the Chair but all totally unconsidered. That is reducing the legislative process to a farce.
  In their handling of the Bill, which I have criticised from the outset, the Government have made certain that Parliament could not do its job properly. Parliament has failed the nation in its handling of this Bill so far. I believe responsibility for that lies with the Treasury Bench.
  But we can at least begin to put it right tonight because if ever there was a case
  1464
  for the House to rise to an occasion, this is it. It is for the House to decide tonight. The Government, I believe quite rightly, refused to make this a matter of confidence. I believe they were right to turn down the overtures to do so that they received from the Scottish National Party.
  This Government have been so sure about this Bill, so sure that they had designed the most perfect scheme imaginable, that right up to the referendum clause there was an unwillingness to accept a single amendment or even the spirit of any amendment or to reconsider a single clause in the Bill. With the sole exception of the preamble to the referendum provision, virtually every change in the Bill has been forced on an unwilling Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) predicted in the debate on the guillotine motion on 16th November last,
  "there will be no concessions to any argument at any stage of the Committee."—[Official Report, 16th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 642–5].
  So it has proved to be. We on this side have adopted a consistent attitude of strong opposition to the Bill, but our amendments have been constructive. All our amendments have been designed to ensure that if the Bill ever became law it would work more smoothly, so far as that is possible.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: Nonsense.
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense", but we tried. If he will look at the 68 undebated amendments I believe he will come to that conclusion. We tried to make the division of powers clearer and to allocate responsibility more clearly. We tried to reduce the elements of confusion and conflict in the Bill, and we tried to introduce judicial procedures rather than political processes where there might be conflict over matters of fact rather than opinion—but all to no avail.
  Where we voted against important clauses we did so either because we disagreed or because they had gone undebated and we thought it wrong that we should have no opportunity to discuss them. The Government have been unwilling to accept any constructive amendment.
  But despite all our efforts, there were some provisions which the House simply

  1465
  was not prepared to accept, though I note from what has been said by the Secretary of State that in practically every case the Government are now prepared to accept them. Here I am referring to the referendum and the Orkney and Shetland Islands.
  I have heard the Secretary of State say that he will have to consider what amendments he puts down in another place, if this Bill ever gets there. The same applies to pay policy. But the most significant thing of all was on the very first day of the Committee stage, when the House forced the Government to face up to the fact that it just did not believe that the Bill would have no effect on the future of the United Kingdom. The Government's decision not to try to reinstate that clause on Report stage is enormously significant. The House of Commons has asserted its conviction that this Bill will affect the future unity of the United Kingdom and the Government have accepted that view.
  In proposing the timetable motion, the Minister said the House had a duty to come to a verdict on legislation, presumably whether or not it was debated. It did so, and most pointedly when it voted out the first clause. Today, unfortunately—and I accept the truth of what the Secretary of State has said—we are left with the Bill in largely the same unsatisfactory state as when we debated it on Second Reading, which is the context in which we have to consider it today on Third Reading.
  Mr. James Sillars: The right hon. Gentleman constantly talks of the unity of the United Kingdom. Since he has mentioned the inevitability of independence, does he recognise the basic intrinsic merits of that proposition?
  Mr. Pym: I do not think I said that it was inevitable. I said that it was extremely likely that it could lead to that eventually and that that was why the SNP supported the proposal.
  On Second Reading several hon. Members said that they were opposed to the Bill but would vote for it so that they could campaign against it in the referendum. Whatever else I may think about that, I can at least understand it because it is one way of trying to resolve a con-
  1466
  flict of loyalties. It is attractive to say that we should find out—so far as that is possible—what the Scots really want.
  Now that we have spent 18 days considering the Bill, albeit an insufficient number, and now that we have written into the Bill a minimum percentage for a referendum, it may still seem an attractive proposition to put this question to the Scots. But is it fair to put this particular question to the people of Scotland?
  One of the principal moving forces behind devolution—and I regret this factor—is disillusion with Parliament and the poor performance of our nation. Does it make sense to say to the people of Scotland. "You have asked for an Assembly, and here it is. We have not had enough time to work out exactly how it will operate in detail, but what we have seen we do not like. But we have passed this measure because we want to pass the buck to you, the people of Scotland. You can tell us whether you want us to bring the measure into operation"?
  That attitude cannot be right. It is a kind of fraud, because it contains a deceit and is misleading. The people of Scotland have been led to believe that this is a good form of devolution. We do not think it is and this House, in its heart, does not believe it is. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the option which it puts before the people of Scotland is workable—and we have failed in that duty so far.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Pym: I do not want to give way, because if I do so my speech will take one-and-a-half hours or two hours to deliver.
  Everybody knows what the House really thinks of this Bill. Because the House was so conscious of its implications, it decided to require a 40 per cent. "Yes" vote in the referendum. What is being said to the people of Scotland is "We shall put the Bill into effect, but only if the public are prepared to take the blame in sufficiently large numbers".
  I do not regard that as government, statesmanship or good parliamentary government. If anything, it is a parliamentary scandal. If the House is so unsure of the proposal, it should vote against the Bill tonight. In doing so, the House

  1467
  would be voting for Scotland rather than against it.
  We should make clear to the people of Scotland that we know that they are dissatisfied and that that is the reason for the Bill. We should say to them "We understand that you want changes. So does the rest of the United Kingdom. But we believe that this change will not work and will harm Scotland and the United Kingdom. We examined the scheme last year, and did not like it. We have now examined it again and are even more convinced that it is wrong. Therefore, we shall vote against it and try to hammer out proposals for Scotland that will actually work and help the Scottish people."
  To many people in Scotland this sounds like delay and frustration. I acknowledge that factor. But how much more frustration would there be, if the Bill were ever enacted, if it were to fail? That is the choice we must face.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman has often talked about hammering out propsals for Scotland. However, we have still had no proposals from the Conservative Party. May we know what they are?
  Mr. Pym: In my view, there is at present no proposal for which there is a genuine majority in this House. There may have been a majority on Second Reading, and I cannot deny that, but it is clear that this House does not believe in the measure. I have been frank enough to acknowledge that no proposal put forward by anybody, including members of the Liberal Party, has had a majority in this House. No proposal has been put forward to find a better way of implementing this matter. Is it not our responsibility to advance such a proposal? That is the procedural background behind the Bill. It is more important for us to get a measure that will work and will be satisfactory and acceptable, instead of plunging ahead with a Bill just because the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum refers to "devolution".
  Mr. Iain MacCormick: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to carry out his threat to speak for two hours, but in replying to the intervention of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), the right hon. Gentleman spoke of proposals for a devolved Scotland
  1468
  which were unacceptable. However, does he not appreciate that we are still awaiting concrete proposals from the Conservative Party?
  Mr. Pym: None of the parties has yet put forward a genuine proposal for which there is majority support. That is a factor which the House must accept. The essence of the matter involves consideration of how we should move in the direction of devolution and the solution which we eventually put forward.
  This Bill cannot in the event satisfy the people of Scotland. I want to test that proposition by posing three questions. First, does it meet the demands for the reform of the Government of Scotland; secondly, does it meet the emotional expectations in Scotland; and, thirdly, how will the Bill work?
  Let me deal first with the point whether the Bill will meet constitutional demands. I do not believe that we have evolved the most perfect system of government, let alone that it should remain exactly as it is now—far from it. But equally I believe that it should be changed only to meet genuine needs and improvements.
  What is wrong and what is being complained of? In my opinion, Parliament has not adapted itself to deal with and to control the vast expansion of modern government activity. In a sense the Executive is out of control. The procedures appropriate to Parliament in the first half of this century can scarcely be man enough or adequate to control the Executive at the present time. Government now permeates every person's everyday life. Once government takes that course, it needs more scrutiny and investigation. Its activities need to be checked more closely by people who possess the appropriate expertise—and it needs to be made more responsive to people's preferences.
  But, as we all know, at the same time as government has grown more and interfered more, the more we find Parliament less able to cope. Bills go through improperly examined—as we see with this Bill today—orders and regulations often go undebated, and the reports of nationalised industries and public bodies go unconsidered. Furthermore, the bureaucracies seem to have a life and will of their own, beyond the control of politicians and closed to any access by ordinary people. That is true of the

  1469
  United Kingdom at large, and perhaps even more true of Scotland with its separate arrangements and government administration.
  I believe that it is this constitutional weakness, this parliamentary failure, that is behind the sense and feeling in Scotland that, when things go wrong, it is because people in Westminster, Whitehall and in the headquarters of nationalised industries do not seem to understand Scotland's special needs and circumstances. There seems no way of getting at them to tell them. It does not need this Bill to overcome that situation, and indeed it will not overcome it. There are other ways to go about the matter. The Secretary of State likes to pour cold water on every suggestion we make, but there is enough cold water about to pour on his own proposals, so that he should have some feeling of humility.
  The Bill envisages the creation of another tier of government, another Cabinet and another Parliament in Edinburgh. There are no new ideas for the better control of the Executive, but just an extra Executive. There are no new ideas to improve the quality of legislation—just more of it. Finally, there are no ideas on how to increase the expertise available to legislators.
  It is an Assembly with the appearance of power and importance, but it will not contribute to the wellbeing of Scotland or the United Kingdom and it will be expensive. The Bill cannot be said to meet the essential constructional need for better investigation and control of Government activity.
  Does it meet the emotional call from Scotland? Many people think that it is necessary for Scotland to have an Assembly. Some go further and believe that the granting of executive and legislative powers is some sort of test of its effectiveness. But what is the expectation behind that? What do people think that an Assembly with its own Cabinet will be able to do that Parliament cannot or will not do and that an Assembly without a Cabinet could not do? They expect it to be able to act in the one area that they associate with Cabinet government—the economy, prices and jobs. They think that the Assembly will improve Scotland's economic performance. But this Bill can do nothing about jobs, the economy or prices.
  1470
  When the flaws in the Bill are discovered in Scotland—as assuredly they will be—there will be a bitter sense of disappointment. Expectations have been raised. People have been misled and there will be a reaction. People will feel let down. In the idiom of modern politics, there will be a call for action. There will be pressure for more power. If and when that is granted, we shall see the beginning of the break-up of the unity of the United Kingdom economy. That would be crazy.
  The Assembly proposed in the Bill will not meet the emotional call, except possibly in the immediate short term in the erroneous belief that Scotland has achieved some real benefit for itself. These matters are for individual judgment. Perhaps it could be said that my judgment is wrong, but it is my present conviction and that is why I say it.
  The decisive question must be; will the Bill actually work or will it cause more problems than it solves? No doubt, with an abundance of good will on all sides, it could be made to function for a time. But it will not function smoothly or easily, because it is built on an unstable foundation.
  It is incredible that even at this late stage the Government have still not answered some of the telling questions that they pose in their own White Paper, "Devolution within the United Kingdom" which was published in 1974. The Secretary of State referred to the White Paper. If he turns to paragraph 56 he will find many questions to which we have not yet had answers. Paragraph 56(a) asks:
  "What difficulties are foreseen when the Scottish and Welsh Governmenst are of a different political complexion from the United Kingdom Government?"
  The Government have not yet expressed a view about that. Paragraph 56(e) asks:
  "is it acceptable to the people of England that while the Westminster Parliament would in general not be able to legislate for Scotland and Wales in matters of health, education, local government, etc., some 90 Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster would participate in legislation for England on these matters?"
  That is an early version, the Government's own version, of the West Lothian question. There is no answer to it and the Government have made no attempt to provide an answer. Parliament's answer

  1471
  is that it is not acceptable. What are the Government now saying? They do not even recognise that there is a problem. They pretend that the question does not exist.
  Paragraph 56(g) asks:
  "is it acceptable to the people of Scotland and Wales that their Secretaries of State would disappear in their present form?"
  I dare say that in Scotland with unemployment at 196,000 that might be so. The paragraph continues:
  "Even if they were retained, they would have more limited powers and would not have the support of strong departments."
  After four years these and many other questions have not been answered. They have been ignored and brushed aside.
  Mrs. Margaret Bain: During the passage of this legislation the majority of Scottish Members have endorsed it but have been over-ruled by the English majority. I take it from the right hon. Member's criticism of the failure to give economic powers to the Assembly that he is endorsing the proposal by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that there should be a separate exchequer.
  Mr. Pym: All hon. Members are Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. Of course hon. Members from Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom can vote on all matters that relate to the United Kingdom or any part of it. Expectations have been raised about economic matters. There will be disappointment, and that is a great pity.
  The truth about the Bill is that it will reduce the effectiveness of Scotland's voice in the Cabinet. We all know that Ministers without a powerful Department behind them are far less well placed in Cabinet. Does Scotland want to exchange her place at the Cabinet table for an ineffective Assembly in Edinburgh?
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Yes.
  Mr. Pym: Although I have posed and repeated that question time and time again, the Scots have not yet been adequately warned about the consequences of this Bill. No wonder the Government have not answered their own questions. They dare not do so. They have not got any answers. The whole
  1472
  scheme is riddled with inconsistencies. I shall summarise some of them.
  First, there is no clear division of powers. There are many areas of dual responsibility. The Scottish Secretary is sometimes required to act on the instructions of the Secretary of State, regardless of whether he agrees with them or whether they are politically alien to his beliefs. At other times he must act only with the consent of a United Kingdom Minister. At other times both Executives may act but it is not made clear which has precedence. That cannot lead to stable government. At best it must lead to inefficient government and at worst to contentious disputes.
  Secondly, a complicated list of devolved subjects are contained in the Bill, followed by a detailed list of exceptions. There is a list of Acts devolved and a list of sections of Acts that are excepted. Almost the whole of that has been left undebated.
  Thirdly, having created such a complicated system, the Government have created an equally controversial procedure for resolving the disputes that will inevitably arise. Instead of referring all questions of vires to the Judicial Committee, where an EEC or international obligation is in question, the United Kingdom Government will simply veto the Assembly's action without even a reference to Parliament. Yet such matters are matters of fact and law and open to legal interpretation. Even where the Assembly may be acting ultra vires it will be only for the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee. Parliament has no say. That opens the way for a co-operative Secretary of State to allow the Assembly to extend its powers without the permission of this House, simply by not referring a Bill to the Judicial Committee.
  Fourthly, there are the override powers. Here, the Assembly may act intra vires but be overruled by two simple votes on a Resolution in this House if its action
  "would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly."
  I can think of few actions of which it could not be claimed that they might indirectly affect a reserved matter. The economy is an example. Any devolved education matter must at least indirectly affect the universities, which are reserved.

  1473
  Whenever that veto is used, it will bear the appearance of a partisan veto, exercised by a United Kingdom Government who simply dislike what the Assembly is doing. Would it not have been better to rely on the power of Parliament to pass an Act revising the Assembly Act? At least that would have provided the safeguard of the procedures required to pass an Act of Parliament. That would be preferable to reversing a Scottish Act by two simple votes after a short debate.
  After all, it is the procedure that must be used if a Scottish Assembly Act adversely affects a matter such as health or education affecting only England. Why not use it for the other matters? If the Government had accepted our amendments it would have been easier still, because any Assembly Act would be read subject to any United Kingdom Act passed after the passage of the Bill.
  There are plenty of other objections to the Bill, such as the changes in the role of the House of Lords, a very important matter, and lack of any information on the procedure for the allocation and determination of the block budget and the role of the Finance Board.
  I am not saying that if this scheme were put into effect the government of Scotland would collapse on the morrow of the Assembly's taking over. What I am saying is that the underlying seeds of frustration, disappointment and unrealised expectations will sow divisions even among men of good will, and in the end they could come to see independence at the only way out of these problems.
  At every point in the debate we have returned to the one central defect that has haunted all our discussions. It is simply this: what will be the role of Scottish Members of Parliament after the Assembly is established? Scottish Members will be able to vote on certain matters as they affect England, Wales or Northern Ireland, but neither they nor any other Members will be able to vote on them for Scotland.
  It is one thing for English Members to vote on purely Scottish affairs and for Scottish Members to vote on purely English affairs when that can happen both ways. Then it is a matter of United Kingdom Members voting on United Kingdom affairs whether they concern one part of the United Kingdom or the
  1474
  whole United Kingdom. It is quite a different matter when Scottish Members vote on English affairs when they themselves cannot vote on the same affairs for Scotland.
  In fact, the House of Commons would then have five different roles—for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. There would also be four different roles for Scotland—when a subject is devolved completely, when it is devolved for Executive purposes only, when it is a matter for the Secretary of State, and when Scotland is treated like any other part of the United Kingdom. What a fantastic proposition!
  I make this prediction: the day on which the votes of Scottish Members determine an issue for England in a way with which English Members do not agree will be the day the system will break down. We shall not need to wait for it to know that it will happen. Parliament will then be faced with the stark reality of what it has done.
  I shall tell the House how I think the sequence of events may proceed from there if the Bill is enacted. First, we shall probably try a convention whereby Scottish Members do not vote on non-Scottish matters. That will collapse on the day the Government are deprived of their overall majority as a result.
  Then we shall create an Executive for non-Scottish matters from the party with the largest number of non-Scottish seats. But that will soon cease to work. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, you will have a terrible time in all this. It will cease to work when the chaos created by two Executives in the same body becomes apparent. The idea of having two different and separate Executive in this House seems absurd.
  What shall we do then? Shall we move on to meeting at different times of the week for non-Scottish business? Will it not be long before we decide to elect a separate English and Welsh Assembly with the same powers as that for Scotland? What sort of crazy world would this be? What price Clause 1 now? It is no wonder the Government have not tried to reinstate it.
  We should then have arrived at a kind of quasi-federal system, not by choice but by accident, as a result of trying to cope

  1475
  with the consequences of a bad Bill, which the House should not pass.
  The frightening thing is that the Government do not even recognise that their scheme will create these or any difficulties for the role of Scottish Members. It would be one thing if the Government were to acknowledge that there were problems and then to claim that devolution was so overridingly important that we must accept these anomalies. But it is quite another when they refuse to recognise that any difficulties exist.
  I know why the Government refuse to recognise the difficulties. It is because they realise that the only result could be the disappearance of their majority based on Scottish votes, and that would destroy the whole object of the Bill from their point of view, which is to keep that majority intact.
  Even if there were no other reason to vote against the Bill—and there are plenty—this vital unresolved matter of the role of Scottish Members is surely by itself sufficient.
  The Bill is not the only way to change government as it affects Scotland. If the Government and the House were convinced that Scotland must have an Assembly, and the only way to establish such a body was by the scheme in the Bill, that might be a reason to vote for it. But it is not the only scheme. A vote for or against the Bill is not a vote for or against devolution. It is a vote for or against this scheme. The Lord President likes to mock, but that is true. It is a vote for or against this scheme, and that is all.
  More than that, there is a better way. The House knows my view. Not everybody accepts it, but there is no view on this subject that is accepted by the whole House. I think that, every party having concluded that there could and should be improvements in the government of Scotland, we should work out the workable options. These have not been put forward for debate in the House, even without the all-party conference for which I have been calling.
  I have put forward four options. The Secretary of State is entitled to pour cold water on them, and others can be proposed. We may not reach agreement on any one alternative, but at least we could
  1476
  agree on what the workable options are and the implications of each for the rest of the United Kingdom. The House has never been invited to go through that process, by which it would be in a better position to express its preference and to bring the matter to a properly considered conclusion.
  Because the scheme before us is so fraught with unnecessary danger for the future of our country, and because so many more dangers may lurk in the many undebated clauses, I urge the House to vote against the Bill tonight and to choose another way. If the Bill is defeated tonight, the Government will not fall. There will be no sudden election. In fact, I rather suspect that, like the rest of us, the Government would probably privately breathe a huge sigh of relief.
  Like the votes on the referendum last week, it would not be a verdict on the Labour Government, the Conservative Opposition or the Lib-Lab pact, nor would it be a verdict given by the Labour Party, the Liberal Party or any other party. It would be a verdict of the House of Commons on a Bill for which it has no enthusiasm and which in its heart it believes is wrong.
  We in this House are the trustees for the time being of our country and its institutions.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Which country?
  Mr. Pym: If we fail in our guardianship of our country and its institutions, the judgment of our people and of history will indeed be harsh, and rightly so. Let us do what we know to be right. Let us be true to ourselves and even now throw out the Bill and save our country and her people, whom we here represent, from the awful consequences that will flow from it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I appeal to hon. Members not to come to the Chair to seek to find out their chances of being called to speak. I also give the House the assurance that I shall do my best to see that there is a balanced debate. I shall be here almost throughout the debate. It will be intolerable if there is a constant queue coming up to the Chair and, in the words of my predecessor, it will be counterproductive.
  4.49 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: As I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) I found it hard to believe that he was speaking for the party that in 1967, the year before the Kilbrandon Commission was established, set up a shadow constitutional commision—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can do without the help of SNP Members. If they remain silent I shall resume my seat all the more quickly and they will have a chance to speak. The chairman of the shadow commission was Lord Home, as he now is. It had on it ex-Prime Ministers from Dominions. A Scottish judge, Lord Avonside, was persuaded to join it. It was apparently forgotten that judges have a certain dissociation from politics. The Conservatives were so concerned about the question that they established the commission, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot now come forward and say anything to the contrary on behalf of the Conservative Party. There are Conservative Members who in election after election from 1970 onwards have had devolution in their election addresses, promising the people of Scotland a directly elected Assembly. I have had a sheaf of election addresses from my own Member of Parliament along these lines.
  The right hon. Gentleman, despite these facts, comes here today with his condemnation of the Bill. He should be condemning himself and his own party, The Conservatives set up the commission, and it came to a certain point of view, The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that we have had debate after debate on the Kilbrandon Report. Indeed, it was his party's policy to go further forward in regard to devolution. If there is any party to be condemned for its behaviour in relation to Scotland it is the Tory Party.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about fraud and about deceit. After the debate he can come with me to my room and I can show him the headlines in The Scotsman after the declaration of Perth, when the Tory Party committed itself to a directly elected Assembly in Scotland. That was over 10 years ago, yet he comes to the House today and makes the speech that he has just made. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there was no one more reluctant than myself—
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: To come to the Commons.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on points of order and in speaking from a sedentary position, but he knows nothing at all about Scotland.
  I was reluctant about the creation of an Assembly. I was not sure whether it was a slippery slope or whether it could be a half-way house where we could stop, but I came to the conclusion that we had to have an Assembly because the position here was becoming quite impossible. There were several things happening, and the right hon. Gentleman rightly touched on this. There was the expectation that Governments would enter new spheres of activity and, for example, accept responsibility for planning. That has grown up since the war. Then there was the National Health Service, which was not here before the war. There were also questions of responsibility for economic development in industry and aids for industry. These were all great new burdens coming upon the House of Commons and upon Government.
  At the same time, in relation to Scotland, more and more old responsibilities as well as new ones were piling up on the Secretary of State for Scotland. It should be remembered that the Scottish Office was transferred to Edinburgh in 1939. There has been a growth of a tremendous Civil Service dealing with all these necessary responsibilities, but not in Whitehall. There is only a handful of Scottish civil servants in Whitehall. There are over 7,000 civil servants in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Where are the Members of Parliament? They are here.
  When I came into the House a Scottish Member was entitled to ask three Questions at Question Time. Now it is not three but two, and matters are slightly congested as to how they are treated. They come up on one day every four weeks. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is enough?
  The more that we had these responsibilities piling up on the Secretary of State for Scotland—and rightly so, because they had to be undertaken in Edinburgh—the more difficult it became for the Minister properly to oversee them and be doing one duty in Scotland and another here, especially in the kind of Parliament that we have. Indeed, it was the right hon.

  1479
  Gentleman's Government which established the first Minister of State, Scottish Office. His job was to stay in Scotland. It was then discovered that he could not, because he had to be in the House of Lords.
  There has been a logical development over the years. The Scottish Office developed from 1885. The Secretary of State was first appointed in 1926. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's father was the first modern Secretary of State for Scotland. Then we had the Gilmour Committee, following which we had the transfer of various powers to the Scottish Office. The logical and right conclusion, therefore, is that we must have an Assembly to ensure that there is democratic control of what we are doing.
  As to the functions of the Assembly, I believe that these are right, except that I should have liked to see them go a little further in respect of the law. I should have preferred to see the Lord Advocate in the Assembly rather than down here. It should be remembered that the basis for being able to make such changes stems from the Act of Union, in that Scotland was given a guarantee that the Scottish legal system would continue.
  One of the difficulties is that my English hon. Friends, and also my Scottish hon. Friends who represent English constituencies, do not appear to know how Scotland is governed at the present time. They do not appreciate the differences which exist. The tremendous battle that we had in this House about private patients in the hospital service did not raise a flutter in Scotland. In Scotland there are about 60,000 hospital beds, of which only about 100 are private. Having a separate Act of Parliament and a separate administration to deal with our health services, we have exercised our right to be different.
  The right hon. Gentleman should be able to see that we are dealing in the Bill with the functions of education, local government and so on. He should be able to see what are the possibilities. He talked about the day when Scottish votes in this House will create a situation which will upset the English Members. I wonder whether he recalls the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill 1973. At that time, when local government was being reorganised, of the 71 Scottish seats, 44 were Labour, 23 were
  1480
  Conservative, three were Liberal and one was held by the Scottish National Party. But despite the fact that we had the majority of opinion behind us, the difficulty was that it was a Tory Government. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman who in May 1973 was asking Conservative Members to vote in Committee to give back to local authorities power over water matters while at the same time exactly the opposite was being done in regard to England on the Floor of the House.
  I repeat my belief that English Members, and Scotsmen who represent English constituencies, had not a clue at that time and have not a clue today as to how Scotland is governed. They ought to appreciate that we are able to make these proposals for Scotland because the Civil Service is already there. It is not a new tier of government. It is a change of those who are overseeing that government. There will be the same civil servants in the same offices, but their masters will be different. They will be closer to the people, and it is right that that should be so.
  I think that some of my English colleagues who have certain worries and fears about the Bill show a lack of confidence in the people of Scotland. They are concerned about what the Scottish National Party will do, and whether it will act to destroy the Assembly or at any rate seek not to encourage the proper working of it. If the Scottish National Party does that, it will be dealt with by the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland are the right people to do it. It will not be the people of England who will defeat the Scottish nationalists. It will be the people of Scotland. Indeed, they have already done it in Glasgow. There was a time when the SNP nearly swept the board in the Glasgow local government elections, but when the people had the opportunity to vote, out went the SNP. The people knew by then what the SNP was worth.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The right lion. Gentleman ought to be aware that we have said on many occasions that we shall seek to make the Assembly work. Although the Assembly is not what we wish, we hope to be there in strength, as we have already made very plain, and we shall seek to play our part in making it work.
  Mr. Ross: That is rather belated. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present earlier when the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire expressed a few hopes. He said that the Assembly would not work. He then said that it might work for a short time. He also said that it would work. But when he said that it would not work, from where did the cheers come?
  That is the kind of reaction that we have had from the Scottish National Party during the whole debate on this Bill It has created the fears that have been expressed in the Division Lobbies. I ask my colleagues to trust the people of Scotland. We shall deal with this matter because we are the only people who can deal with it.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the blemishes in the Bill and about the celebrated West Lothian question. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever read the Kilbrandon Commission Report. But this question was raised in Kilbrandon. It was one of the first questions answered by this Government when I was Secretary of State. We suggested that there should be no reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament.
  What we are doing is devolving matters. We are not necessarily for ever giving away powers. We reserve the right to legislate over the head of the Assembly. This House retains the authority over such questions as finance, national policy in relation to Treasury and taxation and foreign and economic affairs. Does anyone believe that this is the time to reduce the number of Scottish Members? The right hon. Gentleman has not faced up to what has been happening with regard to Scottish affairs.
  This morning, The Times talked about logic in terms of what this House was giving up. I do not know why it talked only about this House. There are two Houses here. When one examines the other House, to which this Bill now goes, logic does not enter into it.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire can surely put up with some Scottish Members of Parliament, not all of whom will disagree with him. He forgets that for the best part of 50 years, while Stormont was in existence, 12 Members of Parliament came from Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: There were only 12, not 71. There was under-representation.
  Mr. Ross: The principle is the same. But there was not a murmur from the Conservative Opposition when those 12 Members voted on Scottish or English legislation. The right hon. Gentleman may be differently disposed to that principle at present, because he cannot guarantee the loyalty of those Members from Northern Ireland. But there was a time when, come a General Election, the Conservatives started off with an advantage of 11 or 12 Members. The Conservative Party should face up to its own past.
  It may well be that we can work something out, but this is not the Bill in which to do it. There are blemishes in the Bill. I dislike the 40 per cent. rule, simply because it seems to be something specially created not so much to test Scottish opinion as to make it difficult to get a particular result. Those hon. Members who supported that proposal have forgotten certain events that happen.
  I have never suggested that there was an overwhelming desire among the Scottish people for devolution. As a politician, I thought that it was necessary because things would be difficult if we did not have something like it. But I do not think that it is a No. 1 priority with the Scottish people. We must thank the debate of last week for alerting the people of Scotland to the importance of it. I believe that the net result of inserting the 40 per cent. rule will be that we shall get a heightened interest in the referendum when it takes place, because in the minds of some Scottish people is the thought that the House has deliberately voted to apply something to Scotland that it has not applied elsewhere.
  I sincerely hope that the Bill receives a Third Reading. I am sure that what we are doing is right. I am sure that it is something that will provide good and better government and at the same time help the Government of England and the United Kingdom to provide more time, both in this House and in Committee, for necessary work.
  There is also the question whether in a modern society the system that has persisted in this House for so long is desirable and right. I do not think that it is.

  1483
  I am glad that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire did not run away from what he said about a guillotine being necessary on a Bill of this nature. During discussion on the Scotland and Wales Bill we saw how half-a-dozen hon. Members were determined that no progress would be made. We saw that also during discussion on the celebrated House of Lords amendment legislation when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House allied with some hon. Members on the other side to see to it that no progress was made. Half-a-dozen hon. Members can do that.
  Let us face it, this applies not only to constitutional Bills but to major Bills of whatever Government. Sooner or later we shall have to face the fact that timetables may be required—we should not run away from it—if we are to have legislation which is responsive to the needs of the people.
  I believe that this Bill will mean an improvement in Scottish government as well as an improvement in United Kingdom government.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I am not sure whether I ought to declare an interest—personal if not financial—since my great grandfather left Scotland together with his younger brother to become a publisher in London. As such he was welcomed and was able to prosper and succeed. Of course, had he stayed in Scotland and prospered and succeeded I should have had to declare a financial interest in this Bill because we would no doubt be in receipt—as are some of our rival publishers in Scotland—of a regional subsidy which, perhaps, the British United Kingdom Parliament would not be quite so willing to maintain at a later date if this devolution legislation goes forward.
  Keeping to the publishing analogy, in those days novels were produced as threedeckers—in three volumes. Later there was a single-volume cheap edition. We now seems to have come on to the single-subject Bill, which is an extremely cheap edition of what was originally a two-decker. I have no doubt that the second Bill—the Wales Bill—will be an equally cheap edition when it is brought before us in due course. The subject matter of both editions is very much the same.
  1484
  This is a bad Bill and is dangerous to the unity of the United Kingdom. All the arguments that were deployed with such effect against devolution on Second Reading of this Bill, and during the Committee stage of the Scotland and Wales Bill, are—as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out the other night—still valid and effective. Nothing that has so far been said in the debate, certainly not by the Secretary of State, seems to have altered in any way the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in his powerful and moving speech which ended the Report stage of this Bill.
  It seems to me that no case has been made for devolution according to the provisions of the Bill on their merits. What has been put forward by the Secretary of State and others are a series of statements which are acts of faith—that after this Bill is enacted things will be better, government will be improved, the burden on the Secretary of State will be lessened and the control of the Civil Service will be better. No one has yet shown how by adding another tier of bureaucracy to the pile under which we labour already, another tier of elected representatives will be able to exercise better total control than that which we would get by simplifying and improving the existing structures.
  If we add an Assembly on the grounds put forward by the Scottish Secretary—to increase democratic control of the Civil Service in Scotland—we are also adding to the whole apparatus of government by the special Executive which has to be controlled by that Assembly, as well as maintaining the apparatus of the Scottish Office which has to be controlled by Scottish Members in this House.
  The Secretary of State reiterated that very few people in Scotland, except for the Scottish nationalists, wanted separation. I think that he is right. But it is not a question of what people want. It is a question of setting up pressures that will push people inexorably along the road, once we open the gate and start them down that road.
  The Secretary of State gave examples of things which were different in Scotland and which required separate administration and a separate Assembly. The curious thing is that all these things are being dealt with separately at present.

  1485
  The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that we do not know how differently Scotland is governed. But he was saying that Scotland, without an Assembly and a special Executive, is already governed differently from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. He is telling us that there are differences, and we do not understand them. Maybe we do not, but do we want to increase them by establishing a directly elected Assembly and Executive?
  I think that there are many things that one can do or continue to do in life which become dangerous if the formality with which they are done is increased. There are differences that flow from historic reasons, changes in systems of law, the failure of the union of the Crowns and the existence of the treaty bringing the Union of Parliaments. If these differences are codified there is a danger that they will grow beyond the point at which any code can confine them.
  It is on that basis that the Scottish National Party supports the Bill falsely. It believes that in setting up an Assembly—which it supports wholeheartedly—we are establishing a vehicle and a forum in which its representatives can continue their relentless arguments for separation. They will quote every failure of the United Kingdom Government, this House or the Assembly, not for the real reasons underlying those failures but because Scotland is not yet separate.
  That is the main reason why I beg the House to reject the Bill this evening. I do not want to go into the reasons why it was introduced. I think they were shabby. I think that the Government were simply seeking to appease Scottish nationalism and collect a few votes from the SNP. I do not seek to deny that there is a need to do a great deal to improve government in both Scotland and the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) spoke of the difficulties facing the Secretary of State for Scotland as a result of the increasing complexities of administration and the role of government. But these are difficulties that face every Minister, not just the Secretary of State for Scotland. There may well be a strong case for trying to ease the administrative burden in different ways—ways which I accept might be different in
  1486
  Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, but they are not ways that are contained in this Bill.
  Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) must appreciate that there is a difference with the Secretary of State for Scotland. His office contains the functions of nine separate United Kingdom Ministers.
  Mr. Macmillan: I am fully aware of that. I am only saying that perhaps we should have another look at how this is dealt with in the organisation of the United Kingdom Government. I do not think that it will make it any easier for the Scottish Secretary if there are other people who push him from one side to the other. He still has to deal with the Treasury. He is setting himself in the centre of a conflict which might well tear him in pieces.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the attitude of various people on this side of the House over the years over the question of so-called devolution. I remind him that there is alleged to be greater joy over one sinner who repenteth and who sees the error of his previous ways than over the more virtuous remaining so. I have been deeply suspicious of devolution ever since I first heard the word and realised that it meant not a system of government but steady progress down a road the end of which I did not like to contemplate.
  I remind the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock of the original reasoned amendment about the Assembly which the Conservative Party tabled to the White Paper. I abstained, so suspicious was I of the words. It is fair to say that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who felt that there was a need to meet some of the points put forward by the right hon. Gentleman saw the validity of his demands and felt that these could be met through some sort of Assembly, elected or not. But as soon as we heard the argument in detail it became clear to most of us that this was too dangerous a solution. A directly elected Assembly on a national basis has never yet failed to lead to separation, except in the case of Northern Ireland where the pressure for cohesion has been a fear of a more powerful neighbour, and this as overridden the pressure for separation.
  To me this is the end process of a fascinating parliamentary argument in

  1487
  which day after day the relentless logic of the situation and the arguments put forward have shown that the Government, whatever their motives in starting on this course should, by now—had their motives been honourable and their intention been to benefit Scotland in the United Kingdom—have been convinced that they have got it wrong. If they have not been so convinced, let the House decide to reject the Bill and have done with it.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Robertson: I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Bill, not because I like it or think that it is a good Bill but because it is the only Bill that the Scots are likely to get from this House.
  The people of Scotland came here asking for bread and they were given a stone. They were jeered at, treated with scorn and, cynically, were given this Bill. To say that I feel disappointed would be a gross understatement. My feeling is one of outrage.
  Many years ago, when I first came into politics, I sat at the feet of men whose names are writ large in the story of the Scottish working class. They were men who, in the dark days, conjured up hope when there seemed to be none. They conjured up dreams of a better world, a better Scotland and a better life for the Scottish people. They saw that this could be achieved partly by the establishment of a parliament in Scotland—a Scotland living in peace with the world, a Socialist Scotland. I have spent all my adult years pursuing that aim. I was convinced that it could and would be achieved by the Labour movement in Scotland. To my mind it had to be a Socialist achievement but, alas, seemingly that is not to be.
  On 25th January, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made a remarkable speech. He said that Scots Members were prisoners of this House and that the Scottish people were prisoners of English Members. How right he was, but how could it be otherwise, for this is the English Parliament? It is the Parliament of England; it always has been and it always will be.
  In the past weeks, hon. Members may have imagined that they were discussing
  1488
  the setting up of a subordinate Parliament in Edinburgh. In fact, they were doing something much more significant. Whether they knew it or not, they were determining how sovereignty will come to Scotland. That is now the issue.
  Whatever chance devolution had—and I was one of the advocates of devolution—that option has gone for ever. The question now is about an independent Scotland. The option of devolution was killed stone dead in this House. All the House can do now is to determine how an independent Scotland shall emerge.
  I earnestly hope that it can come in a spirit of peace, from a spirit of generosity and in comradeship and friendliness, but of one think I am sure—it will come. This is probably the last time that I shall speak in this House, so I paraphrase the words of an old song and end with this plea: "Let our people go".
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I follow the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) with great pleasure. I was in almost total agreement with his speech. The thought that a free Scotland might be a Socialist Scotland does not frighten me. The fact that it might not be a Socialist Scotland does not frighten me either. That will be a question for the people of Scotland to decide. If, in the end, there is a democratic Government, that is all we can ask at this stage.
  The hon. Gentleman was correct to claim that he has been a consistent backer of devolution. Over the years, long before I came here, he has been one Member whose utterances we have followed because he is a man who has spoken up for Scotland. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) almost, but not quite, ended by saying "England expects". My party is looking at what Scotland expects.
  The hon. Member for Paisley was right when he said that this is an English Parliament. That was proved some years ago when this Parliament celebrated the 700th anniversary of Simon de Montfort's Parliament. If there had been a genuine fusion in 1707, that event could not have been marked in that way. It was an admission that this is the English Parliament continued.

  1489
  Despite prolonged and often unfair opposition, the Bill has reached its Third Reading. If it has not died the death of a thousand cuts, it has suffered some severe bleeding. It started as a minimal degree of decision-making being returned to Scotland. My party sees nothing abnormal in the modern free world in an ancient nation having rights enjoyed by free nations everywhere of making its own decisions in its own way. In its progress in Committee, many booby traps were laid to try to destroy the Bill.
  The Secretary of State was entirely right when he said that the Bill would improve government. Lord Kilbrandon is on the record as saying at the end of last year that a Scottish Assembly would have
  "remarkably wide powers to set the Government machine on its feet in a way which could make democracy into something real in Scotland."
  The smaller unit of government which it would represent would offer a chance of more efficient functioning and of a Government more acceptable and directly accountable to the people. It says much about the basic temper and outlook of the die-hard anti-devolutionists of Westminster that this potential expansion of the democratic process has been put in considerable jeopardy by blatantly anti-democratic rigging of the referendum.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say which anti-devolutionist in the House has made speeches of a blatantly racial nature, to use his own words?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman raised this subject earlier as a matter of privilege. I have kept my powder dry because I believe that it may be referred to again. I ask to be excused from dealing with the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am not prepared to go into a matter which might be sub judice.
  Since the Union, Scotland has been deprived of politics in a real, representative sense. There has been no democratic platform for the advocacy and counter-advocacy of changes specifically affecting Scotland. The debate has been in London, where Scottish elected representatives have rarely been able to challenge the old order with new ideas. That state of affairs is the direct consequence of the stubborn persistence of central Govern-
  1490
  ment to view Scotland merely as a region. The time has come for the relegation in status to end once and for all.
  In these debates it has been suggested that the Scots should not be allowed to run their own affairs, not even the smallest part of them. "Take away English supervision and we would throw human rights out of the window. Take away Engish supervision and we would destroy our Health Service and our reputation for medical care and medical teaching". That was said even though the reputation was built up long before the National Heatlh Service was created.
  It has been impressed upon us that we were quite unable, without English guidance, to do things that the Danes and the Irish managed to do. "Take away English control and the Scottish universities would crumble". It is said that our universities will become tenth-rate establishments, even though we had founded more universities in Scotland by the middle ages than the English had founded in England by the end of the eighteenth century.
  I could go on listing the allegations that have been made. The arguments against were bad enough—
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Stewart: The arguments against—
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is not giving way.
  Mr. Stewart: The arguments against were bad enough, but the tactics employed were even worse. We saw the 40 per cent requirement introduced at the last minute. It is clear that the rules were changed, although one hon. Member said that they were not.
  At least the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) made some case for making the change. There was no doubt that the rules were being changed. I was opposed, as I still am, to entry into the Common Market, but in the debates on that issue it never crossed my mind, as it did not cross the mind of anyone else, to introduce a 40 per cent. requirement—[HON. MEMBERS: "It did".] I never saw such an amendment.
  Hon. Members: It was a new clause.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for admitting that he did not read the Order Paper on the Referendum Bill. If he had read it, he would have seen New Clause 15, which laid down that if 60 per cent. of the electorate failed to vote, or there was less than a two-thirds majority, the referendum should not be binding on entry. I accept that the new clause was not selected, but to say that it was never on the Order Paper is a gross mis-statement of fact, comparable only to the gross mis-statements of fact that the right hon. Gentleman has made throughout the whole of his speech so far.
  Mr. Stewart: I cannot remember that. I was watching the Order Paper and voting in all the Divisions when the House dealt with that Bill.
  Mr. Sillars: If New Clause 15 had been selected, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been passed by the House?
  Mr. Stewart: I understand that it did not get anywhere.
  It is interesting to make an analysis of some of the votes that took place during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. On 10th January we voted on taxation powers for the Assembly. In that vote 40 per cent. of Scottish Members voted in favour of the amendment, which was lost. In fact, 90 per cent. of those who voted were non-Scottish. There was the vote to amend the 33⅓ per cent. hurdle and to introduce a 40 per cent. hurdle. In that vote 43 per cent. of the Scottish Members voted against the amendment and 90 per cent. of those voting were non-Scottish. [HON. MEMBERS: "You abstained."] We abstained because we did not accept the principle. We were not prepared to accept any sort of fiddling. We would have abstained on an amendment introducing a 5 per cent. hurdle. We were not prepared to accept that principle.
  There was the vote to consolidate the 40 per cent. amendment and to include it in the Bill. In that vote 47 per cent. of the Scottish Members voted against and 92 per cent. of those voting were non-Scottish. When we voted on the Orkney
  1492
  and Shetland issue, 40 per cent. of the Scottish Members voted against and 90 per cent. of those who voted were non-Scots. I could go on to complete the whole list of Divisions.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred to the horror—I use the word that he used in in earlier debate—that the Scots might some day be able to overturn the English requirement. That is a situation that we faced in 1707 and have faced ever since. The only occasion that I remember when the intervention of a Scottish Member altered the course of English legislation was in the 1920s in connection with the English Prayer Book. That was surely an occasion when the Member concerned should have minded his own business. That was the only time that we achieved that. However, we have had to put up with the situation in reverse time and time again. That was the position when we voted on the 40 per cent. requirement. We have had to face that time and time again. It has not happened yet to English Members, but already the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is talking about it.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not seriously saying that English legislation of a political nature has not been passed although it would have been passed if only English Members had voted. If he is saying that, he is overlooking at least three Parliaments since the war, to say nothing of various Parliaments before the war.
  Mr. Stewart: I am saying that the Scottish view prevails only if it suits the bulk of the House. For example, there was the Caledonian Power Bill 1936, which would have set up the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board years before it was set up, to the benefit of the Highlands of Scotland. The majority of Scottish Members of all parties voted in favour of the Bill, but the Bill did not pass through the House, because there was a large English majority against it. That is what I am talking about. I have not seen the opposite situation.
  One of the great pretences—it was referred to again by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan)—
  Mr. Buchan: A blinkered view.
  Mr. Stewart: I have not said anything yet. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire,

  1493
  West (Mr. Buchan) is ready with his answer before he has heard the argument.
  There has been the pretence that hon. Members have suddenly discovered that the aim of the Scottish National Party is independence. I have heard that said time and time again. It has been said "Now we know. We never knew that before." Every piece of literature from the SNP makes it clear that our aim is independence. However, we shall back the Bill and work in the Assembly.
  For my party there is no stage between the status quo and independence when it will say "Thus far and no further". We shall place the case before the Scottish people as a democratic party, as we have always done. It will be up to the people to say how far they wish to go. If the Scottish people vote for independence at the end of the day, are there any hon. Members in this place to gainsay that that should be the case?
  The Scotland Bill has taken a beating, as has democracy, in some recent debates. As the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has found, there is widespread anger and resentment. That feeling is not confined to the Scottish National Party. There is general anger and resentment about what has been done to the Bill in the House. The Bill is a poor thing. There is a great deal missing, but I cannot speak about that. The clear trend of Scottish opinion that has been demonstrated in election after election must convince any unprejudiced mind that the will of the Scottish people is to move towards re-establishing national sovereignty, and that nothing can stop that process. I ask the House to face that reality.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: What I have to say will be very different from what I would have said if I had been called before the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). If my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I wonder whether he would have been so confident that it will be easy for the Scottish people to deal with some of the issues that will arise and will be exploited in the Assembly, when there will not be the same opportunity for opposition.
  1494
  The right hon. Member for Western Isles made a disgraceful and un-Scottish speech. The right hon. Gentleman is the man who, for the past 24 hours, has been accused of trying to spread hatred by allegations, and has tonight repeated a continuous series of assertions attributed to unnamed persons on the question of the universities becoming tenth-rate, and the social services in Scotland depending on England, and so on. This is the technique of the big lie, and I am ashamed for Scotland.
  Earlier, the right hon. Member for Western Isles sheltered behind the argument of the matter being sub judice. That followed a headline in The Scotsman yesterday:
  "MP Talks of English Hates."
  I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman last night:
  "I have read the reports of your speech in today's paper. Like me, I am sure you would deplore and avoid the stirring up of hatreds, whether between Scots and English, or, for that matter, blacks and whites as in the recent arguments about immigration. For example, you mention blatant racialism' in this connection. These are strong words, and no doubt you can substantiate them.
  You will have powerful examples in mind otherwise you would not have made such an assertion.
  I would be glad to know, therefore, which 'English MPs' you are referring to; what did they actually say to merit such descriptions, and when did they say them.
  Though, in view of your statement, you clearly have the references and examples immediately at hand, it would be sufficient if I could have these before today's debate, so that I too could answer these MPs as I would also do in the event of anti-English remarks made by Scottish MPs."
  I am waiting for the answer. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: which English Members of Parliament made "blatantly racialist" remarks? Is he correct, Mr. Speaker, in saying that he cannot answer because of the question being sub judice at present?
  Mr. George Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman pleads the Fifth Amendment.
  Mr. Buchan: He refuses to answer. This is the technique of the big lie. I repeat, it is a disgrace to the great Scottish tradition of the democratic intellect which has served our nation so well.
  The reasons must be looked into. The Scottish National Party has now moved

  1495
  into the most dangerous position in all politics when it equates the party with the nation. It follows that any lies are sufficient if they help the interests of the SNP. It is terrifying. It is not only a hatred of Englishness that develops here but, perhaps even more sinister, a hatred towards those Scots who say that they cannot equate the interests of the SNP with the Scottish nation.
  I am thinking of the kind of battles of the great trade union movement in Scotland. If anything created a radical tradition in the Western Isles, from which the right hon. Gentleman comes, it was the combination of the fight of the crofters together with the great trade union and Labour tradition of Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) is reported The Scotsman as having said:
  "This is why I must ask the Scottish Council on Development and Industry"
  —which the SNP calls in aid so often and of which the hon. Gentleman was a member and adviser—
  "and the Scottish Council of the TUC … if they really are true Scots."
  I find that dangerous, sinister and frightening. I do not believe that material of that kind can be handled easily by the people of Scotland in an Assembly, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. We would be shutting our eyes to the real situation if we were not also aware of the dangers inherent in passing the Bill.
  The question that we have to decide is: where lies the greater danger—the passing of the Bill or the failure to pass the Bill? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right when he said that the matter now properly passes from this House to the people of Scotland. Therefore, the greatest danger would lie in defeating the Bill tonight. This is a matter which the Scottish people will decide in the course of the referendum. I hope that every Member here recognises that fact.
  My support for the Bill remains, despite my grave anxiety, because the other possibility is so dangerous. I have stressed from the beginning that I rested my support on two or three pillars. The first is that the Assembly must be responsible. In other words, it must under-
  1496
  the financial obligations imposed upon it in consequence of its own actions. If there were no financial responsibilities, if it were not given the duty—not the right—to raise money for services that it wanted to provide above the block grant, we should be creating an insatiable Assembly in which there was every political reason to demand everything and every reason why it should be refused. That is the first point—the danger of creating an irresponsible Assembly. We are passing a Bill with that new additional risk against the political background of an insatiable Assembly.
  Secondly, it is dependent upon removing the kind of flaws which could precipitate the situation from a political crisis into a constitutional crisis. We have not dealt with the main flaw in that connection—the West Lothian question. I do not believe that it can be logically dealt with. I do not believe that that of itself will wreck the Assembly, but it could wreck the Assembly and the unity of the United Kingdom unless the third pillar of my support for the Bill is taken into consideration.
  I believe that it is possible to deal with the West Lothian question by developing a modus vivendi. I do not believe that constitutions work because when first framed they are perfect. They work because there is a general will to make them work and by giving them time in which they can be worked out in practice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, pointing to the other end of this corridor, asked "Who in his senses would have devised a constitution that stipulated that at the other end of the corridor there shall be an unelected body that can delay, dismiss, distort or change legislation from the democratic body?" We would have laughed such a constitutional proposal out of court. But it has worked—though badly—because there was general acceptance that it should work and because it was given time to find a modus vivendi in which it knew when or when not to challenge the power of this House.
  If we proceed without providing an opportunity for the modus vivendi to be worked out to deal with the West Lothian question, we shall be in danger. Therefore, I believe that my third requirement is right—namely, a referendum on that matter so that the general will is there

  1497
  to make the Assembly work, especially during the first few crucial years.
  My proposal for such a referendum was misunderstood. I argued for a referendum which would have within it the basic question of independence. That has not happened. The present referendum is to be only on the question of devolution. That is not only not half of what I asked for, but the precise opposite. I argued that there was no need for a referendum on devolution, because it did not infringe the sovereignty of the State or of the House of Commons. However, there was a need to establish the political will behind it to prevent it from being wrecked. That was the argument for a referendum on independence.
  We are now in a very dangerous situation because, unless we can change it as a last glorious swan-song of the House of Lords, we shall have allowed the Scottish people to set up the parameters, the boundaries, between the status quo and devolution, but they will not have decided the parameters between devolution and independence. Therefore, we shall not have settled the first question, because it should not be "Do you want devolution and something else?" but "In the meantime, do you want only devolution?"
  They will not be asked to settle that. They will be asked whether they want devolution, and that could lead to something else. Therefore, two things will arise. First, we shall not have established the political will for the time being that only an Assembly is what is wanted, if that is the decision. It will be claimed that if there is a "Yes" vote for devolution the people want independence. Time will then be needed to work out the constitutional problems to prevent a political crisis developing into a constitutional crisis. At the same time those nasty chauvinistic arguments that we read in the newspaper yesterday and that we heard from the right hon. Member for Western Isles today will not have been confronted politically.
  We have to confront the suggestion that this Parliament must be, by definition, an English Parliament. Is that suggestion made on the basis that this Parliament celebrated Simon de Montfort? There are 71 Scottish Members in this House, and it makes as much sense to say that it is an English Parliament as it does to say that
  1498
  it is an anti-London Parliament because only 81 of the hon. Members here represent London constituencies. On the same basis, one could say that it was an anti-Merseyside or anti-Lancashire Parliament because only about 50 hon. Members represent that part of the country.
  This is a nonsense that can be created only by the equation of a Scottish State with a single party. It is a frightening concept that requires that 71 Scottish Members must by definition be connected with only one political view. I beg the right hon. Member for Western Isles to consider carefully the morass into which his arguments are pushing him. This is a frightening situation, and he had better get himself out of it, because, after all, he is a moderate.
  If the SNP wants to prove that this is an English rather than a United Kingdom Parliament it must explain figures such as these. Let us take, for example, the regional preferential assistance given to industry in the assisted areas. For Great Britain the figure is £48 per head per annum. For Scotland the figure is £68, and for the assisted areas in England, which are strictly and totally comparable with Scotland, the figure is £37. Scotland gets a bias in its favour of something like two to one.
  Let us look at the figures on housing. In Scotland the sum is £61·2 per head per annum, and in England £49·8. On health and personal social services the English figure is £69·59, and the Scottish figure is £75. Far from making statements about anti-Scottish racialism among English MPs, the right hon. Member for Western Isles, like Clive when he was accused of bribery, should stand astonished at their moderation. If the right hon. Gentleman raises these kinds of hatreds, he may sow the seed, but he will reap a bitter crop as a result, and he had better watch out.
  Let me deal with the kind of dishonesty that emerges. I have made the case for a referendum, and I give notice now that I shall do everything that I can to have that second question inserted in the House of Lords. The other place, having served its country well on that score, will make that its last step, because I shall then proceed to its abolition.
  Let me deal with the question of the 40 per cent. requirement. That was a stupid error, because it is a counter-

  1499
  productive provision. Even from the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and those who support the proposal, it will be counter-productive in two ways. First, it will boost the kind of nonsense we hear on the anti-Scottish aspect. In addition, it will undoubtedly boost the "Yes" vote. But it does not lie on the lips of the Scottish National Party to criticise that proposal. Of all the people who have been claiming that a majority of one is enough, the SNP members are the only ones in the country who have written into the constitution the provision that a 40 per cent. vote in the Assembly on all issues is sufficient to block legislation passing to a referendum for decision. It is not, therefore, for the SNP to challenge the 40 per cent. I am perfectly entitled to reject it, but they cannot.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Let me pursue this matter with the hon. Gentleman, because we have had an exchange on this matter on the radio before. The 40 per cent. requirement applies to a single-Chamber Parliament, not a Parliament which has double-Chamber balance. The 40 per cent. requirement proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury relates to a referendum. There is no example of such a requirement elsewhere in the world so far as I can discover from reading documents published by the British Government.
  Mr. Buchan: That is typical of the squirming and distorting behaviour that we see from the SNP. I am putting forward one simple fact. Members of the SNP, of all people, cannot challenge a formula for voting based on the 40 per cent. requirement because they say it is undemocratic. The SNP is the only party to have included such a requirement in its constitutional proposals.
  I hope that the Bill is supported tonight.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Western Isles will have the decency to seek to repair the damage that he has done to the good faith of our country—
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Smear.
  Mr. Buchan: If SNP Members want to talk about smears, they should read their Scots Independent, which called me a
  1500
  louse. It said that I was ugly, creeping, blasted mercenary and waspish. If the Scots Independent wants to use strong language of that kind I can do the same, but I choose not to. I believe that the Gentleman responsible is much more decent than his words would seem to show. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Member for Western Isles either to repudiate his statement or to provide evidence to support it.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: It is strange to stand in this relatively thinly attended House and speak on the Third Reading of the Bill. As one who introduced a Bill for self-government for Scotland a decade ago in quite different circumstances. I imagined that if one ever got to this stage one would be addressing a House which was charged with atmosphere and filled with hon. Members. That is not so. There is certainly some passion, but not so much as one would have expected.
  The Order Paper is very bland, as Order Papers always are. It simply refers to the "Third Reading". There is then the motion in the name of the Opposition, which reads
  On Third Reading of the Scotland Bill, to move, That the Question be not put forthwith.
  I therefore ask what the Conservative Party is up to. I leave to one side the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), whose views are clearly known and frequently expressed. What is the official Conservative view, apart from being that nothing be done forthwith?
  An editorial in The Guardian of 7th February turned its attention to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). I say with modesty that the article puts the point more clearly, succinctly and effectively than I feel I can myself. It reads:
  "My assessment of the present state of the devolution argument,' said Mr. Francis Pym in Edinburgh yesterday, 'is one of public bewilderment and confusion'. Right, And let no one, including Mr. Pym, underestimate the richness of the Conservative contribution to creating that bewilderment and confusion. The Conservatives were early to embark on the devolution road, eleven years ago, under the guidance of Mr. Heath and Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Since the Government began to legislate, they have faltered, then turned back; and recently the nearest thing they have to a policy

  1501
  has been an agreement to have no policy at all. Mr. Pym, meanwhile, has had to do the best he can flourishing an expedient here and a vague promise there but committing no one to anything—except to some grand constitutional conference in which all parties would get together and all previous dissension might, miraculous, begin to abate.'"
  The view has been put—perhaps unreasonably, because he is a fair-minded man—that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is a devolution weathercock, willing to consider any point of the compass, depending on the current state of the wind. I say to him and to the Conservative Front Bench that the concept of a constitutional conference was not a dishonourable concept. It was a view that the Liberal Party took towards the end of 1973 and throughout 1974. Indeed, I wrote to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), suggesting that it would be right for the Government to have such a conference before they reached final agreement on their Bill and published it. That was the Scotland and Wales Bill. There was some justice in that argument, but it is far too late now to adopt that policy in view of all the discussions we have had.
  I know where the hon. Members for North Angus and Mearns, Aberdeen, South and others stand, but where does the Conservative Party officially stand? The Leader of the Opposition said that she was passionately in favour of devolution. All right. It is not unfair to ask the Opposition to give the Bill a chance and see how it works if they cannot easily decide on the precise form of devolution they want.
  Then there is the attitude of the SNP. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) made remarks about blatant racialism and suggested that remarks of that character have been made by unnamed persons in the House. There is the background of some of the campaigns run by the SNP—the rich-Scots-and-poor-British campaign—which, for their motivation, depended upon the encouragement of attitudes of envy and greed. At the same time, to pretend that we have the Bill because it naturally emerged reasonably and inevitably within the Labour Party in Scotland, or in any part of the United Kingdom, is nonsense. If the SNP had not existed and had not been the catalyst, we would not be
  1502
  engaged in reading the Bill for the Third time this afternoon.
  Equally, it must be said that a party which attracts the support of one-third of the Scottish people must contain amongst that one-third a number of reasonable people. In logic, it is not unreasonable to say that.
  We know that the SNP favours independence. In pursuing that aim—which, in fairness, it has never concealed—it is unfair for hon. Members or others to say that the SNP has been hiding its aim under a bushel. It is not so. I have never had any delusions about the aim of the SNP to achieve independence, nor have I felt that the SNP has concealed that aim.
  Given that, I would hope—particularly on the day after its leader's remarks—that the SNP would make a conscious effort to avoid stirring up bitterness which might obstruct or adversely affect the proper working out of the Bill, the Third Reading of which they will vote for tonight.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the SNP is honest about wanting independence for Scotland and has never made any bones about it? Does he not agree that the SNP cloaks that aim by saying that it does not want a separate Scottish army, a separate Scottish navy or a customs post on the border? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the SNP wants a completely independent Scotland, that is what it should be telling the Scottish people?
  Mr. Johnston: I do not think it necessary to pursue that argument. An independent Scotland pursuing an independent economic policy would have a customs post on the border; that is logical and inevitable.
  Finally, I hope that in future the people of Scotland will realise that to achieve a reasonable objective it is not necessary to vote for extreme policies.
  The Secretary of State said that special provision should be made for Orkney and Shetland. The amount of time given to Orkney and Shetland by the Secretary of State—he gave 15 minutes of his 45 minute speech to the question—and by the House in Committee has been considerable. If the fear of the people of

  1503
  Orkney and Shetland is that their vital interests might be overlooked by the House, that is not true.
  I speak as one who sat on the Royal Commission on Local Government and was responsible for a note of reservation signed also by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) arguing for the establishment of a separate island authority within the local government structure for Orkney and Shetland and for the Western Isles. It is not a question that one does not understand that island people are in a different situation. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who has been most active in this matter, in contrast to a number of anti-devolutionists who have discovered an unexpected fascination for Orkney and Shetland not previously evinced by them, I do not see that in the end there is any justification for the suggestion that Orkney and Shetland would not be fairly treated by the House or by a Scottish Assembly. The Western Isles are not to be treated separately. In practice, they are in precisely the same situation as are Orkney and Shetland.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not one consideration that the authorities of Shetland, both last Session and this Session, made representations to hon. Members who have responded to the representations that they have received from the local authorities representing the area?
  Mr. Johnston: There is force in what the hon. Gentleman says but, with respect, I suggest to him that if we were considering Orkney and Shetland against the background of an argument for a Faroese, Channel Islands or Isle of Man solution, my view might be different, but that argument has not been made over a sustained period. There has been no such argument about it. That is why I am hesitant to accept the basis on which the Shetland Islands' local authority is taking the lead. Orkney has been quiet and its attitude has been coloured by its neighbour's views which, in turn, have been coloured by its oil revenue. One must look at it in the longer term.
  Then there is the Labour Back Bench attitude to the Bill, expressed in many speeches by the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Islington, South
  1504
  and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and I agree, it is unnecessary for me to dwell on his views, but I would say something about the views of those other hon. Members, because it affects our attitude to the Bill. They say that if the Bill becomes law it will lead to unfair treatment of the English regions and, even if that is not proven, there may well be unfair treatment of England as a whole.
  As to the first contention, we have had many resource arguments to the effect that x per cent. has been spent on Scotland and y per cent. on various regions of England, and so forth. I fail to understand why the passing of the Bill should change the United Kingdom estimate of economic need within the United Kingdom.
  Secondly, I fail to understand why, if the estimate of need which accounts for the statistics given in answer to parliamentary Questions is not well-founded, it should be criticised. We are, after all, producing a devolutionary settlement which sustains the economic unity of the United Kingdom, so I do not see why one should advance arguments which are essentially divisive and are usually advanced by those who suggest that the mere bringing forward of the legislation is itself divisive.
  I do not think that that takes us much further forward. The real argument for devolution is an argument about better democratic control of the Civil Service and not an argument about grabbing more money for any particular part of the United Kingdom. However, I think that there is a real problem in regard to England as a whole.
  This is the West Lothian question, which has been referred to and well set out not only by the hon. Member for West Lothtian himself but by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in what I thought was a brilliant speech the other night, although I disagreed with him.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury reminded me that I had said that I could not answer the West Lothian question. I confirm that. Nevertheless, I reach a different conclusion from that of the hon. Gentleman. It is significant that the Secretary of State

  1505
  did not mention the West Lothian question. It is foolish to evade real difficulties. The matter was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.
  The Liberal answer is federalism, the logic of which, I was glad to see, was recognised by the Secretary of State, but it is not in order for me to develop that now.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Surely the pressure will come from a demand in English constituencies for a regional Assembly of their own—not because of any arguments about federalism or the Government in England on their merits but simply because Scotland has an Assembly.
  Mr. Johnston: We could have a lovely dialectical exchange about what is meant by backing an argument on its merits and about whether the fact that Scotland had an Assembly had any relevance to the merits of an Assembly in the North of England. But I do not want to pursue that now. I am trying to answer the hon. Member for Islington, who has been extremely logical. Democratic political change, of whatever kind, takes place only when the public is willing. That does not happen all the time. When it comes to devolution, that situation now exists in Scotland. I do not know enough about Wales to say whether it exists there.
  Therefore, as a believer in Home Rule, I must take advantage of that situation. That is a fair political view, I believe.
  I believe that Home Rule will result in better government in Scotland. That is an assertion. As politicians, we are in business not simply to reflect people's views but because we believe certain things. That is one of the things that I believe.
  In those circumstances, I believe that we should pass this legislation, but given the rejection of federalism, I believe that the House or the parties, whether by means of a Speaker's Conference or otherwise, must determine soon how to consider the position of Scottish MPs in relation to English devolved subjects. [An HON. MEMBER: "That sounds like Pym."] Not entirely, because it is on a very narrow question. I see no other way around it.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member was a member of the Wheatley Commission, which considered local government in Scotland and confidently asserted that reform would lead to better local government. Few people in Scotland now agree with that. Does not the hon. Gentleman also see the inherent danger of the constitutional problem which would arise of how to deal with English devolved matters? That is the danger of turning this House into what the SNP erroneously assert is an English Parliament—and that would lead to even greater dangers.
  Mr. Johnston: It is true that the Royal Commission said that reform would improve local government in Scotland. However, in fairness, the coincidence of reform and the highest inflation that we have ever known meant that the assessment of the new local government system in Scotland was warped. The first thing that the new authorities had to do was cut services, which had nothing to do with reorganisation.
  On the second point, I simply do not agree. I do not accept that the existence of the problem and its non-resolution is a reason for holding up the Bill.
  I do not like referenda as a system, nor do I think that the 40 per cent. stipulation is fair. It has been introduced without sufficient thought for the consequences. I know that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury resented my suggestion that his motivation was wrong. I did not mean that it was wrong in his opposition to devolution. That is straightforward. I suggested that putting a barrier in the referendum should have been related to one's judgment of the democratic thing to do rather than to whether one wanted devolution or not. I do not think that a barrier which would have been unjumpable-over in the case of the EEC referendum is proper when it comes to devolution.
  I agree with the Government that independence questions should be excluded I do not agree with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). For example, if 25 per cent. voted for independence, it is a fallacy to think that that would kill the idea.
  Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman must not say that the 40 per cent. is a barrier which cannot be jumped. Obviously it can be: plenty of

  1507
  hon. Members assert that it will be. Also, not in Scotland separately but in the United Kingdom as a whole, that barrier was comfortably jumped in the case of the EEC referendum.
  Mr. Johnston: It was jumped comfortably in the United Kingdom as a whole, but not in Scotland, which is what we are talking about.
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher: That is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Johnston: It is not nonsense; it is a fact. The Scottish vote on the EEC referendum did not reach 40 per cent. of those on the electoral roll. Yet a majority were in favour, and most people in Scotland recognised that it was a reasonable majority.
  That leads me finally to expressing, very briefly—because I am aware that the interruptions have stretched my speech—the Liberal view about this situation. As I have said, for me, as someone who was responsible, quite a long time ago, for a Ten-Minute Bill for self-government, on 30th November 1966, it seems that this is quite an exciting moment. It is not all that terribly often that Liberals see things for which they have striven coming to pass, even in different situations.
  The Bill is lacking in many respects. It has a grossly unfair and, indeed, almost fraudulent electoral system. It has no tax-raising powers. It has no economic powers. It is certainly open to a lot of objection. But it establishes a Parliament with wide powers in Scotland, the first genuine democratic focus that has existed in Scotland since 1707, when we had the two Acts. I am not sure why everyone keeps talking about "the" Act of Union, because there was no single Act of Union. There were two separate Acts, one passed by the Scottish Parliament and one by the English Parliament.
  This is the first time that we shall have such a democratic focus since that time. It provides a democratic control over the administration of a wide range of our affairs which has not previously existed, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, and he, as a long-standing Secretary of State, should, more than most, have known the answer to that question.
  1508
  We should give the Bill a fair wind and a good chance. It is not only a step but a long stride in the right direction.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: I am particularly pleased to be following the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), which I very much enjoyed, as I usually do. I particularly welcome the hon. Member's genuine attempt to talk about the merits of the Bill, because I want to confine myself, on this occasion of the Third Reading, to only two propositions, and they follow naturally upon what the hon. Member said.
  I think that it is incumbent upon the promoters of the Bill in particular—I shall come to the alleged supporters shortly—to prove merit. It is equally incumbent upon those of us who are refusing to give support to the Bill to give serious reasons, beyond party interest, which might stand up in future when the period is reviewed. If either cannot be done, the case on either side falls to the ground.
  I have believed all the time, and Third Reading is probably the point to put it on record once again, that on merit there is singularly little argument in favour of the Bill, and that this has been its major weakness in the whole debate so far. It is one of the reasons why there is so little interest in the country.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House report that in their private conversations and in their not-so-private consultations hardly anyone raises this matter with them in their own constituencies. All my correspondence on this subject has been opposed to the legislation. I have not had a single letter from either my constituency or any other part of Yorkshire asking me to support the Bill. I can only refer to the experience of other hon. Members.
  I believe that one of the main reasons for this lack of interest is the inability of the promoters of the Bill to discuss its merit, and that is why they are not doing so. I contrast this with the period, for instance, when we introduced the National Health Service. There was debate throughout the land, and great interest—mainly for; some against; some sceptics. But there was debate. I do not want to put this Bill any higher

  1509
  than that major reform, but I would not put it any lower, either, in terms of the future interests of the British people as a whole and the interests of the people of Scotland. But there is no such debate taking place.
  Secondly, as I see the situation—I hope that no one will be hurt by this formulation; I am deliberately using shorthand, so that it may be discussed again later, when after some years we can examine whether the analysis on either side of the argument was correct—I think that we also have quite a number of people among the promoters of the Bill who are not at all convinced of its merits.
  It would be invidious to talk about individual members of the Government, but I do not detect that there is a unified legion of Cabinet Ministers going around the country every weekend proclaiming the merits of this piece of legislation and urging people in all parts of the country to support it. I think that on that proposition, at least, I would carry the support of supporters of the Bill, as well. It would be invidious to be more particular than that, but the evidence is conclusive.
  On the other hand, we find that people are urged to support the legislation on all sorts of grounds that have nothing whatever to do with the Bill being discussed and up for Third Reading tonight. There are all sorts of arguments, and, again, I do not want to go into too much detail about them because I do not want to make too long a speech. If pressed, however, I could produce a great many of these arguments. All are regarded as serious and genuine by some of the promoters of the legislation, but they are nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
  It is more than a coincidence that we should find that this is so. It is so because the Bill has been created in response to an immediate political need and not as part of a grand design to reform the constitution of the United Kingdom. Here we have reached the crux of the matter. Again, this is not a very controversial proposition. People who take different views on the legislation can unite in supporting this as a mere statement of fact.
  Therefore, it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Inverness has just told us that he is in favour of a federal solution. But when we turn to the Prime
  1510
  Minister and many of the senior Cabinet Ministers, we find that federalism has nothing whatever to do with their future design for Britain. They are not federalists, and they would accuse anyone trying to represent them as federalists of misrepresentation.
  In the same way, there are others who support the Bill. They say that they will support it in the Division Lobby tonight, but they are not finding a good word for the legislation. That is another startling fact. One of my hon. Friends from the newly founded Scottish Labour Party, which now has two Members in the House, spent all his time denouncing the Bill in outright terms, from beginning to end. He found nothing good in it whatsoever, but he will be voting for it.
  Then we have the representatives of the Scottish National Party. It was rumoured last week, and we were all properly alerted by the rumour, that its members would consider very seriously opposing the Bill tonight. But what happened? They had a meeting with their elders, in Edinburgh, I believe, and it was announced at the end of the meeting of the elders that not only had they unanimously decided to vote for the Bill tonight but that there was no need to take a vote. It reminds me of those Stakhanovite's unanimous decisions which always created the greatest possible suspicion about figures and about agreement and disagreement. But let that pass. They are determined opponents of the Bill, but they will be supporting it.
  One therefore reaches the conclusion that this is a Bill promoted by people who are not convinced of its merits—because they do not talk about them to the electorate—called upon to be passed by people who are in many cases against it, and most enthusiastically supported by those who are free in their denunciation of it. That is the curious situation in which the House finds itself on the eve of the Third Reading Division.
  I turn to the other side. This would be only a negative picture and would prove that there was little merit in the Bill and that there was no general majority for it in the House, if my analysis so far were to be accepted; but I have yet to make good the other claim, if it can be made good, that there are important reasons, which go beyond immediate party interest, to be unpersuaded

  1511
  on Third Reading about supporting the Bill. I shall attempt to advance some such reason.
  I believe that the claim for support for a measure of this kind must be one backed by the representatives of the British people as a whole. I believe that it cannot be in the interests of the Scottish nation, the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, or of anyone who is concerned about the future of democracy, that it should be a decision that is made by a reluctant Parliament, because we are told "Unless you do this, some people in Scotland will create a great deal of alarm and will find a more desperate solution."
  I say at once to the SNP spokesman that if at any one moment in the future—I hope that it will never happen, and I am confident that it will not happen, but I may be wrong, as I have been wrong on many other things before—it were to happen that by a specific mandate in a normal democratic election, after due constitutional process and process of law, a clear majority of the people of Scotland were to say they wanted to separate from the United Kingdom, I cannot imagine anybody who would set themselves up in opposition to that. I certainly would not. That would be a situation which anybody who calls himself a democrat or has any political sense at all would have regretfully and reluctantly to accept; but this is not what the Government are asking us to do tonight. This is not the issue that we are debating.
  We are not faced with any such clear demand by a clear majority of the people of Scotland. We are asked to give the stamp of our political judgment to this particular Bill and the Scottish National Party representatives, though they have no belief in the Bill have, quite rightly from their own technical point of view, decided unanimously and without a vote to support the Bill. They are the most eager supporters of the Government because they want this not as a steppingstone towards better government for the people of Scotland but as a basis to prove that the people of Scotland will continue to be misgoverned and that therefore separation and not devolution must be the answer. That is why they are supporting the Bill.
  1512
  What I am refusing to do is to say tonight that our political judgment supports them. That is what is at stake tonight. It does matter, and they have realised it, intelligently in my judgment. I say without any disrespect that it will be very important for them if the argument is joined in Scotland with the stamp of approval of the House of Commons behind it—that is what they want to use it for—and therefore it is no mean measure that we are debating tonight.
  Secondly, and equally important, if, as the hon. Member for Inverness suggested, there is to be discussion of a serious grand design of improving our system of government—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) with his governmental experience, made a similar point—that is not at issue tonight because if we were set on producing a grand design of constitutional reform I would be arguing that it would need the support of the House of Commons as a whole and could not be done through any particular timetable, particularly if it was to be a such a grand reform.
  In passing, I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his interpretation of the guillotine. I believe it was right. I believe that it was not just a handful of Members but 40 or 45 who prevented the last attempt to reform the House of Lords, because that attempt at reform—some of my best political friends were involved in it and one, now dead, did a very able job—again was not part of a grand design to improve our democratic system of government but an afterthought brought about for technical, day-to-day reasons. That is why it was right that a number of determined Members should have set themselves up, and should have spoken more and more with the approval of the House.
  There was another reason. They wanted to alert the country. I believe that we can agree that part of the process of democratic government is to give the country time to think and consider it. I say without hesitation that the part played by the Lord President in that enterprise will always be an honourable part in political history and will never be looked upon in any other way. That being so, when we talk about agreements—we have just been reminded of an agreement made in 1707, and the passage of 200 years or

  1513
  more—it is no argument to say that perhaps the electorate should have another look at it, and that we must do it now or worse will befall. Most serious consideration of future decisions of the Scottish people within a United Kingdom as to the way in which things should be arranged is in no way impaired, and we show no disrespect if we say that we have found that this is not the right way of doing it.
  There are quite a number of people in many constituencies who, not at all for petty or selfish reasons, will begin to be concerned if, after the change comes about, as here proposed, we have this preponderance of opinion on all kinds of subjects not equalled by any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not argue the case—it is not part of my case, although it has been argued by others—that because Scotland has a certain constitutional change other regions will want it. I do not regard that as a particularly good argument and I would resist it if my constituents tried to urge it on me. They have not done so so far.
  I see a much more dangerous argument developing. I see endangered the co-operation, friendliness, tolerance and pride in working with each other of so many different people, some of whom sometimes send people of their own family to another part of the kingdom—people who have married and have gone back and brought more people to yet another part. I think particularly of a former Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Farnham, (Mr. Macmillan), son of an eminent Prime Minister. I see that endangered. It has been the only lapse this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart)—and I think it was only a lapse—but this might become the common coin of debates among our people in the future. If those things are endangered, they might be involved, and if all that is at stake there can be only one guideline for hon. Members of this House tonight—not party, not General Election dates, not the achievements of individual Ministers or Back Benches, but a vote according to conscience.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: It is a very real pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone
  1514
  (Mr. Mendelson). His was a fine speech. It was a moving speech in its concluding remarks and its constitutional approach was profound and precise. I do not want to say any more about the speech, because I agreed with it. I want to start by saying something about two speeches with which I did not agree, but how different was my attitude in my disagreement.
  The first speech was that of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I disagreed with his conclusions, but when one listens to a speech by him there is never any attempt to cloud his reasoning, to use emotive language, to twist argument or to deceive. What a difference from the speech before his! When the hon. Member spoke of the speech that had preceded his—the speech of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who is not present but to whom I sent a note saying if I were to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker I might mention what he had said—he condemned it and the speech that the right hon. Gentleman had made in Glasgow. He condemned both the tone and the content of the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon, and he spoke for all decent people in Scotland—Conservative, Labour or Liberal. In that respect he made a fine speech.
  As for the right hon. Member for Western Isles, what a fall was there! The right hon. Gentleman is a man who has banked with us in this House considerable affection and respect over the years that he has been here. I suggest that he has very nearly drawn the end of that great respect and affection in the two speeches that he has made this week—the speech that he made this afternoon, which I thought was the most abominable I have ever heard him make, and his speech in Glasgow, which was reported in a headline in Scotland as "MP Talks of English Hate".
  I have listened to 90 per cent. of all the debate on this subject through the Bill's Committee and Report stages, and so on, but I have never heard any hatred whatsoever evinced by any Member representing an English seat. Sometimes, to paraphrase the comment of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West—which he attributed to Clive, though I thought it was from Warren Hastings I stand amazed at their moderation.

  1515
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who would rightly rejoice in the title of a true-born Englishman, has gone out of his way time and again to point out that the reason why he objects to the Bill is that it would break up the Union between England and Scotland. My hon. Friend admires the contribution of the Scots to British achievement. That is the opposite of hatred. If there has been any hatred shown in these debates it has been displayed in the content and tone adopted in speeches from the SNP Benches.
  The right hon. Member for Western Isles pretended to recall the hatred shown by the English, but refused to name a hon. Member or give an example. I shall give him an example of hatred shown by the SNP. I remind the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who now occupies the SNP Bench, of the emotional remarks that he made to the House last Wednesday. He could not contain his emotion and his voice cracked when he said:
  "a battle will develop in these circumstances. It will not be just a battle between people and Parliament. I assure the House that it will be a battle between the Scottish people and the English Parliament".—[Official Report, 15th February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 554.]
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear". That was the kind of speech we have never heard in this House before. It is part of the distasteful emotionalism and hysteria which SNP Members have introduced, not only in this House but throughout Scotland. I hate to see that trend. It is the remarkable unity, tolerance and the working together of people in four different nations in this United Kingdom that has enabled us to make many proud democratic achievements.
  I wish to put forward three propositions, which I am sure are not disputed by the majority of Members in their hearts, nor by the majority of the nation in heart or head.
  The first proposition is that never before has a major Bill been so much the subject of motives of fear and panic. Secondly, never has a major Bill in this House had such a genuine lack of support in any part of the House. Thirdly, never before has such a major Bill been pushed
  1516
  through the House with such manoeuvring, manipulation and tricky tactics. There have been manoeuvrings over the subject of the referendum and the guillotine, and this has meant that three-quarters of the Bill has not been discussed at all. Then we had the loitering in the Lobbies, particularly by the SNP, in an attempt to prevent little Shetland getting its way. For a party that claims to stand for the little nation of Scotland, I believe that that was one of the most squalid and disgraceful episodes that has ever occurred in this House in my time.
  As a result of all this activity and the actions of the SNP, the merits of the Bill have hardly been advanced by the Government at all. It was noticeable this afternoon that the Secretary of State for Scotland spent the first 15 minutes of his speech dealing with the situation in Orkney and Shetland. Surely on Third Reading the merits of the Bill under consideration should be laid before the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman then spent 10 minutes of his speech dealing with gaps in Conservative policy. Why did he spend over half his time dealing with those matters rather than with the positive merits of the Bill? It was because there is none.
  On the other hand, the demerits and disadvantages of the Bill have not been disproved. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grange-mouth (Mr. Ewing) sitting in his ministerial place. In a speech last week he displayed a typical example of the Government's attitude. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) had tabled a sensible amendment providing for the size of the Assembly to be reduced to 100 Members. It was not the most controversial of amendments, but when the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replied he said that the Government had chosen a figure of 150 Members because it was two Members from each present constituency topped up by a few added Members.
  That pathetic mathematical analysis was considered by the Government to be sufficient explanation of the matter, instead of the Minister informing the House what he thought the Assembly should do to need 150 Members. I appreciate that the Minister was speaking to a brief, but

  1517
  a figure of 150 Members appears to be a ludicrous number for the Assembly. That reply was typical in its rottenness—that there will be double the number of Members to do half the work. That is what we have seen in the proceedings on this Bill—no attempt to argue the merits and no arguments deployed to knock down the demerits.
  One of the central problems relates to the role of Scottish Members of Parliament. Scottish Members will be able to concern themselves with matters of schools, health, housing and transport in England, but English Members will not have the right to debate such matters as they affect Scotland. That is an intolerable situation; nor should it be tolerated. Every Member must have the right to concern himself with all matters nationwide.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) mentioned the constitution of the other place, and said that because we tolerated unjustifiable methods there, we could and should tolerate totally different problems here. We know that the House of Lords is founded on principles which not many of us—certainly this applies to me—would accept. But it is no answer to the West Lothian question to say that because we tolerate anomalies of a minor kind in another place, we should tolerate different anomalies of a major kind in this House.
  The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said that he had no answer, but thought that a modus vivendi would emerge. There is no chance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was right to point out that an unstable element would be introduced and that this would have a damaging effect, and, indeed, be ruinous in respect of this House. That is one problem which has not been faced.
  Another problem regarding the United Kingdom as a whole is that it has not been argued in this debate that in a unitary State it is impossible to give a permanent advantage to one part of the United Kingdom, namely, Scotland, in terms of representation, aid and political attention, without at the same time disadvantaging other parts of the United Kingdom. For this reason hon. Members who represent Merseyside and the North-East have suddenly become aware of the
  1518
  implications of the Bill. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that he did not see why there should be difficulties in that respect. He should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who made speeches at the week-end saying exactly the opposite.
  There is no way in which the House can dodge these issues. The hon. Member for Penistone was right to say that we were being asked to make a political judgment on the Bill. Certainly there has been no adequate attempt by the Government to answer the difficult problems which the Bill has shown up.
  I have tried to deal with only one difficulty which the House of Commons will face as a result of this Bill, and also one problem for the United Kingdom in regard to the way in which money is distributed. I shall not dwell on those problems; I merely wish to emphasise that they have not been dealt with. Now let me give some of the problems for Scotland.
  Last week, in an interesting intervention, the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) said that when he was the Lord Provost of Aberdeen—and he was a distinguished Lord Provost—there were only two layers of government—his own council, over which he presided, and this House. Today there would be this House, the district council, the regional council, the community council, the European Assembly and the Scottish Assembly.
  There is no way in which a semantic juggling of words can disguise the truth. This will mean more government. If it means more government, it will mean more bureaucrats to run it. If it means more bureaucrats, it means more public expenditure to pay for it. If it means more public expenditure, it means more taxation to support it. This is absolutely inevitable.
  Not only will Scotland have this tremendous burden placed upon it, not only will it lose by what is imposed upon it; it will lose by what is detracted from it. Loth as I should be to see the number of Scottish Members reduced, it is inevitable that the majority of hon. Members who represent English constituencies would refuse to stand for the present number, which would be reduced. We should lose our influence on such matters

  1519
  as taxation, oil, defence and foreign affairs. We should lose our influence in these vital areas of life. We should either lose our Secretary of State completely, or the power of his voice in the Cabinet. Without a powerful Department to back him up a Secretary of State loses his weight in the Cabinet.
  Naturally, I did not always endorse his views, but I consider that Scotland benefited from having such a formidable person as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock representing the interests of Scotland in the Cabinet. I wonder whether the citizens of Liverpool and Newcastle, who experience problems equal to those in Scotland, might not consider that they should have someone representing them in the Cabinet. I notice that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) nods his head. It is a powerful thing to have a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. Scotland will lose that through the Bill.
  My last reason for opposing the Bill is the most important. I believe that the Bill puts at serious risk the unity of the United Kingdom. That is why I first opposed it and that is my last reason for opposing it. I believe that the unity of the United Kingdom is our most precious democratic achievement. I shall not see it put at risk because of a bunch of political psychopaths in Scotland, taking advantage of protest feeling arising out of the economic failure of both Conservative and Labour Governments, suddenly coming to the top of the pot. I shall not give up 250 years of history because of a mere 11 out of 635 Members.
  Throughout the debate we have been asked what we propose. I can speak only for myself. I have no doubt that to improve the government of our country many changes are needed—changes administrative, changes legislative and changes constitutional. But all those changes, be what they may, must be such as can affect all parts of this United Kingdom equally. That is the essential principle. I hope that any constitutional convention which may be set up will abide by that maxim at least. I believe that this Bill was conceived in panic. It has gone through the House by way of the shabbiest procedures. I believe that it will be rejected with contempt—if not tonight, at a referendum.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) paid tribute to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). It was a remarkable speech, but I did not agree with it. However, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that there was one good thing about my hon. Friend's speech, and I agree with him. He said that the hon. Member for Penistone did not twist words, did not cast aspersions and went straight to the heart of the matter. I say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South that it does not help to refer to hon. Members as psychopaths in the same way that it does not help to twist words. No one has ever thought that to introduce a democratic control mechanism over the existing Civil Service in Scotland is to introduce a new tier of government. To say that a new mechanism of control might not be necessary is a different argument.
  I address myself to the challenge from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone said that no case had been made out for this legislation. I do not accept that. I and many in Scotland were making this argument before the SNP came on to the scene. I agree that the members of the SNP have provided some of the political steam, but I rather regret their arrival because they have muddied the waters somewhat. The issue has become tied up with nationalism more than is necessary.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone is aware, in Scotland we have 7,000 civil servants working for a single office which is the equivalent of nine English Ministries. These civil servants are able and conscientious men, but they cannot themselves provide political decision making. For how long has it been part of British political philosophy that we are better governed by civil servants even if Scotland is an area set aside in administrative terms? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South says that the whole of the United Kingdom should be governed in the same way. That is not possible because we already have a separate Scottish Office which creates a separate situation which we have to improve.

  1521
  As the hon. Member knows, one of the consequences of the situation is that every time a problem arises in Scotland a board, a bureau or a commission is set up to deal with it. A group of people is appointed, and when the Government worry about the democratic issue involved, an advisory committee is set up to watch over the body. That means that there are two appointed bodies—an executive board and an advisory board.
  I have tried to total the number of jobs that are in the gift of the Secretary of State. My arithmetic may not be accurate but I believe that they total 5,083. Of these, 90 are paid jobs. There are 204 ad hoc bodies in Scotland under the control of the Secretary of State. I do not include bodies that are appointed jointly with other Ministries. Scotland is a different area of the country administered by a single Department—a competent and capable Department—surrounded by 204 ad hoc authorities, appointed but not clearly responsible to anyone and not checked or debated in this House. This means that a preponderance of policies on health, education, housing and roads, for want of better things, emerge from this bureaucracy.
  I am not the sort of person who attacks bureaucrats. I know too many of them. If one had to choose a non-democratic form of government I should choose this form. Ideas emerge from these civil service and ad hoc bodies and from pressure groups which are never submitted to democratic scrutiny. That is the basic case for devolution. A greater say in their own government is what the Scottish people are demanding, as of today, from the Government of the United Kingdom. We want to improve the situation by an effective democratic procedure.
  This has been a disturbing debate. One genuine worry has been the degree of complacency in the House. I have had the feeling that many hon. Members believe that if this miserable devolution matter could be got rid of, the government of Scotland would be admirable, there might be a little that needed changing here and there but the basic situation was splendid. That is not so. Members of Parliament are at the centre of government. We have the best opportunity for admiring ourselves and thinking that it goes well, but outside Westminster the
  1522
  position is not satisfactory at present. If the Bill were defeated here or lost on the referendum, the problem of Scottish government would not disappear.
  We have been considering this matter for over a decade. We had a Royal Commission and the Conservative Party appointed its own commission. It would be appalling at this stage to tell the electorate of Scotland, as some people wish, that we are no further forward, that we have no idea how to answer the problems, that we want simply to stop doing anything and leave matters as they stand.
  I am disturbed about this, because one must admit that constitutional problems of this kind do not loom large in people's thinking. Most people are bothered about their children's education, their jobs, their health and their welfare. What is disturbing is that underlying these concerns throughout Britain there is a certain gap between the governors and the governed, a certain suspicion of government and politicians, of those in authority and so on.
  The gap is worse in Scotland, where government is clear but the democratic control over it is not so evident. We are dealing with a phenomenon which, although it exists throughout Britain, is at its worst in Scotland. We neglect it at our peril.
  It is no good for hon. Members to ask "How many people march into MPs' surgeries on a Saturday morning and say 'Devolution is my big point'?" No one does that, because no one thinks of such things. Constitutional issues are not comparable with the National Health Service or with education. We are all sick at times and we shall all die. Many of us were born in hospital. We know about health matters and about schools. The average citizens and voters cannot envisage changes that might bring government closer to the people. They are dissatisfield and disgruntled, but a precise solution is not at the top of their feelings.
  Hon. Members might think back to when the British colonies were demanding independence. The standard argument of every hon. Member in those days was they used to say: "It's a minority demand. I have visited Botswana—formerly Bechuanaland—India or wherever it may be. I found many loyal peasants who were worried only about where their next meal would come from. The people

  1523
  who were agitated about making the government more democratic were a little bunch of wretched "psychopaths", wearing curious dresses and chanting curious songs. Who would pay attention to them?" That is a caricature, but it is the kind of argument that the House in its complacency advanced again and again over Ireland and over various colonies.
  I am not suggesting that Scotland is a colony—far from it. But it cannot be imagined that constitutional matters are uppermost in people's minds, for they are not. However, there is the nagging worry that the people running the country are not easily get-attable or controllable on major issues affecting the public.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that what bothered the Scots were economic matters and that the Assembly would not deal with them. He has it the wrong way round. Most people in Scotland know that inflation is a worldwide problem, certainly in the Western world. They know that there are huge unemployment figures in most Western countries. Very few people imagine that such a system as the Bill proposes could create an island of prosperity in Scotland in the middle of a Western world suffering from stagnation in trade.
  What matters much more to people nowadays is the kind of school their children will go to, the environment, where the motorway will be built, how the housing estate is planned and inner city decay. Those are not matters that it is illegitimate for people to be worried about. They affect their daily lives. It is an old idea of the Left and extreme Right that only one or two basic economic issues matter to people. They do matter, but they are no longer so important, because the standard of living has risen.
  People are worried about what goes on around them. They want to debate and discuss and obtain control over these matters. The whole object of devolution is to make that possible in a Scottish context, where there will be time and opportunities.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire said that there was nothing new in the Bill, that it contained no interesting developments in government. In the first Scotland and Wales Bill, and to a certain extent in this Bill, it was left to the Assembly to devise its
  1524
  own procedures. I hope that it will take some of the hints in the Bill to develop a pre-legislative committee procedure.
  I remember saying to Lord Glenamara, when he was Lord President "It is interesting that you have put in the Scotland and Wales Bill every recommendation for reform made by the Select Committee on Procedure. Why don't you allow us to do the same things here?" In a moment of lucidity and frankness, he said that he had no objection to the Scottish Assembly pinning down the Scottish Executive, but he added "You lot won't pin us down here."
  I see no reason why the Scottish Assembly should be a carbon copy of this establishment. I hope that it will not be. I hope that it will develop Select Committee practices which will give it an opportunity to associate Assemblymen with those areas of the quality of life that affect people.
  We face a Bill which is not perfect, which I would not have designed in this way. But I am deeply depressed by the attitude of the Conservative Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire came to Scotland and held a Press conference in the room below me in the university, much to my upset. He explained that there were four possible solutions to the devolution problem. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that there are four fairly coherent positions that could be taken, but after 10 years during which we had the Kilbrandon Commission and the commission under Lord Home, which came to certain conclusions, the right hon. Gentleman could at least have guided the House as to which of the four the Opposition were advocating. The Conservatives could have come to us with a coherent answer, instead of which hon. Members all over the Conservative Benches, and some on the Labour Benches, have given different views.
  It was said that an Assembly without the powers to tax is a disgrace, that it means representation without taxation. Then, when we moved to give the Assembly taxation powers, to provide a more coherent form of devolution, the Conservatives opposed it. They said that economic power must rest with the United Kingdom. I should have preferred more devolution of economic powers, but the

  1525
  Conservatives voted against the Secretary of State's controlling economic position in the United Kingdom although they think this Assembly has too much executive power. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire showed great mental agility. One night he said that the 40 per cent. clause was not a very good idea, and that it bound the House. I admired the great intellectual agility with which three weeks later he discovered he was wrong and advised his hon. Friends to vote for the clause.
  The people of Scotland are not deeply concerned about devolution, but they show a general concern like many other people, because they feel that somehow government has let them down over the years. In Scotland that feeling takes the form of worries about the Scottish Office and about how government is conducted. The people hear nothing from this House but the fear that whatever is attempted will not work, that each of the Tory Party's four possibilities is too difficult for the House to reach a conclusion. I hope that the people will realise that the Tory Party has nothing to offer them in the way of serious constructive thought on the matter and that therefore it should not be trusted at the next election.
  I turn to the position under the Bill. I do not wish to dwell on it, because we have debated it endlessly. I should have preferred taxing powers. I do not accept that it is impossible to devise them. Every other major State in the Western world except France works a devolved system of government. Every other major State in the Western world except France devises methods by which taxation powers can be given to subordinate States or Assemblies which govern certain areas.
  I do not accept the argument of many people that it would be easier to set up a federal system. In my view it would have been more difficult, because in Scotland there is an existing administration on a regional basis that does not exist in the large areas of England. It would have been a revolution in English administration, which is highly centralised to have set up similar regional Assemblies. To do something different for Scotland is a political reflection of the existing administrative structure. There is a certain coherence about it.
  1526
  Similarly, it is true that to give powers of taxation to all sectors of a federal system creates power outside the federal government, but to give them to one area alone does not cause such a problem. Nobody imagines that decisions by the Scottish Assembly to increase or reduce its expenditure by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. would affect United Kingdom Treasury demand management. That is well within the Treasury's present margin of error, so there is no problem there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), to whom I apologise if I was brusque with him the other night in a debate, has often suggested that English regions are worried about the present situation. I do not see the force of his argument. If he is worried about a different matter—whether devolution is a sensible system of government—I should have thought it made sense to try it out in the Scottish region, where there is a demand for it and an administrative framework to do it.
  If at the end of four or five years it was believed that the experiment in Scotland had been unfortunate, that it was encouraging divisive elements, producing a Government who lacked ability and might even be corrupt, my hon. Friend's case would be proved and there would be no point in contemplating the system for England. But suppose that after four or five years the Scottish Assembly had settled to its job and was producing a greater feeling of harmony between the people and their Government in Scotland. If the Assembly were liked and if good candidates were coming forward to stand for it, surely that would be the time for the House to say that possibly devolution could be spread. Probably the demand would then come from other parts of England.
  I cannot see that it is to anyone's advantage to say that, because England is not sure whether it wants this sort of thing in the regions, therefore an area such as Scotland, which wants devolution, and where there is an existing administration, should not have it. I am reminded of what happens sometimes when one of my children sits down at the table and is given a plate of pudding. When he says "I don't want it" and I say "Then pass it to your baby brother who likes pudding", the first child will say "If he wants it, I will have the pudding, even

  1527
  if I don't like it". There is a certain logic in that but it is not an admirable attitude.
  Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend seems to have a very interesting family. I point out to him, however, that there are worries on Merseyside not only about the constitutional effects of the Bill. There are even greater worries about the possible economic advantages which might flow to Scotland, and which might adversely affect regions such as Merseyside. Earlier in the day Merseyside Members spent some time in meeting the management of British Leyland about Speke. What risk can we be asked to take on Merseyside about unemployment?
  Mr. Mackintosh: I quite understand my hon. Friend's argument. However, if we have devolution, I think that it could well go the other way. When I first argued the case for devolution in this House many years ago, I was approached by Arthur Woodburn, an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, who had been through these arguments. He said to me "John, you are crazy to make the case for devolution. Don't you understand that as a result of never totting up what Scotland gets and never treating Scotland as an area, we get more for housing, more for health, more for this and more for that?"
  Surely it is better, in a democratic country such as ours, to see the block grant out in the open so that we understand what the Scots are getting. Then we can know whether that is what we want, and whether it is a satisfactory method of doing it and whether it is fair to the English regions. Merseyside may have a case in claiming that it is not being fairly treated. I suggest that devolution might well provide a perfectly good argument for Merseyside in claiming fair treatment, and I should be happy to vote for that. I do not want more money for Scotland. I want a reasonable system of internal self-government.
  I dislike, as I have often said, the whole principle of referendums. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone in this respect, although I do not think that he joined me in voting against the principle of a referendum. I dislike it whether I think I shall win or lose in this particular situation.
  1528
  I think that it is a mistake for this House to shrug off the responsibility of using its own judgment. I suppose that this attitude might be criticised as elitist and shocking, but the fact is that this House is paid to spend its time thinking about government. The average person comes to his Member of Parliament with his worries and talks about being fed up with the Government. I remember at the time of the last election coming across a fellow in the street in one small town who looked utterly miserable. I asked him why he was looking so miserable. He said "It's this damned election." I said "What particularly disturbs you about it?" He replied "What disturbs me is that one of you two lots will win."
  This attitude is very prevalent. People are disturbed about government. They do not know where it all happens. In Scotland, in particular, people feel somehow that they do not have their hand on government. We ought to produce in this House proposals which will remedy that situation. I believe that the Bill is an attempt to move in that direction. It has weaknesses concerning taxing powers and there is not the clear-cut division of functions that I should have liked to see. I should have thought that functions should either be devolved or withdrawn to Whitehall. I do not think that we want an intermediary Scottish Office lurking in limbo between the two.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that more of the law could have been devolved, but nevertheless this is a beginning, a stepping-stone in the right direction. I do not believe that it is a move towards independence. I do not believe that the bulk of the Scottish people want independence. What I believe is that the Bill is a stepping-stone to a form of greater internal democracy which we, as a drastically over-centralised country, badly need.
  I hope that any hon. Member who contemplates voting against the Bill will accept the responsibility of thinking of a new or better method of dealing with the problems of over-centralisation, and with the general air of disgruntlement which will not go away, even if the Bill is defeated. I hope that the Bill will be accepted and that we shall build upon it a better system of government in Scotland.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), not only because of the humour with which he presents his case but because of the realism with which he assesses the position in Scotland.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman is totally right in saying that we cannot classify the issue of devolution and the feelings about it in Scotland in the same way as we deal with prices, jobs, taxation and health. The issue of devolution is very much deeper, and it is here that we must exercise our responsibility as politicians. We have talked about devolution now for so long that it is very much a part of the fabric of life in Scotland. Many of the issues involved are taken for granted by people in Scotland. It is in that sense, and with that sense of responsibility, that I hope the House will approach the Division tonight.
  Nearly everything that can be said has now been said about the Bill, but for someone in my position, supporting devolution and believing very deeply in the need for decentralisation in this country, one fundamental question arises this evening. Quite simply it is this: is there another way? If there is another way, as opposed to what is in the Bill, if there is another form in which we can have devolution and decentralisation—and have it within a reasonable time scale—I shall be one of the first to consider it and try to decide whether it is a better way.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that there is need for change. Very few people here will disagree with him that there is need for change. I agree also that if we had the opportunity and if we were ready to reform ourselves in this House of Commons, and to reform the central institutions of government, there would not be the pressure for devolution in Scotland that there is at present. There would be pressure but it would not be as strident as it is at the moment. Although there may be general agreement on the need for action of this sort—and I believe that there is—there is no evidence of such action being taken, particularly in regard to the reform of our central institutions of government.
  1530
  In this situation, where there is general agreement that something has to be done, but where agreement is lacking as to what should be done, I want, as someone representing a Scottish constituency, to try to consider what it is that should be done. As long as we go on discussing and saying that there must be change but are not prepared to say precisely what that change should be, we only succeed in adding to the frustrations of those who are distant in terms of geography and also politically from central government in this country. There is no substitute, then, to putting forward real proposals. It is no good simply saying that we have general agreement on the need for change of some sort. That is my first point.
  When I approached the Second Reading of the original Scotland and Wales Bill, I felt that one of the overriding things that mattered was that the subject of devolution should be debated, and I kept my mind wide open as to what would be my attitude on Third Reading. What concerns me on the Third Reading of this Bill, however, is that although we say broadly that we need change of some sort or another, I begin to wonder more and more whether there is real conviction in this House as to the change that is necessary and as to what that change should be.
  I accept that my right hon. Friend is completely honourable in saying that there should be change, and that he believes there should be. I believe also that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was totally honourable in moving his amendment in Committee. But one has to recognise that there are other hon. Members who would wish to use the referendum as a means of frustrating the measure.
  When we put these two things together—the realisation for change, but doubt about what that change should be—then someone in my position—who believes that change is necessary and who has a certain view as to what the change should be—must approach this Third Reading with a sense of realism. We must also approach it in the sense that if this measure is refused we are putting back the opportunity for decentralisation, devolution and, perhaps more important, for starting a process of reform with regard to our central institutions. We are putting

  1531
  that opportunity back perhaps for a considerable period indeed.
  As one who believes in devolution, I say straight away that I would have preferred to see our institutions of Government reformed from the centre. But that has not taken place and I see no prospect of that taking place. This is not an ideal situation, but as so often happens in Governments throughout the world, we never have the chance of doing such major things overnight. However, given the opportunity to reform from the edge, rather than from the centre, one has to look hard at that opportunity and to accept it if one believes that it is right.
  That brings me to the second point that wish to raise. Although I believe there is now an opportunity for reform, I do not think that that opportunity should be allowed to pass unless hon. Members have strong reasons for opposing it. I ask myself whether this Bill is right and whether it starts the kind of general process of reform that is necessary for the government of this country. I do not believe that the Bill is ideal in all respects. But it is a better Bill than the one which the Government presented more than a year ago. With regard to the division of power and other matters, I believe that it is a better Bill.
  One is then left with the question whether the Bill is workable and whether it will be stable. It is a matter of judgment whether the Bill will be workable. I respect the judgment of those hon Members who think that it is not workable. But for my part I believe that on balance it is workable.
  It is workable because of one important element and dimension that is so often written down in Scotland, even though statements by some members of the Scottish National Party do not help. I believe that the good sense of the majority of people in Scotland—who do not want independence—will prevail. I believe that all parties—including the Scottish National Party—will respond to the general will of the people of Scotland. I believe that we shall find the general will to make this Bill work. In terms of workability, I believe that the Bill passes that test.
  The other test is whether it will be stable. Can anyone in this House put his hand on his heart and say that the present position is stable? I do not
  1532
  believe that it is. I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that this Bill is stable. If we were moving from a position that was stable we would have to ask ourselves whether it was right to take this further step. But on balance, and because of the argument of principle that I put earlier, I believe that this Bill has an element of a federal-type structure with regard to the United Kingdom. I believe we can evolve and move towards a more stable type of constitutional structure for the United Kingdom which, at the end of the day, will offer more stability than that which we have at present.
  The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is absolutely right. It is physically and practically impossible at present to move in one step to a federal solution, which I personally would favour. On the other hand, those of us who believe that at the end of the day we shall have to find a stable solution must accept that we must make a start somewhere. Compared with the original Bill I believe that this Bill—because it embodies many of the principles on which a federal structure is built—gives us the opportunity to evolve.
  I said that we must come to a judgment tonight. The judgment that I have to make is quite simply a choice between the status quo or the Bill. That is the choice before us. I do not believe the status quo to be tenable. I fervently support the unity of the United Kingdom, but if we remain as we are I believe that we shall move far more inexorably towards the break up of the United Kingdom.
  Of course, this is a step into the unknown, but let us remember that democracy is organic. It does not stand still. It must progress. We do not have a written constitution in this country. Therefore, unless we are prepared to move forward, experiment and have a certain degree of faith, it will be not only future generations in this country that we shall fail but also democracy itself.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Gentleman, may I advise the House that if hon. Members limit their speeches to under a quarter of an hour each I shall be able to call everyone who has indicated by standing that he would like to speak.
  7.47 p.m.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has called upon us not to be afraid of developing our constitution. I believe that his advice has put the debate into a healthier perspective. There have been complaints that the Bill has not been debated on its merits and that we have not argued in support of the Bill—particularly hon. Members on the Labour Benches. I think we must accept a measure of rebuke in that respect. But the argument is not lacking. Rather, it is a matter of it not having been put.
  Part of the reason has been that the House has not got used to the idea of timetabling major Bills that are taken in Committee on the Floor of the House. We must arrange the breaks to concentrate on the major clauses so that we proceed in a logical way through the major contents of the Bill. The Bill has not been filibustered. I would not accuse any hon. Member of that. But the House has been led into byways and has been diverted from its main purpose. It has even been entertained.
  This is the right Bill for the time. It is the right Bill for the state of affairs in the country and in this House. It has evolved by the same process that so many constitutional reforms have evolved throughout our history. The role of democratising the Secretary of State, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), is the principle of the Bill. It must be looked at from that perspective by a Member like myself who has represented both an English and a Scottish constitutency. The roles are quite different.
  In an English constituency one is batting against an Executive where there is an identifiable Minister dealing with the particular subject on which one can organise parliamentary support which may have a direct effect on that issue. In a Scottish context, although the role and status of the individual Member in human and social terms are every bit as high as in England, in parliamentary terms he is outnumbered eight to one by the mass vote in the House and in Committee of those who necessarily support the position taken by the Secretary of State and the Government. Not that one wishes to contradict the Secretary of
  1534
  State. It is simply that the political weight in this Chamber is overwhelmingly at his command against the minority of Scottish Members.
  That is why we canot achieve the democratisation of control of the Secretary of State's powers in this Chamber. In debate and in our voting, all hon. Members are equal, and I hope that that situation will continue. The difference is in the way in which we can achieve democratisation by the creation of a Scottish Assembly.
  It has been argued that there is no serious grand design for the Assembly. But when has this country ever had a serious grand design for constitutional change? I believe in grand designs, but constitutionally we recognise them when they have been achieved rather than creating them in advance through political pressures. It is a piecemeal process. This Bill is part of that process—a process that has been continuing for a long time and will continue in the future.
  The point has been made over and over again that the Scottish Assembly cannot be really democratic without financial responsibility. That is a powerful argument. However, to illustrate the continuing pace of change the Inland Revenue has produced a scheme during the passage of this Bill for the total transformation of the PAYE system. A report by the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue has been presented to the House showing that it is possible to introduce local income tax at any level of disaggregation at which we care to do so—right down to local ward level if we wish. The argument that has been put about the operating costs of local income tax falls to the ground. It will take time to complete the computerisation of the existing system and to remodel it, but the Inland Revenue says that this could happen by 1985. With a little political pressure, I think it could be done by the early 1980s.
  It is also argued that we cannot proceed without uniform changes throughout the United Kingdom. There is the West Lothian argument of how Scottish MPs can have a vote on affairs that affect England while not being able to vote on the same business in Scotland, when the Scottish Assembly is in existence. This argument imposes a stultifying uniformity on the constitutional development of this country. We have never accepted that

  1535
  sort of thinking in the past and I do not see why we should accept it today.
  We do not argue that we should not nationalise an industry because that would put the workers in that industry in a different position in relation to this House from that of the rest of workers in private industry. Nor do we argue that because we have a pattern of administration of a partciular social service in one area, the same pattern and method of administration or control of salaries must apply in every other area. We have a necessarily flexible approach to the problems that concern us.
  The answer is an evolving one. I do not see us moving by the conscious process of planning an increase of powers for the Scottish Assembly. These powers will develop, first of all into the acquisition of tax powers and then to a degree of economic responsibility. I accept that that development will be accompanied by comparable developments in England. I do not expect it to take the form of setting up regional authorities, which have no place in the hearts and political history of the people of England. But that does not mean that local authorities in England cannot exercise many of the powers that are being given to the Scottish Assembly. Indeed, my old constituency local authority of Teesside could exercise tax powers and industrial development powers quite as formidable as, and even more so than, those enjoyed nationally.
  On the political impact of the West Lothian question, it is argued that by hiving off responsibilities for home affairs from Scottish Ministers this will weaken the powers and effectiveness of the Labour-dominated group of Scottish MPs. Why have we had a majority of Labour Members in Scotland in the past? The temptation is to argue that this has come about because of the superior political judgment of the Scottish people, but it is at least partly because there has been a degree of deprivation in Scotland which is not so uniformly spread throughout the United Kingdom.
  If the Labour Party is not able to rebuild its appeal in the majority of the cities and suburbs, as well as in the countryside, there is little prospect of our future as a party in the long term in any part of the United Kingdom. Nor can we expect the political balance of the
  1536
  past to continue in the future. We must look to our own party laurels to ensure that it does.
  On the overall unity of the United Kingdom the constitutional process in which we are engaged is coping with an increased degree of interdependence. We are going through a process internationally of harmonising national economic policies and we recognise in Scotland that this process is very important for us and for the Scottish economy. We must contribute effectively to such debates. A part of this process within the United Kingdom and in the Scottish Assembly is the more sensitive response of public expenditure to areas of need. Without it we shall have no democratic control.
  The fundamental case for placing the democratic right to control affairs that are mainly our own concern closer to the people constitutes the overwhelming case for this Bill. I hope that the House will give it an overwhelming majority for the Third Reading, and thus launch a successful Scottish Assembly.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) developed a theme that was originated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). He asked when there had been a serious grand design for our constitution. The answer is that there never has been. Personally, I think that at this stage in our nation's development it is necessary that there should be such a design.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns said with some justification that there was no conviction about the need for change in our democratic constitutional arrangements. I have such a conviction. The root of the difference between us is his belief that we have to make use of devolution as a starting point for change, whereas I want to start at the centre and move out towards the periphery. Logic is on my side but political reality is on his. I suspect that he might be proved right in the long run.
  I am in favour of the concept of devolution. I believe in a decrease of the power of Whitehall and a redistribution of powers, rights and discretion to

  1537
  public and private bodies and private individuals.
  The United Kingdom is, and will remain for some time, the most highly centralised country in the Western world. It is as centralised as a number of countries in the Eastern bloc. I am completely in favour of a reduction in the power of government at the centre. How are we to achieve it? It is not good enough for the Government to take hold of a concept, albeit under what they interpret as political pressure, to turn it into a few ideas, translate them into legislation, ram them through Parliament, often undebated, regardless of bitter criticism, and pretend that they have done a great service to the people, in this case the people of Scotland, when, in reality, they have produced a hotch-potch which, as time passes, will lead increasingly conflict and trouble.
  The Bill was a bad Bill on Second Reading and it remains a bad Bill. I wish to criticise it on three scores. First, it will establish an unrepresentative Assembly. Secondly, it will establish an irresponsible Assembly and, thirdly, it will breed uncontrollable conflict.
  On the first point, if ever there was a case for an Assembly to be elected by a system of proportional representation, it is in Scotland. With four major parties in the field and other fringe parties, such as the SLP, in existence, it is nothing short of ludicrous to pretend that an adequately representative Assembly can be elected—or, and more important, can be believed by the electors to have been elected—by a first-past-the-post system. Why try to push the Scottish people and the Assembly into the straitjacket of a two-party system, which is implied, when, whatever was once the situation in the United Kingdom, it certainly does not even begin to exist in Scotland?
  I take the point of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that the 40 per cent. poll provision may encourage more Scots to vote than would otherwise have been the case. That is why I did not vote for it. If the Scots vote for devolution and the 40 per cent. hurdle is jumped, I forecast that soon afterwards, one of the first sources of friction will be the unrepresentativeness of the Assembly.
  1538
  On my second point, the Assembly will be irresponsible because it is not provided with the duty to raise taxation. Here again, I disagree with my Front Bench. "No taxation without representation" is an old and accepted principle, but the converse is equally important. There should be no representation without a responsibility for taxation. If there is, as there is in the Bill, the ease with which the buck can be passed is unlimited.
  The inbuilt potential for conflict between Parliament and the Assembly and between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive will be enormous.
  This brings me to my third point. The very establishment of an Assembly is bound to lead to conflict between it and the superior or national Parliament. Human nature and politicians being what they are, this is bound to be so, and it is the case in most countries with subsidiary Assemblies. There is nothing wrong with that. Some people may call it constructive tension. Whatever it is called, it is a fact of life.
  However, in most, if not all, of those other countries, there is the cushion of a written constitution which takes the pressure out of the conflict. Without that or the duty to tax, which would encourage responsibility, it looks to me as though there is a certain likelihood of trouble.
  Of course, I accept that for the Government to have tried to do either of the things that I have suggested in order to reduce or contain conflict would have been politically impossible for them and the House, but that merely demonstrates that there are weaknesses in our political system.
  Apart from being a bad Bill, this is the wrong Bill. Ostensibly, it has been introduced to counter the dissatisfaction of the Scots with London government, but that dissatisfaction is not unique to Scotland; it is as prevalent in my constituency as I suspect it is in Kensington, Chelsea, Birmingham, Liverpool or any other part of the United Kingdom.
  The disillusionment with Government and Parliament is widespread, and it exists because neither seems adequately to reflect the opinions and ambitions of the electorate. That state of affairs will not be put right by trying to deal with the disillusionment as it affects only one

  1539
  part of the United Kingdom. It will be dealt with only when we decide to put our own House under the microscope and decide to make ourselves more capable of reflecting the opinions and desires of the electorate, and we shall not begin to do that over any sustained period until we are elected by a system of proportional representation.
  The Bill is no more than a diversion, but it is a potentially dangerous and harmful diversion. That is why I shall vote against it.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and I may find ourselves in the same Lobby tonight. I hope that I shall be able to show that it will be for very different reasons.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the duty of a Member was to reflect the views of his constituents. I want to put on record the fact that what I have to say about the Bill is wholeheartedly supported by my party executive. Its members have given me full backing—and that unanimity has never previously occurred in the 14 years that I have represented the constituency, so I want to get this on the record.
  The Members of my party executive have lively minds of their own. In many ways they argue and seek to persuade and convince each other. I have to tell the Minister that they, and I do not like the Bill very much.
  I ask Scottish Members to accept that I intervene in Scottish affairs not because I want to but because Scottish affairs intervene in the affairs of Liverpool and Merseyside, and we must take notice of that. Just as I am urged to try to understand the feelings in Scotland, I ask Scottish Members to try to understand the fears on Merseyside, not only about constitutional change but, more important, about the fact that changes of this kind may lead to more economic difficulties for our area. We have two priorities. The economic worries come first and the constitutional matters come second.
  I do not want to go into the history of the Bill, but it began in doubtful circumstances, some years ago. This Bill has endured more criticism than praise and has probably survived more because
  1540
  of the good will of its opponents than of the fervour of its supporters.
  The Government had my support on Second Reading, on the guillotine motion, and in Committee, where I voted more times with them than against. No one should complain that I have not provided every opportunity to be persuaded on the merits of the Bill. Now I am asked to support the Third Reading, to make or break the Bill.
  Two groups of reasons are put forward to try to persuade hon. Members to support the Bill—first, the merits of the Bill and, secondly, a variety of other reasons.
  I am told that the Bill applies only to Scotland. Technically, that may be correct, but it is no county council Bill which we can say affects only Tyneside, Merseyside or the West Midlands, and that if they want it, let it go ahead, because it is only their Bill.
  For good or ill, this Bill will inevitably affect every part of the United Kingdom. Every part of the United Kingdom is interdependent. No one part ought to be treated in isolation. I am told that the Bill is what the people of Scotland want and what they must have. I have been told that many times by Scottish friends and by the Scottish Nationalists.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It is in the Labour Party manifesto, too.
  Mr. Ogden: I shall come to that. I hope that I know a little more about the Labour Party manifesto than the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I have read it.
  Mr. Ogden: Good for ye. It is said that this is what the people of Scotland must have, but my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said that tonight it is a constitutional matter and that the people of Scotland are concerned with other things. Other Scottish Members whom I respect and admire tell me that this is what the Scottish people want and must have. On the other hand, other Scottish Members, for whom I have equal regard, tell me that this is not what is best for Scotland and not what Scotland wants. It would be a good idea, especially from the point of view of the Scottish Nationalist Party—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It is the Scottish National Party. Get the name right.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) must not keep interrupting from a sedentary position.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am making the point that I have made many times on my feet. It becomes repetitious. I merely wished to remind the various parties in the House of the name of my party. Will hon. Members please try to get it right so that I do not have to interrupt from a sedentary position?
  Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has made her point.
  Mr. Ogden: I tell the hon. Lady that I shall try to get it right next time.
  It is relevant that an English Member should put on record the admiration that English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members have had over a long period for the quality, integrity and hard work of the Scottish Members who have come to this place over many years. I put on record my envy—it is not merely admiration—for what Scottish Members on both sides of the Chamber have achieved for their part of the United Kingdom. Scotland has been well served in the past and in the present, by the quality of the Members that she has sent to this place.
  As for the Bill, there is clearly no guide from Scottish Members. I must tell the hon. Ladies on the Scottish National Bench that the speech of their party leader—I bear in mind the respect and regard that I know most hon. Members have for him—did more to persuade me to go into the "No" Lobby than anything that the Conservative Front Bench has done before. It is a speech of which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will be proud when he reads it again.
  My information on the opinions of the people of Scotland about the Bill is that they are about as equally divided as are their representatives in this place. I do not know whether that is true.
  Mrs. Bain: The opinion polls that have been taken in Scotland on this issue have always shown that the Scottish people support the concept of devolution by two to one.
  Hon. Members: Not true.
  Mr. Ogden: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I said that my information on the opinions of the people of Scotland is that they are about equally divided. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues had spent some time trying to persuade English Members, or United Kingdom Members, of their case rather than haranguing us from time to time—even in the most charming way—they might have achieved rather more. My information is that the opinions of the people of Scotland are about equally divided.
  Dr. Bray: The polls that have asked for a "Yes" or "No" in the referendum show a two-to-one majority in favour. The latest poll was taken only last week for the Glasgow Herald. There is also a considerable majority of Scottish Members in favour of the Bill.
  Mr. Ogden: The latter information I have, but the earlier information is new to me. It would have been useful if I had known of it before.
  I am also told "There is to be a referendum. Let the people of Scotland decide." I do not like referendums, although I accept that a case can be made out for one on major constitutional changes. My only claim is that if a change affects every part of the United Kingdom, every part of it should have a voice. I recognise that no one in Merseyside is asking for a voice in the referendum, but when we deal with a constitutional change that affects every part of the United Kingdom, surely everybody should have the chance of a voice and a vote. It is true that 5 million Scots may have their say, but 47 million others in the rest of the United Kingdom may not.
  The referendum may answer the question "Do you want the Bill?" but it will not answer the question to which I want an answer, namely, "Do you want an independent Scotland?". If that second question were written in and if my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply, were to indicate whether he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be supporting that second question in another place, that would lessen my opposition to the Bill at this stage.
  For those who support the Bill a referendum is logical, but I use a medical analogy for those who cannot or do not support the Bill and yet are asked to support a referendum. It may be that I

  1543
  am unwise to choose a medical analogy, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) is present.
  What would we think of a doctor who said to a patient, after hearing complaints of his health, "Here is a prescription. The medicine will not cure your sickness. It may have grave side effects on the rest of your family. It is up to you whether you take it." That is what the opponents of the Bill are assured to do.
  The Bill gives great powers to Scotland, but it gives little power to Dundee, Aberdeen or other local communities down the line. It substitutes Edinburgh for Westminster. It am told that Edinburgh is no more Scotland than Westminster is England. If the Assembly is established, will Scottish Members be less involved in the powers and duties that will be devolved to Scotland than they are at present? As we are now involved in local government, although we have no powers in local government, if Scottish Assembly does something that displeases people or does not do something will not those who disagree with what is being done or not being done come to this place, to their Westminster Member, to seek redress of grievance? Will it not be that Scottish Members in this place will have even less power than at present to provide that redress of grievance? For those and other reasons I am not persuaded of the merits of the Bill.
  So we come to the "other reasons". As the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn reminded us, the Labour Party has a manifesto commitment of October 1974. We are legislating in 1978 for a situation that was thought to exist in 1974. How that came about is rather a strange story, and four years is a long time. I recognise that it is also a Labour Party conference decision. It is supported by the Scottish Labour Party and the STUC. I have to weigh that as well. There is also a three-line Whip. If my left arm is slightly bent, it is because my Chief Whip has been taking more than the usual amount of interest in me over the past few days. That has to be recognised, and I do not lightly disobey a three-line Whip.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who gave a resume of the pattern of events leading to the "inevitability"—I
  1544
  think that I quote him correctly—of the Assembly legislation? As the hon. Gentleman is interested in the opinions of his party, I ask him to reflect. There is the long-standing commitment of his party, which goes back long before the Hamilton election, to a substantial measure of Home Rule for Scotland—indeed, Home Rule in excess of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be in keeping with the traditions of his party, will he put the whole history in mind and not merely a little bit of recent history from 1974?
  Mr. Ogden: The history of my party is that usually, if we are out of step, we try to work out a new formula. We are not bound too tightly by tradition in one form or another. I am trying to explain why, bearing in mind the commitments made by the Labour Party, I am not lightly ignoring them. That includes the fact that this is a major piece of legislation. I am not an instant rebel. The majority of members of the Cabinet have voted more often against three-line Whips than I have. Therefore, I do not do this lightly.
  This is a major piece of legislation. Yet the Bill is a matter of almost complete indifference to my constituents and to the vast majority of English people. The Labour Government have kept their promise to bring in the Bill. The Bill have been brought so far by a cross-party alliance across the Floor of the House. If the Bill receives a Third Reading, it will be because of a temporary all-party alliance across the Floor of the House. If it is denied a Third Reading, it will be because of a different, but equally temporary, alliance across the Floor of the House.
  I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) say that if the Bill was denied a Third Reading tonight he would not be bobbing up like Zebedee and claiming that there should be a General Election. A General Election will have to be fought on many matters in many parts of the United Kingdom; not just on devolution for Scotland.
  My conclusion is that the Bill was born of reaction, not anticipation; of expediency and despair, not hope; and of panic, in an attempt to halt the nationalist tide. America had such problems many years ago. I am not suggesting the American solution. Yet Abraham Lincoln

  1545
  never attempted and, I hope, never considered bringing in a Southern States devolution Bill to solve his problems. There are other ways. I ask hon. Members not to use that argument against me. I believe that we should face the nationalist tide and see what we can do, because there is also an English nationalist tide which must be faced. That is the other side of the coin. Trying to ride with the tide will not bring any lasting benefits.
  My hon. Friends know that I usually stand in the centre Left of my party. I do not go round calling for instant Socialism today. But, even by my modest standards, can any Labour Member claim that this is a good piece of Socialist legislation? The Bill will do little good, and may do much harm. I hope that it is disposed of in the "No" Lobby tonight.
  8.23 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: When we began the debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill I felt fairly certain that we would not produce a successful Bill unless we incorporataed some general reform of the procedures of the House of Commons. Nothing has happened during the year and months that we have been debating the previous Bill and this Bill to make me change my mind on that matter.
  I thought that it would be wrong to deny the Scotland Bill a Second Reading and thereby to deny discussion of the Bill in Committee. Therefore, I did not vote against it. I cannot say that I voted for it. Indeed, I did not vote in favour of the 40 per cent. clause in the referendum.
  We have now reached the stage where we must make up our minds whether the Bill should receive the approval of the House. Having listened to the debates and tried to move several amendments to the Bill, I do not believe that we have achieved any basic improvements which warrant the Bill receiving a Third Reading.
  I think that the upsurge of protest voting which went to the Scottish National Party will go much in the same way as the protest voting which at one time went to the Liberal Party in England. That had nothing to do with the government of Scotland at all. It was a protest against bad administration at one time on the
  1546
  part of the Conservative Government and at other times on the part of the Labour Government. Both Administrations were equally guilty.
  We shall devole to 150 Assembly Members part of the work which 71 Members are doing here. Therefore, we shall have 221 Members doing what is currently done by 71 Members.
  The Bill is so drafted that the Assembly will have no financial control. Therefore, half the time Assembly Members will be wondering how, after the first four years, they will manage to be re-elected. They will say "We must promise the electors something more; otherwise we shall not get back." We shall, therefore, be setting up an unstable Assembly.
  I hope that the result of refusing to give the Bill a Third Reading will be that both sides of the House will come together and do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) suggested—namely, address itself to seeing whether it can use the strength of the Civil Service in Scotland, to which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred, to bring government closer to the people.
  Our experience in local government affairs is that often a constituent will go to his member of Parliament and say "I have been to my district council and to the county council, but they cannot do anything for me. Can you help?" In some cases we may have a little more muscle and, therefore, perhaps be able to help.
  I foresee the Assembly with 150 Members dependent entirely on the block vote from this House for what it can do. I repeat what I said the other day: it will be a prisoner of this House regarding how much money goes in the block vote to Scotland. I cannot believe that that will produce a stable Assembly.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is in some danger when he calls the SNP vote a protest vote? In the October 1974 General Election the SNP got virtually 31 per cent. of the vote whereas the Conservative Party got only 25 per cent. It is difficult to know when a protest is not a protest. Is he not getting to the nub of the question when he grasps the nettle and refers to constituents feeling

  1547
  helpless? Are constituents not perhaps rallying against the feeling that two tiers of local government are confusing? Is he not realising that an Assembly without more financial powers will be at risk in not satisfying its Members?
  Sir J. Gilmour: I do not think that the hon. Lady has made a useful contribution to the argument that I am developing. A constituent will often approach his Member of Parliament and say "I cannot get anything out of this authority. Can you do anything?" That is a hard fact of life that we have to acknowledge.
  There is another reason why I feel unable to vote for Third Reading. The most important part of the Bill is Schedule 10. That contains 26 matters that should be devolved to the Assembly. We discussed only one out of the whole lot. We are asked to pass a Bill, the real guts of which have not been discussed by the House. Therefore, I hope that there will be a majority against Third Reading. I do not want to shovel the Bill under the carpet and do away with it. I want a concurrence of opinion in the House and a better Bill next time.
  8.28 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I want to refer briefly to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson)—and I am sorry that he is not here—and Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). I have the highest regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, to whose speeches I always listen with great interest because of the incisive, intelligent way in which he musters his argument and puts forward his point of view. But he makes the mistake of the elitist who believes that all arguments can be won and all problems solved merely by using an intellectual argument for or against them. This is not the case with some arguments, which are highly emotional in content. I do not say that is necessarily a bad thing when a problem is an emotional one, but much of my hon. Friend's speech depended upon what he considers to be the problem.
  If my hon. Friend considers that this measure is wanted by the people of Scotland—and this argument applies equally to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby—he must accept that it is up to this House, contrary to what he said, to for-
  1548
  multate and translate the desires of the people of Scotland into our view of what should be done. That is our job as Members of Parliament. It is wrong for us to neglect that duty. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby that, according to the opinion polls and according to the majority of Scottish Members in the House, that is how the people of Scotland feel.
  I was much impressed by the sincerity of my hon. Friend's speech. I can give him another example of what he had in mind that he might care to use when he puts forward his arguments. It is a medical example and is the case of the patient who went to the doctor with a cold. The doctor told him "We cannot cure a cold, but it is snowing outside, so take off your clothes and go out and get pneumonia. We can cure that."
  My hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) dealt very well with the positive aspect of devolution. It is true that as a people the British have not dealt with the development of their political, economic and industrial institutions on the basis of a big design or a great plan. We have dealt with these matters in a piecemeal way.
  The Bill has had a rough and perhaps stormy passage, and it is therefore to the credit of my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will leave this House having suffered no more than a severe buffeting. No important aspect of the Bill has been interfered with. All its major provisions remain. Every attack has been beaten off. All the matters that are to be devolved are still there as they were in the original Bill.
  This is in no small part due to my hon. Friend the Minister of State who has assiduously done his duty and has deftly guided the Bill through its various stages. I take my hat off to him for the way he has done that. Even the insertion of the 40 per cent. requirement is not a tragedy, because it will rebound in the face of those who pushed it through. The Scottish people will respond with a much larger proportion of the vote than even those who support the amendment imagined possible.
  I welcome the Bill positively as an extension of the democratic principle. A wise Indian statesman said to me once

  1549
  that democracy was an aspiration. How true that is. This aspiration, I may add, if it can be achieved at all, can be achieved only in stages. The Bill marks an important stage in that process.
  The Scottish Office may or may have not been a good idea at the time it was established, but I suggest that it is totally inadequate now. The way it is constituted, encompassing, as it does, nine Government Departments, means that it gets the worst of all worlds. Although it is now a long way from the system of patronage which developed under what was known as the Scottish Manager in the early nineteenth century. It was only in 1926 that the office of Secretary of State for Scotland was established.
  The nine United Kingdom Ministries are administered through the Scottish Office, which is a completely unsatisfactory way of pursuing the democratic goal of giving people more say in their own affairs. The Bill enables people to be nearer to the individuals who are trying to control so many aspects of their lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, people are concerned about education, health, employment and similar matters. Those are the matters which are nearest to people's hearts. Those are the matters about which they complain, not devolution. We have to make government much nearer to the people.
  The Scottish Office system and the way in which Scottish Members of Parliament go about their various duties are unsatisfactory, even from the point of view of those Scottish Members of Parliament. They are positively encouraged to be parochial in outlook and discouraged from taking a broader United Kingdom view. That is part of the problem of the Scottish Office being an unacceptable halfway house. In spite of the protestations of opponents of the Bill, there is a clear demand, expressed in a number of ways, for greater participation by the people of Scotland, and hon. Members close their eyes to reality if they deny that. The Scottish people have for a long time had a degree of devolution; we are not dealing with something new. What the Scottish people are doing now, and what we should encourage them to do, is looking forward to a logical extension of
  1550
  that devolution process, and on that basis action must be taken.
  If we feel that they should be encouraged, there are only two alternatives. The first is complete separation, and that course is supported by only a very small minority of Scottish people. The mass of the Scottish people are not interested in a separate Scotland, a separate army, navy and air force, border posts and the exchange of ambassadors throughout the world—our footballers already do that reasonably well.
  Scotland does not want independence, but there is a strong voice for the second alternative, which is devolution. That is seen by the Scottish people not in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone sees it. It is seen by the Scottish people as it has been envisaged by the Government, as the natural joining together of the present functions of the Scottish Office with the additional powers embodied in the Bill, all within the overall sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is how the Scottish people see it, and it is on that that they should be given the chance of voting.
  The measure may lead in the future to a federal system for the whole country. In this era of easy communications it might be a very good development. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby was arguing more against the possibility of that not happening for his area. If that kind of development took place in other parts of the country I should not be filled with dismay, but it will take a while to come.
  Although I sympathise with hon. Members who represent areas with economic problems as bad as or worse than those of Scotland, Scotland cannot wait while they drag their feet in recognising this striving which people have for more say in the matters that affect their daily lives. The Scottish people know what they want, and their rights cannot be denied. I agree that the Bill is not perfect—this House has hardly shown itself capable of constructing a perfect Bill either in the past or now—but it reflects reasonably well the views of the Scottish people. I wish that it had embodied the committee system of local authorities or the Select Committee system of this House. But that is not to be, and the

  1551
  Bill is reasonably good. I believe that it will receive the seal of approval of the Scottish people, so it deserves our seal of approval tonight. It should be strongly supported.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Stokes: After five hours of debate, those of us who are left have quite a task to maintain the intense excitement and high level of this debate.
  I should like to comment on three speeches. First, I was saddened by the speech of the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), as I was by his speech two days ago. It seemed quite out of character and I wonder whether someone put him up to it. As an English Member who has attended most of these debates, I resented what he said about English Members, whether from the North, the Midlands or London.
  I have nothing but admiration for Scotland and its people, who have enriched the United Kingdom. My objection to the Bill is based not on dislike of Scotland but on my fear that it will lead to Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and breaking up a long and happy association.
  Second, I should like to praise the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). Although we are at different ends of the political spectrum, I have increasingly admired his speeches in recent weeks, particularly on this Bill. If I had been a member of his party, I would have felt uncomfortable as he made his powerful case against the Bill.
  Like the rest of the House, I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who is fluent and possibly slightly intellectual in his approach. I do not believe that, if he stopped every other man or woman in Princes Street and asked whether they wanted the Bill because they were dissatisfied with the way the Secretary of State ran his Department, those people would know what he was talking about.
  We must get down to what ordinary people think and hope and fear on this important constitutional issue. I have not received one letter for or against the Bill. After I had played some part in the debates, my pride was slightly hurt the
  1552
  other day when I said in the constituency that I had been fighting the Scotland Bill and someone said "What is that?". I am a whole-hearted supporter of the United Kingdom and that is why I look forward to voting against the Bill.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: If the people of Scotland do wish to leave, according to some evidence that the hon. Gentleman would recognise, by a democratic vote, what would be his attitude then?
  Mr. Stokes: We should then have to say, "If you wish to go, you must go". But we have the right to examine the matter first and the views of 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom should be taken into account.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: This is the central issue. Is it not a fact that the democratic unit is the United Kingdom as a whole, which has the right to decide whether there should be secession by any part of it?
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Scotland can never win.
  Mr. Stokes: I entirely agree that it has the right. If there were an overwhelming desire on the part of the people of Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, the question would be whether it would be particularly wise to ignore that demand. Personally, I would not ignore it. However, to finish dealing with what the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was saying, I must say that I shall be simply astonished if during the next few months or the next few years there is found to be even a bare majority of the people of Scotland who wish to leave the United Kingdom.
  As we discussed the Bill day after day, I felt that the flaws in it became more and more apparent. Certainly the threat to the unity of the United Kingdom became more and more obvious.
  The Bill proposes, as its central part, to set up a parallel authority to this Parliament here. The so-called Scottish Ministers will themselves be rivals of the Ministers who sit here on the Treasury Bench. The new Scottish Assembly will, I fear, be constantly at loggerheads with this Parliament. Another fundamental difficulty that we have not had answered is how one can possibly have one part of a unitary State being federal with the remainder being non-federal.

  1553
  We have also heard many times this evening about a problem that is totally unresolved—the 71 Scottish Members who will remain in this Parliament. Apart from having most of their work shorn from them by the proposed Assembly, they will continue to have a voice and a vote on English affairs while, as we know, English Members of Parliament here will be denied a similar voice and vote on Scottish affairs. I cannot believe that such an absurd and unjust arrangement will be allowed to stand for very long.
  What has emerged so clearly over the past weeks is that, in the historic phrase, there is no damned merit about the Bill. Virtually no one on the Labour Benches has put forward specific reasons why the House should pass the Bill and why the Bill will benefit the people of Scotland. Certainly no one in England seems interested in the Bill, and I find the same state of affairs when I go to Scotland.
  Night after night here—apart from today, when there has been a medium to small attendance—I have noticed that the Bill has never been supported by Labour Back Benchers, who have been conspicuous by their absence during our debates. Until tonight, hardly a Labour Back Bencher has spoken in support of the Bill. Yet although the Bill has no intrinsic merit and another layer of government on an already over-governed country has few supporters, we were told most strongly that the reason for the Bill was the overwhelming desire of the people of Scotland for it. After the debates on the referendum and the requirement for 40 per cent. of those eligible to vote to cast their votes in support of the Bill, we now know that that overwhelming support is clearly not there. Therefore, the whole of this elaborate and lengthy exercise ends up as a fantasy.
  The longer I am in this House, the more I get to feel the sense of it, as I am sure must the Leader of the House, who has in the past played such a distinguished part in the life of the House. The sense of the House of Commons has always been against this Bill. Those who vote for it tonight will be doing so reluctantly and possibly to try to save the Government's life for a few more weeks or months. Although I know that it has
  1554
  not been made a matter of confidence, that seems to me a very poor way to treat such an important and fundamental change of this kind.
  The Bill gives the Scottish National Party the key to its claim for independence. It will clamour for this exclusively in the referendum, and if an Assembly is set up the SNP will use it for one purpose only—to gain independence for Scotland from the United Kingdom. Let us make no mistake about that. Let us all face that fact. It is time that people awakened to the great danger of the break-up of the United Kingdom. Many people in Scotland are now doing so. They are beginning to realise the dangers and now at last people in England also are beginning to be seriously alarmed.
  We all know that many parts of the Bill were not discussed at all because of the guillotine. It is now up to the House of Lords, and this House will know how much I admire those who sit there. That House will do its constitutional duty, which I am sure it will do extremely well.
  The Bill was never put forward by the Government as part of a sincere desire for constitutional reform but merely by a wish to save a few Labour seats in Scotland. The Bill, therefore, had a somewhat dishonest start and deserves a sticky end. Even at this late hour, there may be some opponents of the Bill on the Government side who will put loyalty to the United Kingdom above loyalty to their party and who will vote against a Thrid Reading. Nothing could more raise the prestige of this House than if Back Benchers would vote tonight as their consciences demand.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: In the course of the numerous debates we have had on different proposals for devolution, a number of myths have cropped up and it is essential that these should be repudiated as soon as possible. The first of thes is the proposition put forward by the Leader of the Scottish National Party, the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), that those who opposed devolution, either in principle or detail, were anti-Scottish and were doing so from an anti-Scottish viewpoint. At no time have I ever heard in any of the debates which I have taken

  1555
  place any of the propositions which he mentioned advanced in this House or outside it.
  I am quite surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I have always regarded him as a very honest and sincere man. I can only imagine that he has a new speech writer. The dangerous thing is that this is the old tactic of the big lie. If someone says a thing often enough, perhaps talking of some event that has taken place, even without advancing any proof, eventually people believe that the event happened because the statement has been made in the House and has appeared in the Official Report. As soon as possible, this idea that people who are opposed to devolution are in some way anti-Scottish has to be demonstrated to be untrue.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there must be something strangely anti-Scottish in this fact: although in many parts of what was the Empire and Commonwealth which obtained their independence it was done on the basis of first past the post of votes cast, when this House passes a Bill for self-determination for the people of Scotland it is to be done on a peculiar anti-Scottish basis?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall come later to the 40 per cent. rule. There is no comparison between Scotland and the colonialist countries of past decades, or indeed the present regimes which operate by the gun, the bullet and with the aid of Press censorship. In Scotland the people are free to say which system they want to see in operation. The idea that anybody who argues against devolution is anti-Scottish is a dangerous proposition.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point about 40 per cent.?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady has made almost a five-hour speech in interventions alone, and if I allow her to intervene yet again, she may not have the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair.
  To advance the proposition that anybody who is against devolution is anti-Scottish will deny freedom to speak one's mind. Surely it is wrong to say that anybody who is against devolution is anti-patriotic. I do not object to people complaining about my views or challeng-
  1556
  ing my views in open public debate. However, I object to any attempts that are made to silence me. I emphasise that it is curious that SNP Members believe that anybody who speaks against devolution is anti-Scottish.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: What about the 40 per cent.?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady constantly goes on about the 40 per cent. I shall come to that matter later. The tragedy of the hon. Lady and her SNP colleagues is that they do not appreciate what a dangerous road they travel. They fail to learn the lessons of the past.
  Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend also agree that to accuse somebody of being anti-Scottish is to deny that person the right of self-determination?
  Mr. Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend. Therefore, we should dispose of the myth that those who are opposed to devolution are anti-Scottish.
  The second proposition advanced by the SNP is that because of the 40 per cent. rule in the referendum, the whole principle of the Bill has been wrecked. Clauses 1 to 80 contain the core of the devolution proposals and have survived unchanged. Some clauses have been removed, but by and large the Government have sustained the general principle of devolution. They have neither conceded any major amendment to the Bill, nor have they been defeated on any major issue on specific powers as to the way in which the Assembly will operate. In other words, the Government have come through in the general debate unscathed.
  I do not regard the removal of the original Clause 1 of the Bill as of any significance. That was a preamble clause and made no difference to the Bill in general terms. It did not affect the principle of devolution, nor did the provisions on incomes policy. That matter can be dealt with later.
  The Bill is virtually in two parts—one relating to devolution and the other to the referendum. I appreciate that Clause 81 on the referendum has been significantly changed. However, instead of facing up to the challenge of the 40 per cent. rule, the SNP Members have displayed hysteria and blatantly misrepresented the position. It does not advance

  1557
  the cause of democracy to complain that because there is a 40 per cent. rule, it will mean ballot rigging and undemocratic procedures. There is nothing undemocratic about my view.
  I remind the House that on the EEC Bill there was no such threshold clause. But that does not mean that no one thought about it because a new clause was tabled to give that effect. Now the threshold is written into the Bill. To those who say that it is not necessary to have this clause I say that it will ensure that people are aware of what is happening in the referendum. There can be no excuse for people saying that they did not think that it really mattered if they did not vote.
  There will be many arguments about the referendum. We must address ourselves to the question why it is important to have a clear result before an Assembly is set up. There is no doubt that if the Assembly comes into being it will have a tremendous job to do. There are many problems in Scotland, such as unemployment, which are not tackled by the Bill. There are problems of housing, education and health and social services about which the Assembly will have many difficult choices to make. The Assembly will have to take time to sit down and assess the situation and decide how it will deal with the problems. There is no magic solution. The new body of men will not find a magic solution. It will have to take time.
  We have experienced in the House changes of practice and in the way in which our people are governed. People have said that they are unhappy about the present system of government. Such views are expressed in the Wheatley Commission Report on local government. When that Commission was sitting the general view was that there was something wrong with local government in Scotland. We were not sure what was wrong but we were dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction eventually led to the reform of local government. I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting from the Commission's report but people wanted local government changed. However, not long after the change people said "God almighty! This is not what we wanted at all. Things are now much worse."
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member has ignored the point that I made earlier. It is not fair to make this generalised criticism of the reorganisation of local government, because it coincided with high inflation and local authorities had to cut services. That was nothing to do with the change.
  Mr. Hughes: When local government reform first came into effect there was no financial stringency. Only shortly after the change people complained about it. I agree that financial cuts have made the situation more difficult. However, we have also experienced a reform of the Health Service.
  Mr. Neil Carmichael: Now that local government has been reformed, everyone thinks that it was perfect before. Now people see every fault and forget that the faults were there before and were sometimes much worse.
  Mr. Hughes: That is true, but it does not change my point, that we were told that the reform of local government and the Health Service would make our lives bright and beautiful. In fact, it has not done so. I want to be perfectly certain that if and when an Assembly comes into being the people will not say "God Almighty! We were better off the way we were when we demanded a change."
  The Scottish National Party would be delighted if that happened. SNP Members expressed that view this afternoon. When the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that when the people of Scotland discovered the flaws in the Assembly there would be deep disillusionment, the SNP Members all said "Hear, hear" and laughed and smiled and nodded their heads. They could only benefit. I see the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) nodding agreement now. Therefore, if we are to have this change it must be demonstrated beyond doubt that the people of Scotland are aware of the difficulties and dangers and that once it is in being they will have to accept patiently what the Assembly is like, with all its flaws.
  This is where the 40 per cent. rule comes in. I think that there was a period of 40 years between reforms of local government. It was certainly a long time. If there were a common desire for it we could again reform local government or

  1559
  the Health Service, or both. But it is clear beyond a peradventure of doubt that once the Assembly begins its work in Edinburgh no power in the land can stop it going on.
  I am not saying that the Assembly will not change at the margins, or substantially, but the fact is that no Government in this House will disband it. That can never happen. That is why, if the change must be made, it is so important that it be made by people who understand the problem and are prepared to live with the Assembly. We cannot suddenly change our minds.
  My basic objection to the devolution proposals before us is that they attack the wrong problem. The problems of disillusionment with government do not refer to the machinery of government, although that certainly has a part to play. The real reason why people are dissatisfied with matters as they are is that industry has become so big, that changes are taking place so rapidly, that they have lost their place in society and industry. They see the whole machinery of their lives outwith their control.
  We should be approaching the problem with a Socialist solution, looking for decentralisation of industry, for public control of industry, for ways and means by which we can change the country's economy and the whole democratic process. Tinkering with constitutional methods, with arrangements and procedures, solves none of the problems and can only cause greater dissatisfaction.
  I come to the latter part of my speech. I express myself in that way deliberately, because when one uses the word "finally", everyone leaps to his feet like a greyhound out of its trap.
  I come to the question how I shall vote tonight. Despite all that I have said, I shall vote in favour of Third Reading. I know that some of my hon. Friends who agree with my basic proposition about devolution disagree with my reasons for voting for Third Reading. But, despite what I have said, despite my objections to devolution, I believe that it is an honourable and principled position to support it tonight and campaign against it in the country when the referendum comes. The reason is that there are issues that the House cannot decide for itself, because there seems to be no
  1560
  agreement—or no disagreement in a sense. The area of difference between the parties is such that no one knows quite what to do.
  Whatever quarrels I may have with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench about devolution, I believe that they are totally committed to the principle of devolution. I cast no aspersions on the views or the moral fibre of those who have drafted the Bill and taken part in getting it through the House. They believe in it absolutely. I cannot believe that if they were defeated tonight we should not have another Scotland Bill or a variant of it at a later stage.
  I turn to the leading Opposition party. All that we have learned from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, in the many hours that we have debated the issue, is that the Tory Party is in favour of something called devolution. I do not yet know what it is. We may never know what it is.
  The argument whether there should be devolution will not go away. I want it to go away in the sense that, even if the referendum result is "Yes", we shall at least then know where we are. For far too long we have concentrated our views on this divisive issue rather than on questions of economics and how to improve the lives of the people of Scotland That is why I believe that this is the only possible way of settling the issue for a reasonable period of time. I am not saying that the independence issue will go away or that there will never be any further discussion on devolution. But the only way to get back to the real arguments about Socialism and so on is to end the matter of devolution with a referendum and to campaign accordingly.
  If those who supported the 40 per cent. hurdle believe that the referendum is irrelevant and that the only place to decide the devolution issue is in this House, I believe that they should not have taken part in the debates on the amendment of the referendum procedure. I do not know how anyone can retain any credibility, any honour, by voting to write into the Bill a 40 per cent. hurdle and then saying "I do not really mean that there should be a stiff test, because I do not believe that there should be a chance of having that test." That reflects very little credit on those concerned.

  1561
  I certainly could not campaign with any credibility in Scotland if I did not support the Bill on Third Reading so that the people of Scotland will at least have the chance to choose. I believe that they will choose wisely. I believe that they will choose well. I believe that they will choose to vote against devolution. But I think that they should be given the opportunity to exercise their choice. I am willing to join the argument. I hope it is a good and vigorous one, and I am satisfied that in the end sense will prevail.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. George Gardiner: I followed the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) with some interest, particularly in the early part of his speceh. I am at a loss, however, to understand how those arguments can lead him to the conclusion that he has just reached. But I will let that pass.
  As one of that hardy band of Members from both sides of the House who have sat through and listened to most of the discussions in Committee, I welcome the opportunity at this stage to draw some general conclusions, but I should like first to take up two points that were made by the Secretary of State in his speech in opening the debate.
  The first point arises from his statement that he is quite unrepentant that the Bill has been discussed under the strictures of a guillotine. He advanced the proposition, which we have heard before, that if any constitutional measure discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House is to stand any chance of being enacted, it has to do so under a guillotine procedure. That is a proposition which I do not accept. But, even if I did, and even if it were true, it would then be incumbent on a Government to bring forward a simpler Bill than this and not to pack it full with the kind of detail that we have in this measure.
  The Secretary of State is really saying, in effect, "We have put all this detail into a Bill which we know we shall have to guillotine. We know that there will be no time whatsoever to discuss it. We are putting matters into a Bill and bringing it before the House knowing full well that those details will never be discussed."
  1562
  That is the most open invitation there could be to another place to go in considerable detail into those matters which we have been denied the chance of discussing here. I am not referring even to the big principles, but to the list of matters set out in Schedule 10, most of which have passed through this House without adequate discussion.
  My second point arising from the Secretary of State's remarks relates to what he said about the Bill's provision for Orkney and Shetland. I was one of a small number of Members, drawn from both sides of the House, who went to the Shetland Islands at the end of the Summer Recess, at the invitation of the council there to hear its case, to look into the position, to find out the facts, and to speak to almost every interested group in those islands whom we could find to talk to.
  I had never been to the Shetlands before and the experience impressed on me what an open people the Shetlanders are. They may be hard-headed—that is understandable—but they were convinced that they would be worse off under a devolved Assembly than they are under the present arrangements in Westminster. They found it very hard to believe that if a majority of their electors voted against this Bill—voted "No" in their referendum—they could be denied the chance of working out some separate constitutional arrangement vis-à-vis the Edinburgh Assembly and vis-à-vis this House.
  As the Secretary of State will know, the Nevis Institute has been commissioned to invstigate what alternative possibilities there are. It has made a great deal of progress on this. I would say in all honesty to the Secretary of State that if he is seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the Shetland Islanders by offering something rather short of what they are offered in Clause 80(3), he will be in for a nasty shock. Furthermore, I hope that he will not deploy the argument that the services which these islanders enjoy—such as health and transport services—will be in great danger if there is a short interim period between the conclusion of a referendum and the working out of a different constitutional position for them.
  He knows, they know, and we know that if the Government want to protect those services in that interim period it

  1563
  is quite open to them to do so. That is all that I wish to say about the Secretary of State's remarks.
  The great virtue of a Committee stage on the Floor of this House, particularly one that has gone on for so long, is that it brings out the merits and demerits of an argument in a way that few other forms of discussion can do. Indeed, it enables hon. Members on both sides of the House to change their minds, and reassess their previous commitments, when they hear the full implications of what is being put before them. That is the great virtue of a long Committee stage such as the one that we have just been through.
  I began by viewing the Committee stage of the Scotland and Wales Bill through rather narrow Englishman's eyes. I saw the problem purely as one of protecting England's interests under the arrangements proposed in the Bill. As that Committee stage progressed, the conclusion became more and more apparent that that was not the issue at all, and that we were really speaking about the fundamental points of how this kingdom is to be governed, how this House is to work and the relationships between the Members in it who are drawn from different parts of the United Kingdom.
  That argument was brought out with great effect by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) time and time again. He quoted different examples in order to illustrate it.
  After listening to the Committee stage discussion, the conclusion I draw is that we cannot have any legislative devolution for one part of the United Kingdom while trying to organise the rest of it as if it were still a unitary State. If we attempt to do that, we create dangerous anomalies and divisions within that are of explosive force.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a great deal of the commitment made by the former Leader of the Conservative Party more than 10 years ago. As I have said, the merit of a long discussion of the kind that we had in Committee is that it enables us to think again about past commitments. That applies to my side as well as to the Government's.
  I believe that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had
  1564
  stayed after he had delivered his Second Reading speech, sat through all of the Committee stage and heard the arguments deployed about the dangers in what the Bill creates, he, too, would have come to the conclusion that the rest of us have reached, and he would not wish to press the proposals that he put more than 10 years ago.
  We are told that all these risks are worth taking because this is what the Scots overwhelmingly want. However, evidence from different Scots is wildly conflicting. We now have a 40 per cent. provision built into the Bill. I welcome the remarks of the Secretary of State, who said that he did not regard this as a wrecking provision. Those of us who put our names to it did not see it as such, either. We simply wanted a test to establish whether there is a truly overwhelming demand for the measure in Scotland.
  When I am asked why we did not put this condition into the earlier referendum and why we have just picked on the Scottish referendum, I reply that this is a very valuable precedent. In future, when my Government or any other Government propose a fundamental constitutional change which they plan to test at a referendum, I shall expect the requirement of a 40 per cent. "Yes" verdict to give effect to the change to be included.
  If the Bill gets a Third Reading tonight, passes through another place and becomes law, we shall then have a referendum. I believe that as the campaign and the arguments proceed, the Scottish people, too, will understand more and more clearly the arguments that have swayed so many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am confident and hopeful that the Scottish people will vote down this Assembly plan.
  If they do not, and there is a 40 per cent. "Yes" verdict, I for one shall bow before that argument. However, let there be no doubt that certain consequences would flow from such a verdict, and I hope that these consequences are fully understood during the referendum campaign. The moment a vital matter affecting England and Wales is carried by a Government majority made up entirely from the majority that the Government have in Scotland there will be a constitutional crisis of major proportions.

  1565
  When it comes to the referendum is it just a considered choice between "Yes" and "No"? Is it as simple as that? Probably not. Those who vote for the Government Bill will include those who would also vote for total separation. To that degree the "Yes" side of the balance is not entirely clear cut. Neither is the "No" campaign entirely clear cut. I do not think it would be a simple choice between an Assembly as the Government propose, on the one hand, or the status quo on the other. The "No" campaign must comprehend other possible options.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Surely hon. Members are not going to fiddle that as well.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am surprised at this notion of fiddling that we have heard from the Scotitsh National Party Members. The effect of the arguments that they have put forward throughout the debate is that there is an overwhelming demand for the Assembly in Scotland. Now that there is a 40 per cent. requirement, they are getting windy and engaging in smears.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: It does sound a bit bogus coming from the hon. Member who opposes any electoral reform changes to give us all this high-winded stuff about the constitution.
  Mr. Gardiner: I do not know what so-called reform the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Some of the things that he would call reforms, I would not.
  We must recognise that there is profound general dissatisfaction with the state of government in this country. This applies not only in Scotland, but to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of truth in the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that this is a reflection of the fact that Parliament has not adapted itself sufficiently to the changed circumstances of government and the demands of our age.
  I go along with the argument that there must be a better way of handling government in Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom. What alternatives are there if we wish to devolve, in even the most generalised way, from this House to elsewhere?
  Two basic requirements must be met. They were brought out clearly in Com-
  1566
  mittee. Whatever we do, we must leave all hon. Members here on exactly the same footing compared with each other. We must not have two classes of Member, some able to speak on certain issues concerning their constituencies, and others being unable to do so.
  The second requirement is that any proposed constitutional change must apply its principles equally to all parts of the United Kingdom. This is where we run into great difficulties.
  The Liberals' federal argument has a good deal of intellectual validity. The difficulty is that few people in England appear to want to be carved up into regions performing these functions and, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out last week, even if England were divided up in that way, we should still need an overall English Parliament and we would therefore be creating another tier of government. That is not a realistic option.
  After all these discussions, I am forced to conclude that there is only one other way if we wish to devolve things away from this House, and that is to get a great number of the detailed matters on which we lay down the law transferred to the upper tier of local authorities.
  We were asked why the Scots should not be free to decide for themselves their pattern of education. Fine. Why, then, should not the inhabitants of my county, or England generally, be free to decide their own patterns of education? Why must we have such centralised guidelines about what local authorities must do on housing? Could we not allow them far greater discretion? Health is another matter that is proposed for devolution. Could we not consider putting regional health authorities on a more democratic basis and devolving more powers of decision to them?
  I should also like to see the top tier of local authorities in various part of the United Kingdom given far more freedom to decide their priorities in the spending of their block grants.
  I hope that after the dust of the devolution battle has settled and the Scots have decided not to endorse the proposition put before them, we can turn our minds to more practical ways of achieving the

  1567
  desired result of concentrating decision-making less in this place and getting it back nearer the people. But this Bill is not the way to do it.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall devote my speech to the most awkward question with which hard-line anti-Assembly Members are being faced by their colleagues on decisions that are to be made in the Lobbies tonight. My colleagues say "You had an Early-Day Motion for a referendum, and you got it. You had a new clause to insert that the referendum and the General Election should not be held on the same day, and you got that. Then you had an amendment for 40 per cent., and you got that. Indeed, you held it. What more do you want? Why are you not content to allow Third Reading and to let the people speak their mind in a referendum?" That is the argument that is being put.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): It is a good one.
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes, it is a good and substantial argument that has to be faced by those such as myself if we are to be counted in the debate. In that respect I agree with my hon. Friend.
  I confess straightaway that when many months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)'phoned me to ask whether I would sign his Early-Day Motion for a referendum, I agreed to do so. That was partly because it was at least a straw to grab at, and possibly the only chance under the Scotland and Wales Bill of stopping an Assembly, which I believed to be potentially disastrous and still believe to be potentially disastrous for the people of West Lothian, who have trusted me for 15½ years.
  It may be said "If you believed in the referendum then, why now try to stop it by voting against Third Reading?" My reply is that I do so partly because of something which has happened even under the guillotine, which I did not foresee—that the House of Commons in the past 18 days has performed one of its classic tasks, which is to scrutinise and expose the flaws in unworkable legislation.
  It is not only that I and certain of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Members
  1568
  for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), know that we are giving a Third Reading to a bad Bill. It is my judgment—I cannot put it any higher—that by now perhaps the overwhelming majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party have gradually arrived at the same conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Had that not been the case, the original events of Burns Night would not have occurred, and certainly they would not have been endorsed last Wednesday evening. Moreover, had that been a measure close to the heart of the PLP, or close to the heart of a substantial part of the Labour Party throughout the country, on account of my activities over the past 18 months I would surely have been lynched metaphorically if not physically and sent to political Coventry.
  Those who have become the least happy about the Scotland Bill are those who have had the curiosity to lead them to take the trouble to find out what is actually happening. Never was there such a case of ignorance being such bliss. I go further and say to my right hon. Friend the Lord President that it is not only my view but that of the Parliamentary Labour Party that it is a thousand pities that a substantial section of the Labour Cabinet has not been able to spend at least some time in the Chamber during our debates.
  The truth is that under the British system of Cabinet government, individual members of the Cabinet become so immersed in their own Departments and in their own problems that, even if they have the inclination, they do not have the time to settle down and study a Bill as complex as the Scotland Bill, which they see as the responsibility of colleagues in other Departments. In this instance, the Bill has been hived off from the central Departments of State, such as the Home Office and the Treasury, to the Privy Council Office. I assert that if the senior members of the Cabinet had had time to listen to the debates and to the House doing its job on the Scotland and Wales Bill in January and February 1977, they would never have allowed the Scotland Bill to be reintroduced. That is because they would have come to share the qualms of so many of my hon. Friends who have been visitors, if occasional visitors, to our debates. Yet, in the

  1569
  referendum, the champions of the "Yes" vote will say "Our point of view has the imprimatur of Parliament and of the Cabinet."
  I return to the outstanding speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone who in this matter has told us all precisely what will happen. In theory, the proponents of the "Yes" vote will be right. But in reality we know that in no meaningful sense do the proposals before us have any such endorsements or imprimatur.
  Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I have not taken part in the debates on devolution and have not voted at any stage because the Bill is wrong, misguided and ill-conceived. It is a non-sense that we should reach a point where the House is faced with the in-built fact that 40 per cent. of the Scottish electorate must decide. Why do we not pass the Bill and see whether 40 per cent. of the Scottish electorate want this business? I do not believe that they do. If we do that, I think that we shall destroy the Bill. If we deny the Scottish people that right, I am afraid that my hon. Friend will find himself with the same problem in another 12 months. Let us pass the Bill now.
  Mr. Dalyell: I listened to my hon. Friend with interest. In reply, I refer him to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone who indicated that those who vote in favour of the Bill should be under no illusion but that in the referendum campaign their votes will be used as a reason for endorsement by the Scottish people—an endorsement that has been given by the House of Commons—of the measure under discussion.
  I fear that there is a difficult situation here. I am well aware that just as we were told after Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill that the House of Commons voted for it, so we shall be told time and again by those appearing in the referendum campaign in the "Yes" cause that Parliament voted for it. Indeed, it will be difficult for Members who voted for it to say "We meant something rather different all the time".
  Contrast this situation with the position on the Common Market. At that time, whatever has happened since, the majority
  1570
  of the Cabinet, backed by a decisive majority in the House of Commons, endorsed as a matter of settled conviction a referendum recommendation that Britain should vote "Yes" to stay in the Market. Justified or unjustified, that was a clear and specific proposition.
  The position is fundamentally different on the Scotland Bill. Endorsed by a wafer-thing majority, if we pass Third Reading, many Members will be in the position of saying to the electorate "We do not believe in a measure which we ourselves passed and hope that you, who have not been able to spend hours in debate on it, will show greater wisdom than we have displayed by rejecting the measure that we had not the will to reject when we had the power to do so. What kind of a posture is that for Members of the House of Commons?
  I say to certain of my hon. Friends with total friendliness, that they will be in something of a difficulty if they vote in favour of the Third Reading tonight and hope to campaign for a "No" vote in the referendum. I wish them the best of luck, but I hope that they will be under not misunderstanding that a vote for the Third Reading tonight will create difficulties for them if they want to be effective in that campaign.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I accept that there are difficulties whatever choice one makes on this, but does my hon. Friend not accept that those who vote against Third Reading, and therefore against the referendum provision, will be in a difficulty in saying that they wrote this specific hurdle into the Bill but that they did not mean it because they did not intend to provide that choice?
  Mr. Dalyell: There are difficulties all round, and that is one of them. Nevertheless, it is a lesser difficulty than the one I have described. This is a matter of judgment. I do not brush my hon. Friend's point aside. I listened to his speech and there was a certain amount in it. We face here a balance of judgment. If anyone says that I do not have the right to make judgments about the true feelings of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am entitled to ask where all the supporters of the Bill among them have been these days and nights. If I have been called to speak an indecent number of times, it has been because no

  1571
  one else was standing up to be called. Sometimes there was no one else here.
  How different things were from the time when the EEC legislation was going through the House. Passionate speeches came from all sides of the argument from the Back Benches. It will not do to say that speeches in support of the Bill would simply have taken up much needed time, because under the guillotine procedure my hon. Friends who believed in the devolution proposals have had endless opportunities to speak, and they would have been occupying time which went to Tory anti-devolutionists. The truth is that the more my hon. Friends have discovered precisely what we are up to, the less they have cared for it.
  In the Aye Lobby tonight there will be hon. Members who on their own repeated public admission believe in this measure no more than I do. That was the problem that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone—
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Before my hon. Friend finally leaves the question of voting against the Third Reading—and I follow his argument in voting against it—will he tell the House, since he was one of those who voted for the 40 per cent. requirement, whether, if the Scottish electorate gets over that hurdle, he will oppose the implementation of the Bill when it comes here?
  Mr. Dalyell: That is a hypothetical question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The answer almost certainly would be "Yes".
  Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend will oppose it?
  Mr. Dalyell: Almost certainly the answer would be "Yes".—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Almost certainly the answer would be "Yes".
  It is one thing to have a referendum to endorse a proposition in which a substantial majority of the House of Commons believes. It is a totally different thing to have a referendum in which many hon. Members ask people in part of the kingdom to endorse a proposition in which the House of Commons clearly does not believe. Moreover, referendums are rarely fought on the questions which they purport to answer. Far from being
  1572
  time wasting, the House of Commons has done its job exposing legislative geological faults.
  There is another reason for seeking to fight the referendum, and it is that the prospectus for this referendum is not what it says it is. The Prime Minister might cast a wary eye on those who have been lecturing him in the last few days on votes of confidence and on doing Heaven knows what to party Assembly dissidents.
  Take, for example, the SNP in general and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), in particular. Time and again those who have visited our debates have heard the SNP Members state openly that they wanted an Assembly as a vehicle for something different from the scheme that the Government Front Bench has in mind. Today the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said that there was no stopping place before independence, yet he will be in the forefront of the "Yes" campaign. The SNP Members will vote "Yes" but they will be voting for something quite different from what the Government have put in the shop window. Their prospectus is not what it is said to be. It is a different prospectus.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I do not think that there is much dispute between us. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps being a little unfair to my party in not presenting the whole case, which is that we are a democratic party and we wish only to keep putting our prospectus before the people of Scotland for their democratic decision. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that in our position, or does he accuse us of something other than that?
  Mr. Dalyell: I am not accusing the SNP of anything in this regard. I accept that completely. All I am pointing out is that the SNP prospectus is different from the one which my hon. Friends want to endorse, and they cannot both be right. I think that is a fair and factual statement of the position and it is one of the difficulties we are in with the referendum.
  We come to the Liberals. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) has played an honest and distinguished part in our debates, but he has not hidden the fact that he wants a federal Britain. Whatever its merits, a

  1573
  federal Britain is the policy neither of the Labour Party nor of the Labour Government. Again, his prospectus is not what the referendum in the "Yes" vote says the prospectus is.
  Moreover, the House should be aware of the attitude of the Leader of the Liberal Party, as reported in The Scotsman of 18th February. He said:
  "The Assembly, once created, is not a once-for-all constitutional settlement. I believe that given good will it can be the beginning of a parliamentary focus here in Scotland, and that we should look forward to that as an exciting opportunity for the return of a political power house to this city."
  He referred to the city of Edinburgh.
  These are fine-sounding words, no doubt, but notice that the Liberals will ask for more, and more, and more, until such time as everything that distinguishes so-called devolution from the establishment of a separate State is removed, because there can be no political power houses without economic powers, and the transfer of economic powers is the policy neither of the Labour Government nor of the Labour Party. Once again, the prospectus, whatever its merits, that the Liberal Party gives is not what it says it is. People who are Liberal supporters and want to vote "Yes" will be asked to vote on a basically false prospectus. The prospectus is different from what it says.
  Equally with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). He tells us that the Prime Minister should make it a vote of confidence, but he does not accept any more than I do the Government's preferred solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) said that the devolution option was killed for ever. In campaigning for a "Yes" vote, my hon. Friends the Members for South Ayrshire and Paisley again are putting forward a prospectus which is not what it says it is.
  The Scottish Council of the Labour Party, in its evidence to the Prime Minister, said that unless the second question, associated with the name of my non. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was accepted, the Assembly's position would be unstable. So my friends on the Scottish Council also have problems when it comes to a prospectus.
  1574
  Should we really go to the country—or, more accurately, to part, though only part, of the country—and hold a referendum on a topic on which the SNP, the Liberals, the SLP and others will be campaigning for a "Yes" vote while openly admitting that they want as soon as possible to change the very solution that they themselves are recommending?
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: My hon. Friend claims that there are all sorts of motives among those in favour of devolution but perhaps only one motive among those who are against it. Has he not heard of the old saying that there are numerous ways of moving forward but only one way of standing still?
  Mr. Dalyell: I wish that my hon. Friend had taken part in more of our debates. I know of his interest in devolution. I remember his excellent contribution to the party meeting three years ago.
  The people of Scotland must understand that there are these different motives. All the motives come together in the fact that the goods are not what they are made out to be, because a "Yes" vote will produce the kind of instability which is certainly not what the people think they will be getting. Is it really proper for the House to allow a referendum when we know that 35 days of debate have failed to find an answer to a legion of crucial questions? The fact that the West Lothian question has been repeated ad nauseam does not make it any the less real or pressing.
  I would put a direct question to the Lord President. How long does he think 71 Scots can reasonably expect to continue to exercise a more than likely decisive influence in English affairs when the Assembly is in being? Do Ministers see such a scheme enduring for any length of time? Does my right hon. Friend see his preferred solution or anyhtng roughiy like it being in operation in 1988? I and some of my hon. Friends, whatever happens, cannot see anything like this scheme existing in 10 years. No one can tell what the position will be, but we can be fairly certain that it will be very different from this.
  Secondly, how long can an Assembly operate without economic powers? How long can an Assemblyman say, "There are 196,000 on the unemployment register

  1575
  in Scotland, but that is not my responsibility."? How long could someone representing an area of high unemployment, if he became a Member of a Scottish Assembly, say that unemployment was nothing to do with him? If my right hon. Friend the Lord President were an Assemblyman, would he be content to wring his hands and say that he could do nothing about unemployment? It is inconceivable that my right hon. Friend could take such an attitude.
  Thirdly, not until the Report stage and the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) did the House of Commons even begin to discuss the nitty gritty of how Assemblymen would actually go about their work, what precisely they would do, whether they would be full-time or part-time, their relations with local government, and a host of other matters. Here we are putting forward a proposition when very many crucial matters have not even be discussed by this House.
  Again—I say this as the Bill goes to the House of Lords, if it does go—I think that there is an obligation on the most distinguished Law Lords of this country, people such as Lord Diplock, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Gardiner and Lord Simon, to give their minds to the issue of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Whatever my hon. Friend the Minister of State may say, there is the very real problem of the judges being brought into politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) talked about judges being dissociated from politics. I do not want in any way to misquote him, but there is a very serious problem here which has not been overcome. This is certainly a matter to which the Law Lords should give their minds. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, if it does, they will do so.
  Mr. Douglas Crawford: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the House of Lords should hold up the passage of the Bill?
  Mr. Dalyell: No, nothing of the kind. I am against filibustering the whole way along. I have never been known to filibuster. Some may think that I have been boring, but that is another matter. I have never consciously filibustered. All I am
  1576
  saying is that the most distinguished Law Lords of this nation have an absolute duty to give their minds to this Bill, and if they are Members of the other place, in this matter, above all other matters, they have a moral obligation to this country to discuss the whole issue.
  At best the prospectus involved in a "Yes" vote is muddled and unclear. But of course, in reality, the prospectus is misleading, since the resting place of an Assembly which the Government would like to believe would be the result of a "Yes" vote is in fact the motorway to a federal Britain or, more likely, a separate State. The referendum is a very unsatisfactory bolt-hole for us. I say that it is the duty of the House of Commons, ourselves, to bell the Scotland Bill cat and not to pass the dagger to a bemused Scottish electorate.
  On the issue of loyalty, in every other sphere of public policy, other than devolution, I think that I can say that I have been loyal to the Prime Minister and to the party, but in this particular matter I have no inhibitions. That is partly because we are dealing with matters where the time scale is half centuries and not five years between elections. Things done at elections can be changed. What we are up to tonight is irrevocable. It is also partly because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the position of the Biblical reaper who has to reap what he soweth.
  I have only one sad reflection about any colleague, and that colleague, frankly, is the present Prime Minister, who, as long as 10 long years ago, as Home Secretary, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)—off their own bat—set up the Crowther Commission on the constitution.
  Perhaps I may be personal for one moment. I always thought that at least I might have been sent for by the Home Office for an interview, since I was the front-line candidate who had already contested three hard-fought elections against the SNP chairman in 1962, 1964 and 1966. Indeed, the late Dick Crossman, whose PPS I was, told me that he had suggested to the Home Secretary that he ought at least to see me, though Crossman took an opposite view on devolution.

  1577
  But more important than that, my right hon. Friend never consulted the Scottish Labour group. Many of us would have told him at that time that once a Royal Commission is set up, expectations are created, and it is the raising of expectations to the effect that one can have a subordinate Parliament in part, but only part, of a United Kingdom and the discovery that it is not logically possible that has led to changes of mind and perfidy.
  Yet he need not be ashamed not to give the Bill a Third Reading. What is the House of Commons for other than to examine and scrutinise such a proposal? In my view even at this stage the Prime Minister need not be embarrassed or even get so much as a red face if he were to say to the country, as he could, "The House of Commons has done its job. Scrutiny by Parliament has found the Bill unworkable and therefore I accept the will of the House if it is defeated". In my view there is no shame in that, because what is Parliament for? What have all these days of discussion been for unless we were to learn something?
  To my hon. Friends I would say that I have never pretended to be any kind of knight in shining armour. Many of us have changed our minds on many things in a lot of places, but at least we are doing the job of the House of Commons. Frankly, I am a great deal wiser in 1978 than I was in the autumn of 1974. There is no shame in changing one's mind. What on earth has Parliament been doing all this time? What is the job of Members of Parliament unless it is to educate ourselves on a matter like this, which is of major importance? People talk of a Speaker's Conference. What have we been having other than an enlarged and informed Speaker's Conference?
  Mr. Lomas: I want to ask a question of my hon. Friend. If the House says tonight that this Bill should be passed and the Scottish people then say "No" that will be the end of it. If my hon. Friend is arguing for a "No" vote, now, he is simply inviting the possibility of this subject being introduced into the next Session of Parliament. Why not get rid of it now—vote "Yes" tonight and
  1578
  leave it to the Scottish people to decide for themselves?
  Mr. Dalyell: That would be an attractive solution but I am not sure it is as easy as that. In finality, in relation to the Scotland Bill I have an even more pressing loyalty than to the Labour Government. It is to the people of West Lothian who for the last 15½ years have returned me, rightly or wrongly, rather than the chairman of the SNP. If one believes, as I do, that the creation of an Assembly in Edinburgh, whatever the intentions of the present Government Front Bench, would lead inevitably to a separate Scottish State—a view widely shared by many members of West Lothian constituency Labour Party, without whose hard work I would not be a Member of Parliament at all—I have a duty to vote against the Bill. In doing so I do not regard my action as voting in a Tory Lobby. On the contrary, at 11 o'clock tonight I shall be doing just what I have always done. I shall be doing my utmost in the struggle, our struggle, against militant nationalism which will bring no good to the people of Scotland—people about whose interests I care just as much as anyone else in this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is the wish that winding-up speeches should begin at 10.10 p.m.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Every Member as he takes upon himself his duty of voting in the Lobby tonight will have two main questions before him. The first is: how great is the danger of independence? The second is: what is the risk of independence coming to Scotland?
  Let us look first and shortly at the danger of independence. Independence, surely, is only the quest of a body of people that describes itself as a separate nation. Are we not therefore entitled to ask: are the Scots a separate nation, and, if they are, what is a nation? A nation, surely, is that organisation to which its citizens feel a loyalty and ultimately a belief that in the last resort they would fight and die for it. Against whom would they fight and die?
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Against invaders.
  Mr. Budgen: Perhaps against invaders, as the hon. Lady said—and perhaps against their neighbours or against the English. It may be that there are those in Scotland who see themselves as not merely a separated race but a separate nation.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We have no enemies.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) must stop this running commentary when others are speaking.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Since the hon. Gentleman has given way, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to indulge in a running commentary. Does he agree that Scotland does not have any enemies, but at the same time it is nothing short of an insult to suggest, in the climate of this debate, that Scotland is not a nation, bearing in mind all the speeches which have been made by hon. Members in all parties?
  Mr. Budgen: Of course Scotland at present may have no enemies as a nation, but if it becomes an independent nation, it is bound to have both friends and enemies. Therefore, in the last resort, the people of Scotland must ask themselves whether they are a separate nation.
  It may be that at the time of the Union we were fortunate in persuading the people of Scotland to throw in their lot with the rest of the United Kingdom, but 270 years of history have passed since then. Our history and our peoples are intertwined. I believe that no more than a tiny proportion of people in Scotland regard themselves as a separate nation. Before this House votes tonight, it should be appreciated that there are many in the ranks of the SNP who see their country as a separate nation.
  I wish to refer to some comments made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who said last Wednesday in the House:
  "I shall come to a conclusion now, since I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. If the newspapers that I have quoted are correct in their assessment, a battle will develop in these circumstances. It will not be just a battle between people and Parliament. I assure the House that it will be a battle between the Scottish people and the English Parliament and the Scottish people will ultimately decide the issue."—[Official Report, 15th February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 555–6.]
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) has been consistent over the years, because he is quoted in the Glasgow Herald of 31st October 1955 as telling a public meeting:
  "If there are any Englishmen here tonight I say that if they have any sense they will get out of Scotland now, while the going is good. It may not be so good in a few years' time. They should get out while they are still in one piece."
  Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that quotation, which illustrates the fact that the SNP Members accept the logic of the test that I apply. What the people of Scotland and Members of this House must ask themselves is whether they accept that logic.
  The second question we must ask ourselves is what is the risk of this danger emerging. The risk is that the unhappy compromise between Unionism and separatism is unstable, first because of the West Lothian question. I regret to say that I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). This issue has been before the nation for 10 years. It has certainly been before the political elite since the Perth Declaration of 10 years ago. It has been before this House in the last 18 months. I am not saying that this House contains within its ranks all the most intelligent people in the land. I am not saying that all our proceedings in this House receive all the publicity they merit. But if this House has been debating this issue for 18 months, surely if a solution is to be found it would by now have emerged. Could it be that there is no solution to the West Lothian question?
  The second question which we have to consider in deciding whether this instability will lead to independence is that which was raised by the Minister of State. He said that the stability of the settlement depends upon the good will, moderation and common sense of those who have to work it. He conceded that there would be areas of friction between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament.
  Of course that is so, when people accept that the democratic unit is the whole of the United Kingdom. When there is a desire for independence and a belief that

  1581
  a part of the United Kingdom represents an independent nation there can be no good will, no moderation and no common sense. This has been proved today. There
  1582
  is no compromise. We must be either Unionists or people who believe in the independence of a separate Scottish nation. There can be no devolution, no compromise.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The small number of hon. Members who have attended the debates regularly will accept that there is an injustice in the Leader of the House replying to a full House. That is because the Minister of State has been carrying most of the can during the long debates that have been attended by few hon. Members. All the regular attenders would wish to pay tribute to the Minister of State for the courteous and conscientious way in which he dealt with the amendments, inquiries and objections to the proposals.
  I wish first to say a few words about some of today's speeches. The debate was opened by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Even he will accept that he did not put forward a very convincing argument on the merits of the Bill. What disturbed many of us was his reference to the Shetland amendment. He said that most of the amendments would be accepted but that the Government would try to overturn or alter the Shetland amendment. The object of that amendment was to leave the option open to the people of Shetland so that they could take the course appropriate to the decision. Any amendment that would take away the freedom of choice of the people of Shetland would be resented by the House.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has the only perfect attendance badge. He has conducted himself with bravery in the face of regular abuse. He has put forward his views with distinction and fairness. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), like many of us, has been going through agonies during the debate. We have seen him becoming less and less convinced whether the Bill will do good for Scotland. He declared that he would seek redress on the second question in the House of Lords and then abolish it afterwards.
  The most astonishing speech came from the leader of the SNP. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) quoted the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) many years ago. That is the kind of statement that some extreme nationalists make. We were taken aback by the remarks of the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) today because they consisted of a series of un-
  1584
  substantiated allegations about the remarks of some other hon. Members. When challenged, he made no response.
  We were appalled to read in the papers that the SNP has been saying that it would not forget the blatant racialism that it has endured during the course of the Bill. No one would accept that blatant racialism has been expressed. This is an idication of the way in which the SNP nowadays is seeking to set Scots against English to build up the impression that Scots are ill done by, that the English are anti-Scottish and that therefore the Scots should be anti-English.
  It does not help to try to make the constitution better or to find the right form of government for the United Kingdom if that kind of statement is made. Most of those in the House who value good relations between the constituent nations of the United Kingdom would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—for whom, unlike some of his colleagues, we have always had a relatively high regard—to substantiate his remarks or withdraw them herewith.
  Most hon. Members who have spoken agree that the Bill is probably the most important fundamental issue to be debated by the Commons since the decision to join the Common Market. It is not like other political, ideological issues such as pay policy, nationalisation or even immigration. We are not dealing with a decision that we can reverse every five years, or more regularly if we choose. We know that if the Bill goes through and is approved in the referendum, our constitutional arrangements, which have lasted since 1707, will never be the same again.
  This is probably more significant than the Common Market decision, because then Parliament as a whole was agreeing to surrender part of its sovereignty without changing the basic structure of the House. We are now proposing a major alteration in how Parliament works and how our laws are made for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom.
  In these circumstances Parliament has a duty to be as sure and confident as it can be that the proposals we put forward on devolution are workable and stable and are changes that will improve the government of this country. As the hon. Member for West Lothian said, no

  1585
  case has been advanced that the proposals are workable. Certainly no one has seriously argued that they are stable. There has been little evidence that they will in any way improve the government of Scotland.
  Our case is that the proposals are neither workable nor stable, and that they will certainly not improve government. It is clear from the lengthy Committee stage that that is not only the view of a tiny minority. The Bill had its Second Reading with a substantial majority of about 40 but since then it has lost its friends one by one.
  Hardly one voice was raised in Committee in support of the Bill. At times it seemed that it almost had a kind of plague, because no one was defending it or its provisions. Even the few classified as the Bill's strong supporters, such as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), made speeches throughout the Committee stage not defending the Bill against attack but pointing out its defects, anomalies and inconsistencies.
  I hope that before voting for Third Reading hon. Members will look at the kind of people who support the Bill. We accept that Ministers support it, as they must. It is also supported by those who want more devolution or federalism and those, such as the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson), who want independence. In addition, there are those who believe that in some way the Assembly proposal will be an answer to the disillusion of those who feel that nobody listens to them, that on matters such as education they do not have a proper say.
  There is no doubt that nobody supports the Bill on its merits. Nobody is saying that it will make things better. If there were a free vote tonight, the Bill would certainly be thrown out by a massive majority.
  There has been genuine anger and resentment about the way in which the Bill has been debated. Of course, we have guillotines from time to time on major constitutional issues, but the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was right when he said that this time the guillotine had been a bit different.
  1586
  We see in the Leader of the House someone who seems a little trigger-happy with guillotines, although he may recall that when he was in Oposition he said:
  "The guillotine is the last resort of a Government who know that they cannot get the full-hearted consent of Parliament but are determined to have their way in any case."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235.]
  This has been a rather special guillotine. There has been no filibustering, though there was a very silly attempt at a sit-down strike in the Lobby by some Government Whips and two nationalist Members in order to try to prevent the Committee from voting on the rights of Shetlanders. Despite that, major parts of the Bill have simply not been discused at all. There were 68 Front-Bench amendments which were selected but not debated. Only a tiny part of Schedule 10, which sets out all the devolved powers, was discussed. There were 58 clauses and 14 schedules either not debated or only partly debated. I am sure that if the Leader of the House had been in Opposition in such a circumstance, there would have been riots in the House and marches from Trafalgar Square. There has been indeed, far from full-hearted consent on this issue.
  We accept that it is certainly not easy to have a subordinate legislature for one part of a unitary State. I accept straight away that the Conservative Party has no reason to be self-righteous about this matter. The Conservatives have made two specific attempts in recent years to try to find the right kind of answer in between.
  There were first the results of our constitutional committee under Lord Home, and then we had the proposals for the indirectly elected Assembly, at the time of the last election. There is no doubt that these proposals were more logical and less divisive than the Government's scheme, but there are few who on reflection would claim that they in themselves did not perhaps contain some details which would have involved difficulty or demarcation problems. Time has changed the situation, and in particular it has been changed by the emergence of a party committed to using any devolution scheme as a means of bringing about the disruption of Britain.
  The Government set out in their White Paper the tests by which a devolution

  1587
  scheme should be judged. They said that before we arrive at what is a right kind of devolution scheme we should consider certain tests, and there were six rules by which the Government suggested that a scheme should be judged.
  The first was whether it would be acceptable to the people of England that while the Westminster Parliament would in general not be able to legislate for Scotland in matters of health, education and local government, Scottish Members of Parliament would participate in legislation for England on these matters.
  Mr. John Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Conservative Party's commitment, I understand that it is said in "The Right Approach" that the Conservative Party believed in a directly elected Assembly for Scotland. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight, is that still a commitment of the Conservative Party?
  Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman will look at "The Right Approach" he will see that those are not the words used. The Minister of State, of all people, is certainly not the person to talk about a change of mind. There has, of course, been a change of direction on the part of the Conservative Party, but the hon. Gentleman, after all, was the Member who, as he will recall, stated quite clearly at a Labour Party conference that members of his party who were pressing for devolution without the loss of the office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster were being dishonest. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to answer that.
  Mr. John Smith: I dealt with that at length in the House. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what is meant by the phrase in "The Right Approach":
  "We have argued for … a directly elected … assembly"?
  What does it mean? Is it past tense or present tense?
  Mr. Taylor: We have argued for this and put forward two specific schemes, but there has not only been a passage of time but, as I mentioned before, the emergency in strength of a party determined to use any scheme of devolution to disrupt the parliamentary system.
  1588
  The question is whether the present scheme is in any way in line with those tests. Certainly it has been pointed out that the Government scheme contains a great number of problems which have not been resolved, and also a great number of seeds of genuine trouble within our nation and our constitution.
  The first quality that any scheme of devolution must have is clear demarcation lines. I think that the Minister of State will accept that throughout the long arguments it has been obvious that there are not clear demarcation lines. There is a schedule which says what has been devolved. There is another schedule giving those parts of these subjects which are not devolved. There is a third which gives the Acts of Parliament affected, and the parts which are and the parts which are not devolved. There is a provision whereby the Secretary of State can claw back any Bill passed by the Assembly. If he thinks that, even indirectly, it affects a reserved power, he can present it to the House of Commons and have it overturned. There are also many other indications of the difficulty of getting the demarcation lines right.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian for his statement that
  "I recall being visited not long ago by the people who run the Scottish colleges of agriculture. They said 'For certain purposes we are agricultural and undevolved. For other purposes we are educational and devolved'."—[Official Report, 11th January 1978; Vol. 941, c. 1699.]
  That is one of the many examples on which the demarcation lines are not clear. We had another just the other day from the chairman of the Scottish Consumer Council, Mrs. Joan Macintosh, who said:
  "the Scotland Bill threatens to be more confusing than helpful. Responsibility for the bulk of consumer law remains with Westminster but much criminal law and contract law is devolved. Division of responsibility for promoting the interests of Scottish consumers could mean that there will be no single central point of decision."
  I am sure the Leader of the House is well aware that, unless we can give some rights to Assemblymen, we shall not have a clear division of responsibility and there will be a great deal of confusion.
  It is also right to point out to the Leader of the House that with regard to pay policy we took out a silly clause which had no real effect. On the other

  1589
  hand, the Leader of the House will recall the correspondence that he had with me in which I asked what would happen if the Assembly ignored the pay policy. I asked what would happen if the Assembly said "You can have a pay policy, but we want nothing to do with it." The right hon. Gentleman replied in a very nice letter:
  "As far as your second point is concerned, we anticipate that any difference of opinion between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Assembly will normally be settled by consultation but the Government will also be in a position to influence a setttlement through the negotiation of the block fund."—[Official Report, 14th November, 1977; Vol. 939, c. 187.]
  This is the real answer. If the Scottish Assembly does not follow the line of the Government, the Government can put on the pressure and the squeeze through the block grant of cash. Frankly, I can see the provisions of this Bill proving to be genuine flash points between Westminster and Edinburgh, partciularly if we have different parties in control in Westminster and Edinburgh.
  There is also within the Bill the very real danger of over-government. We constantly hear Ministers lecturing firms and nationalised industries about how labour must be used more effectively and how we must cut out the wasteful misuse of manpower. There is a great danger of creating a situation whereby in the average Scottish constituency, instead of having a Member of Parliament, and a small number of councillors, there will be a European Member of Parliament, a Westminster of Parliament, a Scottish Assemblyman, regional councillors and district councillors. We shall effectively have five tiers of Government in place of two.
  Some hon. Members may think that there is an easy way in which having Assembly will somehow do away with a tier of local government. It is not that easy. That is something which should be considered on its merits and not just because we are thinking of creating an Assembly.
  We had a Royal Commission which looked at local government and which came to the conclusion that single-tier local government was an impossibility. What of Scottish local government? There
  1590
  are those who argue that the regions are already remote and that the answer is not to have six or seven regions being replaced by one gigantic Scottish region.
  There is also the problem of expense. The Government are proposing a Bill that will cost an extra £30 million and involve 1,000 civil servants. What concerns most hon. Members is that the Bill is certainly not a logical stopping point. There is no doubt that one of the main problems facing industry at present is the fear of uncertainty about this Bill being a logical stopping point.
  Another central defect in the Bill, which probably concerns us most of all, is the matter referred to by the hon. Member for West Lothian with regard to the appallingly difficult situation that will be created in the House of Commons when Scottish Members of Parliament can vote on English housing and English education while, on the other hand, English Members of Parliament will have no say in Scottish affairs. Of course, there have been situations in the past when different laws applied in England from those in Scotland. Does anyone in this House seriously believe that a situation could last for long whereby we have a Scottish Assemblyman deciding what shall be the educational policy for the people of Scotland while the 71 Scots Members who come down to this place will have no say in Scottish affairs but will have a say in English affairs?
  One point to which most of us object is the suggestion that has been made during the course of the debate that those of us who oppose the Bill are in some way anti-Scottish and act against the interests of Scotland. We do not accept that. Even those who support the Bill admit that many people who vote against it will do so because they believe that it will do a great deal of damage to Scotland and its people.
  Hon. Members should ask themselves what differences the Bill will make to the Scottish people. The first change is that there will be two Members of Parliament instead of one—one in London and one in Edinburgh. It will cost the average family in Scotland an extra £10 a year.
  There is no guarantee of improved services. In fact, one fear that has been widely expressed is that the establishment of the Assembly will mean a reduction in

  1591
  services. In relation to the devolved services Scotland at present gets £500 million more than its entitlement on a population basis. We get it because of United Kingdom laws. Scotland has more problems, more deprivation and the difficulty of distances, so it gets 25 to 30 per cent. more than its share.
  Mr. Crawford rose—
  Mr. Taylor: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member. He promised to answer a letter that I sent him two years ago, and he has not yet done so. I shall not give way to him until he does answer my letter. He has not been as courteous as hon. Members are expected to be.
  Once the Assembly is set up, we cannot have a situation in which the House of Commons will readily identify an extra £500 million for Scotland. This money will be put into the block grant and will not be readily identifiable. Other hon. Members representing other areas with difficulties will complain about our getting an extra £500 million. At present we get away with it because it is based on need.
  Apart from all these considerations, the average Scot will find that it is no easier for him to get to the decision-makers. In fact he will be confused by the number of decision-makers. He will be faced with the difficulty of wondering where he should go with his problems.
  The setting up of the Assembly could affect employment because of the constitutional uncertainty—
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of all the arguments that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is putting against the Assembly, why was he committed to an elected Assembly in the 1974 General Election?
  Mr. Taylor: I made it clear why we supported the Assembly then. Since then we have had the advent of the Scottish National Party, which is committed to using the Assembly as a means of wrecking the United Kingdom.
  After the Assembly is established, the Secretary of State will have less power. Most hon. Members accept this argument. We know that it will mean more government and that it sows the seeds of a possible break-up of the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members have said outside the House that they accept all these objections, but they have to vote for
  1592
  the Bill for a number of reasons—mainly because it is better to have any devolution scheme than none at all. I wonder whether we are doing our job properly if we vote for a scheme because it is the only one available. Surely as Members we have a duty to improve government, not make it worse.
  We hear the argument that the Scottish people want the Bill urgently. I believe that there has been a danger of misleading the Scottish nation. The Leader of the House once told us that if we turned down the Scotland and Wales Bill, we should be provoking Ulster-type violence. When that Bill was re-rejected, the reaction was a damp squib. If this is why hon. Members are supporting this Bill, I would ask them to consider whether they believe that the Bill will satisfy the demand in Scotland. Maybe it will initially, but in the long term the proposals for spending the block grant will just be a let down.
  Then we had the argument from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) that, because there is to be a referendum with the 40 per cent. provision written into it, we can pass the argument over to the people of Scotland. But we are voting as a House for what we think is right. If hon. Members vote against their judgments, they will find that their votes will be used in the referendum campaign as a means of justifying the Bill to the Scottish people. It will be difficult for us to say that, although the Bill had a majority, some Members did not want it and some supported it only because provision had been made for a referendum. It will be a supreme parliamentary tragedy if the House votes for a Bill in which the majority of hon. Members do not believe and which they consider will undermine the stability and unity of the United Kingdom.
  As guardians of a constitutional structure which has stood the test of time and has brought real benefits to the nations within the Union, we have a duty not to throw a spanner in the works to try to overcome a temporary political problem or a feeling of impatience.
  The easy road will be to vote for an unworkable, unstable plan and to hand over to the Scottish people the responsibility for the disruption, disillusion and discord that will ensue if they vote

  1593
  "Yes". I have no doubt that the vast majority of hon. Members accept that the Bill will do no good to Scotland and will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom. If we are to follow our consciences and what we believe to be in the interests of our nation, we have a duty to put our stamp of disapproval on the Bill and to say that it is unworkable, will do damage and should be rejected.
  10.37 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I start by agreeing with one proposition put by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). They both congratulated my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who has truly borne the major brunt of the Bill for the Government. I agree with all the gratitude that has been expressed to him from all parts of the House.
  My hon. Friend has conducted the Bill with great intellectual distinction, patience and courtesy, and the whole House is in his debt on that account. I am sure that many hon. Members wish that he were speaking now rather than me. I thought that that remark would win the ready assent that hon. Members are now displaying. I hope that I shall continue to command similar assent for the rest of my remarks, because it is too late to change the arrangements for the debate. Such a change would set a strange precedent, and I know how meticulous the Opposition are in insisting that we must abide by the normal rules.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Cathcart will not object if I turn aside from his remarks for a moment and concentrate on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Many of my hon. Friend's speeches have dominated our debates. He and the hon. Member for Cathcart have at least one thing in common. They both fought the last General Election on the proposition that we should set up a directly elected Assembly. Some of us have been eager to watch how their minds have developed along the same lines throughout the whole of the Bill.
  I promised my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian to deal more fully
  1594
  with the central issue which has been called the West Lothian question. I agree that my hon. Friend is entitled to claim the credit for having presented the question to the House in the strongest manner continuously throughout the debates. I shall do my best to reply to the central matters that he has raised.
  We are entitled to say to my hon. Friend that he must pay some respect to the views that are held by others, especially because it is a recent view that he is expressing and not a view on which he was elected to the House. As he said to us a few minutes ago, he is entitled to change his mind. He is entitled to do so, and the House of Commons in Committee changes its mind. I fully acknowledge what my hon. Friend and others have said about the significance of proceedings in Committee in that respect, However, he must pay some respect to those who have held their opinions for much longer.
  The opinions that I have held on this subject have remained the same since somewhat earlier than the Kilbrandon Report. I have always believed that it was the central question with which the House of Commons had to deal. Some of us have fought General Elections on the subject. That applies not merely to the most recent General Election which took place in the October but to the preceding one in the February. Some of us presented the matter as a central feature of what we were saying at the time. Some of us argued that devolution was an essential democratic move that should be made for the country as a whole.
  We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) that the case has not been argued on its merits. Nobody who listened to the whole of the debate, including the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could say that we have not presented the case for devolution on the democratic grounds that lie at the centre-piece of our case. I repudiate any such suggestion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has changed his mind, and he is entitled to do so. I have sometimes been in the position of making speeches in the

  1595
  House against the general and overwhelming view of my party. I know how difficult it is, and I understand my hon. Friend's position in that respect. However, he must understand that some of us hold our views as sincerely as he holds his. I note that my hon. Friend nods in assent. As I listened to him, he reminded me of the old statement of an earlier Lord Halifax who said that the impudence of a bawd is as nothing to that of a convert. There was some impudence in my hon. Friend when he presented the case that some of us in the Cabinet and elsewhere do not hold our views on this important constitutional measure sincerely and fully.
  I quote to the House a statement on the whole of the West Lothian question as it has been presented which I think puts the background to the matter although not the central part of the case. However, I ask the House to take full note of the statement, because I believe that it covers an extremely important aspect. I refer to a quotation from the book written by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) entitled "Inside Right", which was published a few months ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman discusses devolution, and especially the West Lothian Question, although he did not know that it was to be entitled such when he wrote the book. He writes:
  "that Scottish MPs would have a vote on, say, housing and education in England while English MPs (and also Scottish MPs) would have no control over those subjects in Scotland seems legalistic. Whatever happens in England will have great influence on what is done in Scotland, since great disparities between England and the rest would not be tolerated in the devolved areas. It is not therefore unreasonable that the Scots should be allowed some influence on decisions made for England. That surely would not be too high a price to pay for the maintenance of the Union.
  Many believe that once devolution for Scotland is embarked upon, there is no logical stopping place before independence. Even if that were true, British statesmen and constitution builders have not previously allowed logic unduly to influence or deter them. The logic of the great Reform Bill pointed to universal suffrage, but there was an interval of ninety-eight years between them. And an independent Scotland seems to me to be far more probable if England blocks devolution than if it promotes it."
  That is the view not only of many of my hon. Friends but of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. I be-
  1596
  lieve that it provides the background to the West Lothian question.
  But there are many other aspects of the matter. Of course, we considered them all carefully before this Bill and the previous one were presented to the House. We considered most carefully whether there should be the so-called in-and-out arrangement whereby we would seek to solve the dilemma by having Scottish MPs entitled to vote on some subjects but not on others. We considered and rejected that idea for very good reasons. We rejected it not only because that was the experience of all who examined the possibilities of devolution in the Irish context but because we believed that it would lead to a constitutional crisis that would become insoluble. Therefore, we did not believe that that was a possible solution.
  We also considered most carefully, is did the Kilbrandon Commission, the federal solution. All these matters touch on the West Lothian question. The federal solution is still advocated strongly by the Liberals and occasionally by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I know that he does not like it when we suggest that he advocates it, but he uses it as an illustration for suggesting that it is the only way in which the matter can be solved. We certainly examined that question, as did the Kilbrandon Commission, but we rejected it for reasons which are well known to the House. We rejected it not only because of the unbalance that there would be between England and Scotland and Wales because of the different populations but because some of us believed that a federal solution would hand over to a judicial court political decisions which should be kept in the House of Commons. That is the fundamental reason why some of us object to the federal solution of the problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone quite rightly said that those who proposed the Bill to the House were certainly opposed to the federal solution. But I suggest to hon. Members, including the Liberals—I do not wish to lose their support at this moment—and to others who are seriously considering this matter that the idea that the federal solution provides a stable arrangement for generations ahead is not necessarily true. Indeed, many federal constitutions which

  1597
  have sought to solve the West Lothian question, if it can be described that way, by that method have proved extremely unstable. The United States of America was not so stable. I seem to recall that there was a civil war there. Therefore, hon. Members should not be so eager to say that the federal system will solve these problems.
  There have been many more recent examples. There was a most bitter and terrible civil war in Nigeria. There have been a whole host of attempts to solve these problems—
  Mr. George Cunningham: Since my right hon. Friend is making international comparisons, will he give us one example of a country in which there has been legislative devolution to a part of the country but not to other parts and where that has proved to be reasonably stable?
  Mr. Foot: I shall come in a moment to the one example that we heard about earlier. But it is perfectly true that there have been very few cases, if any, of an attempt to solve the kind of problems we have to solve by the devolution method. It has been suggested in some quarters that the way to solve this problem is to seek a federal solution, but I am arguing that that system not only fails to solve the problem—and history proves that—but creates other problems of a serious character and fails to deal with the danger of instability on the questions we are concerned about.
  Moreover, the proposals we are making have been misunderstood by hon. Members—or hon. Members have not wished to understand them—concerning how many powers would be left in the House of Commons and how many powers it would be necessary to be exercised by representatives from Scotland and Wales. We believe that those factors all point to the kind of solution that we have sought.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: Is this a fair summary of the position: that the federal solution has sometimes worked but the solution of legislative devolution within a unitary State has never worked?
  Mr. Foot: It is not the case that it has never worked—[Hon. Members:
  1598
  "Where has it worked?"] I do not want to cause a great rift between the Conservative Front Bench and the representatives from Ulster, but it happens to be the case that there was for 50 years a subordinate legislature at Stormont. The Unionist representatives sit in this House today and still claim that they wish to have that solution restored. It is not therefore the case that there has never been an arrangement of that kind.
  Moreover, I dare say that it was that kind of solution that was in the minds of those on the Opposition Front Bench when they proposed a system of legislative subordinate arrangements for Scotland. That was what they themselves were arguing for a few years ago. If they say that we cannot deal with it this way, they are saying that there should never be any system of devolution. They are saying that because the road to federalism does not provide the answer, because the in-and-out system does not work, we must therefore retain the absolute arrangements that we already have and we should never proceed to carry out all the pledges that all the parties, including the Conservative Party, have made to the people of Scotland over the years.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman has been less fair than is his custom in arguing that there are not cases of federalism which provide stability. For him to produce as his argument the American Civil War and the case of Nigeria is surely grossly misleading.
  Mr. Foot: I repeat that there have been no cases—
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not debating the Third Reading of the Bill, and is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to discuss measures other than the Bill that is before us?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order should have been raised with me at the beginning of the debate, in which, for various reasons, I have allowed a wider discussion than is normally allowed on Third Reading. We are now into the last five minutes.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) may not have

  1599
  been here during the earlier part of the debate. I was seeking to reply to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and others. Their argument leads to the proposition that we are not entitled to seek any form of legislative devolution. If that is to be the case, we say that that would involve a grave breach of faith with the people of Scotland, not only on the part of the Labour Party and the Government but also on the part of all parties in the House of Commons; and that should be understood.
  I hope that the Conservative Party will take account of what is said about its policies in this matter. The Conservative Party also has an obligation to tell the House what is its solution. I know that Conservative Members do not want anyone to know what obligations they have undertaken in this respect, but if they were to glance at last week's The Economist they would see what is said there about the policies that they have put forward. It is quite false to say that they have no policies. They were most adeptly stated in that issue of The Economist, and I propose to read it to the House.
  I well understand how embarrassed hon. Gentlemen opposite may be, but the article is as follows:
  "The Tories really have leaders in their tartan trews … Because Mr. Heath is a convert to devolution, it is Thatcherite to be against it, but Mrs Thatcher seems to have neither notions nor instincts on the subject. Mr. Teddy Taylor, the shadow Scottish spokesman, wants to keep the status quo but with the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh and on the television (hoping, perhaps, to drown Scotland's political ferment in boredom). Mr. Francis Pym, the shadow spokesman on devolution, says something like! 'I say, look here, hang on a moment, let's have a good talk, what?' That, so far as one can tell, is official Tory policy on devolution."
  I am gratified that in this debate at last we have had it quite clearly. I could read a much longer story from the campaign guide.
  Mr. Pym: It would not be in order.
  Mr. Foot: It would be. That is what the Conservatives promised; we are
  carrying out not only our promises but their promises as well. We can go right through from the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is with us this evening to prove it, right from June 1967. It is way past the tenth anniversary of the Tory pledges to the people of Scotland, and we intend to carry out the pledges we made—the pledges we made at two General Elections, the pledges we made at several Scottish conferences, the pledges that have been upheld in all the bodies that sustain us in Scotland. We believe that it would be a very serious matter for the House of Commons as a whole if we were to go back on all those undertakings.
  Our proposals have been brought to the House for the purpose of sustaining the unity of the United Kingdom. We believe that if the House of Commons were to go back on the pledges made to the people of Scotland by the Labour Party, the right hon. Member for Sidcup and others we would be endangering the unity of the United Kingdom. When the House votes today, it will be voting not only to ensure, under the referendum proposals, that the people of Scotland will have a chance of deciding these matters but to ensure that we indicate to the people of Scotland that we stand by our pledges.
  When the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire went to Scotland, I think in January 1978 or it might have been a little earlier, he was asked what he thought about the pledge which he had given and which the right hon. Member for Sidcup had made for the establishment of a directly elected Assembly in Edinburgh. The right hon. Gentleman used the old Watergate phrase. He said "It is inoperative". His pledge was inoperative. Our pledges stand. We shall carry them out. We ask the House of Commons to support us in doing so.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided Ayes 297, Noes 257.

  Division No. 124]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Atkinson, Norman

  Beith, A. J.

  Anderson, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnett, Guy (Greewich)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Ashley, Jack

  Barnett Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Boardman, H.

  Ashton, Joe

  Bates, Alf

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bean, R. E.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hardy, Peter

  Newens, Stanley

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Noble, Mike

  Bradley, Tom

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O' Halloran, Michael

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Orbach, Maurice

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Buchan, Norman

  Henderson, Douglas

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hooley, Frank

  Padley, Walter

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Palmer, Arthur

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Horam, John

  Pardoe, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Park, George

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Howells, Geriant (Cardigan)

  Parker, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Parry, Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Huckfield, Les

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Penhaligon, David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Perry, Ernest

  Carter, Ray

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Prescott, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Radice, Giles

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jackson, Miss, Margaret (Lincoln)

  Reid, George

  Coleman, Donald

  Janner, Greville

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  John, Brynmor

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, James (Hull west)

  Roderick, Carewyn

  Cowans, Harry

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Crawford, Douglas

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Judd, Frank

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cronin, John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Kelley, Richard

  Ryman, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Kerr, Russell

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Kilroy-silk, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kinnock, Neil

  Selby, Harry

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Knox, David

  Sever, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lambie, David

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Davies, Ifor, (Gower)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Dean, Joseph, (Leeds West)

  Lee, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Sillars, James

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Litterick, Tom

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Snape, Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunn, James A.

  Luard, Evan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Eadie, Alex

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  English, Michael

  MacCormick, Iain

  Stoddart, David

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stott, Roger

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  McElhone, Frank

  Strang, Gavin

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Swain, Thomas

  Faulds, Andrew

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Flannery, Martin

  Magee, Bryan

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thompson, George

  Ford, Ben

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Forrester, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tinn, James

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Tomlinson, John

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

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tomney, Frank

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Mecher, Michael

  Torney, Tom

  Freud, Clement

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Urwin, T. W.

  George, Bruce

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mitchell, Austin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Golding, John

  Molloy, William

  Walter, Terry (Kingswood)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moonman, Eric

  Ward, Michael

  Graham, Ted

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watkins, David

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkinson, John

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watt, Hamish

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Moyle, Roland

  Weetch, Ken

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Weitzman, David

  Hamilton, W. W. (central Fife)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wellbeloved, James

  1602

  1603

  Welsh, Andrew

  Williams, Alan Lee (Horch'ch)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Woof, Robert

  White, James (Pollok)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Whitlock, William

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mather, Carol

  Alison, Michael

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Maude, Angus

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mawby, Ray

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Awdry, Daniel

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mayhew, Partick

  Baker, Kenneth

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mendelson, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Benyon, W.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grant, Antony (Harrow C)

  Moate, Roger

  Blaker, Peter

  Gray, Hamish

  Molyneaux, James

  Body, Richard

  Grieve, Percy

  Monro, Hector

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Grylls, Michael

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Brooke, Peter

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Mudd, David

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neave, Airey

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Newton, Tony

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nott, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Ogden, Eric

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hodgson, Robin

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Carson, John

  Holland, Philip

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Channon, Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Percival, Ian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Clegg, Walter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Cockroft, John

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  James, David

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Cope, John

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

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Corrie, John

  Johnson Smith, G. E (E Grinstead)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Costain, A. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Raison, Timothy

  Critchley, Julian

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfedder, James

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dunlop, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Durant, Tony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Elllott, Sir William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Emery, Peter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rost, Hugh (SE Derbyshire)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lloyd, Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Shelton, WiIIiam (Streatham)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McCusker, H.

  Shersby, Michael

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinbugh N)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Silvester, Fred

  Fookers, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Sims, Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd')

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fraser, Rt Hon (Stafford & St)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mates, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  1604

  1605

  Stainton, Keith

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Wells, John

  Stanley, John

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Trotter, Neville

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stockes, John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Stradling, Thomas, J.

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Action)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne v)

  Younger, Hon George

  Taylor, Rt (Croydon NW)

  Wakeham, John

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wall, Patrick

  Mr. Spencer le Marchant and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Millan.]
  Question agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the valuation and rating of certain lands and heritages in Scotland and to make further provision with respect to payments to the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland and his officers, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase in rate support grant which is attributable to the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Bates.]

  BRITISH VITA FACTORY PROPOSAL (ANDOVER)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  11.19 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly resume his seat while hon. Members leave the Chamber? We shall time his Adjournment debate from when I call him again.
  11.20 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: We have a little local difficulty in Andover in my constituency, and I am grateful to the Minister for coming here at this late hour. I am sorry to keep him and the staff and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, any longer at the end of a very long day.
  The background to our little local difficulty is that Andover has had a Greater London Council overspill of industry and population over some years past; and generally it has worked very well indeed in the area. There is a site on the Walworth industrial estate which is leased from the council to Laing's, the concrete construction people, for concrete prefabrication. Now this site is vacant and a firm called British Vita, whose headquarters is in Manchester, wishes to take over the lease to build a factory there.
  British Vita makes polyurethane foam for a very wide variety of purposes, and I suspect that the green Benches that we sit on are probably stuffed with this sort of polyurethane foam. It is made by a chemical process involving the use of a liquid chemical called TDI, a substance which has to be used very carefully. However, the local authority's technical experts are quite happy with what is proposed by British Vita, the fire brigade is quite happy with it, and the alkali inspectors are quite happy with it. The Health and Safety Executive, set up by the Government, is happy with it, and the Southern Water Board is happy with it. It therefore looks as though everything, ought to be in order. The Department of the Environment has granted an industrial development certificate, and I am sure that it would not have done so unless it were happy that the process was a safe one and suitable for the area.
  I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for confirming this point by letter only yesterday. His letter, in essence, says that there is no objection from the point of view of his Ministry's experts.

  1607
  The firm applied in the late autumn and the application went through all the stages of the various council committees. The planning committee, which is an executive committee, gave consent, the policy and resources committee gave consent, and all seemed set fair. The firm was ready to start. It was ready to spend a good deal of money in the area—£2½ million—to build the new factory. A lot of money was spent on designing the factory. It is a very go-ahead and enterprising firm, and it planned to be in production by January 1979 and to give employment, incidentally, to some 120 people. I should have thought that that would be very well received in Andover, where over 800 people are unemployed now.
  However, a very widespread agitation has broken out to prevent the scheme going ahead. This has resulted more than anything else from a BBC "Nationwide" television programme which was transmitted in January, featuring one of the local councillors. I am bound to say to this House tonight that I think this was a most irresponsible film, and it has caused a great deal of alarm and despondency among my constituents. Wider than that, it has worried a great many people who are already working in this sort of factory in other parts of the country.
  The BBC, I understand, was offered expert advice from the various trade associations under which these foam manufacturers and rubber manufacturers are grouped, but refused to accept that expert advice or participation and went ahead in its own way. It produced a film, and I have now seen the transcript of it. It was disgraceful in its irresponsibility, and this House—and possibly the Minister—will perhaps agree with me that it ought to be looked into. If the BBC, which is not answerable to anyone, can do as much damage to the people of this country as it has by putting out this film, I believe that that is something which should not be tolerated in a free society.
  Following the film, and following a campaign organised in the area by a group of councillors and private individuals and some industrialists, I received a great deal of mail, some of it in favour of the scheme and some of it against. I ought to say at this stage that this is not a party matter at all—at least, I hope not.
  1608
  Of course, it is entirely council responsibility to decide a matter of this sort, but, although it is entirely a matter for the local council, naturally a Member of Parliament has to inform himself and take a view about a matter of such importance concerning so many of his constituents.
  I have talked to councillors and to the officers of the council, the Test Valley Council. I have been up to Manchester for myself to see the whole process of British Vita and, to cut a long story short, I am quite convinced that the process is safe. It is safe both for the workers working inside the factory and from an environmental point of view, for the industries and the residents nearby. The firm is very expert, very experienced and very responsible. I put it on record that, although I went up to see the firm having no knowledge of its existence until I went there and no knowledge of the processes, I came away extremely impressed with its care for the safety and health of its workers. Frequent medical checks are given, as I was able to verify from talking to people on the shop floor or to anyone within the factory. There was a very good training scheme, and the people working there know what they are doing. I thought it was altogether an admirable set-up. As the Minister knows only too well himself, being a Member of Parliament, I have to represent both those who want the factory to be built, "chop, chop"—if I may coin a phrase—and those who object to its being built.
  When I asked for this Adjournment debate, I did not know what the result would be. This afternoon the council held a meeting with a big crowd inside the guildhall and with bigger crowds outside. Frankly, there were some emotive placards on display, one of which said
  "Our lungs before your profits."
  I went to the council meeting this afternoon and heard a mass of evidence both for and against the scheme. I was allowed to speak, and I did so unequivocally in favour of the scheme. Had I heard nothing of the scheme beforehand, I would have been convinced in favour of it, based on the evidence that I heard.
  However, I have learned this evening—just in the last few minutes—that the council has decided to rescind the minute to assign the lease to British Vita. The council in its wisdom has turned down

  1609
  the British Vita scheme flat, even after it had been through all the relevant committees.
  There are many local political reasons why this may have happened, which need not concern the House tonight. I would only say that I am extremely disappointed with the result and would place on record that I think the council has made an absurd, even grotesque, decision. But I defend to the full its right to make that decision. The council has the right to decide—not this House nor myself.
  I am very sorry for British Vita. It is an enterprising company which has spent a lot of money already in planning this ideal site which it was recommended to look at by the Department of the Environment. I fear that after this unfortunate decision by the council the company may find difficulty in getting anywhere else to build its factory. This can only be to the absolute detriment of the country's economic future and its export potential, because a great deal of the firm's product is exported. The firm is a very enterprising one and has a great deal of knowledge and know-how about this process. It has factories in about 20 countries all round the world.
  In these unfortunate circumstances, the only thing I can do is to ask the Minister to take heed of what has happened. With the resources of his Department, perhaps he will undertake a broad inquiry as soon as possible into the use of TDI, because unless it is shown by the Minister or by some authentic body that TDI is safe if used properly—which I firmly believe—this part of British industry is under a very great disadvantage.
  I shall be grateful if the Minister will undertake to see that his Department looks into the matter and in the fullness of time issues a definitive statement on it.
  11.31 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for raising this issue and for the way in which he has expounded the case. Coming myself from an industrial area, I know that proposals for industrial development involving complex chemical processes can often give rise to concern on the part of local residents.
  1610
  I welcome the chance to say something both about the particular circumstances of this case and about the arrangements for the control of industrial air pollution from difficult processes in general. Those who have studied the journals know that this process is expanding, and many industrialists have been told about the Walworth Estate and what a good one it is.
  There is no need for a recommendation to go there either by the Department of the Environment or by any other Department, althouh I shall have something to say later about the approval given by the Department of Industry. It is not necessary for me to go over the background to this case in detail. The company's proposal is to construct a plant for the manufacture of chemical foam on a site of about 10½ acres on the Walworth industrial estate at Andover, which is an expanding town.
  This proposal has been the source of concern, because the process involves the use of toluene di-isocyanate, commonly known as TDI. I shall use the shortened version, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman did. There has recently been a good deal of publicity about the process, about which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone into some detail. I shall not go into a discussion of the rights and independence of the BBC at this stage. I hope that in all future assignments it will try to give a balanced view of what is happening.
  The local authority, in this case the Test Valley District Council, has granted planning permission for the plant. It is to be built on land in the ownership of the council. That was known when the application was put in. This is a matter entirely within the council's discretion. It is for the council to decide whether or not planning permission should be granted on the merits of the case, and it has done so. It would not have been appropriate for my right hon. Friend to call in a case of this sort since it does not raise implications of a regional or national kind.
  TDI is used in a variety of approved processes in various areas. The local authority, in its planning function, has made its decision, for which it is democratically accountable to the electorate.
  A few minutes before the debate started I learned that the council, in its role as

  1611
  owner of the estate, had refused to lease. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, probably more forcefully than I could have done, this is an astonishing decision and one not based an planning grounds.
  Perhaps I should say something in general about TDI as a substance, although I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, has given the hon. and gallant Gentleman an outline of the character of the process which is in question here. In appearance, TDI is a whitish liquid. It is used in a variety of industrial processes, including a number of coatings and the manufacture of nylon. Though it is toxic, it is not very volatile. It is not a dangerous material to store. It is also most important to note that it does not persist in the environment. It breaks down as soon as it comes into contact with moisture. Thus, emissions do not constitute a long-term environmental hazard.
  Its effect on human beings in sufficient concentration is to produce irritation of the skin and eye. It can also cause asthma and is an irritant to mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure to very high concentrations can produce burns and sensitisation which leads to coughing and wheezing. But, because the substance has a strongly irritant effect, contact with it is likely to be very limited. It is not a lethal pollutant, but adequate care is needed in its control.
  The recommended means of disposal is to allow it to react with water to produce carbon dioxide and other compounds. This method is to be applied in the present case—and I shall explain—by scrubbing the gases before emission.
  However, before I come to the arrangements for the control of TDI in this case, I should refer to a point which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, made in writing to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He explained the process whereby an industrial development certificate was granted for the plant, and also—a point which I should emphasise—that there was no question of the firm being directed to the Andover area. The company chose the site, and the Department of Industry accepted, purely on grounds of distribution of industry, that it was acceptable for it to invest there. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the environmental
  1612
  side of the issue fell to be considered when planning permission was sought from the local authority.
  I should now like to say something about the arrangements for the control of processes using TDI, and, indeed, difficult processes in general. Since 1971, processes like this one involving the use of TD1 have been amongst those scheduled under the Alkali, etc Works Regulation Act 1906. This means that the works where the process is carried on must be registered with the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate, which is responsible for supervising the operation of the process.
  The basis of the inspectorate's control is a requirement that the best practicable means should be used to minimise emissions from a plant and also to render harmless what must be emitted. The inspectorate satisfies itself generally that appropriate pollution control equipment is installed in a plant, that it is properly operated and maintained, that the plant generally is kept in good order and that the operators of the process are properly trained. In other words, the inspectorate exercises powers of prior approval over the equipment installed and supervises all facets of the actual operation of the process.
  In total, the inspectorate is responsible for supervising some 60 processes in over 2,000 works, which account in total for over 80 per cent. of the fuel burned in the United Kingdom. The inspectorate has published notes on the best practicable means for many of these processes, including di-isocyanate works. The notes set out the control requirements, including numerical emission limits where these are appropriate.
  In the case of di-isocyanate works, the aim is to limit emissions to 0·02 parts per million, provided that the chimney is of an appropriate height to ensure adequate dispersion. The inspectorate is satisfied that plants using this substance can be operated acceptably as regards to the local environment as long as their control requirements are observed.
  Since 1971, when it took responsibility for processes involving TDI, the inspectorate has developed control requirements in the light of the experience it has gained. This has included supervision of British Vita's existing plant in the

  1613
  Manchester area. I gather that the inspectorate has had satisfactory dealings with the company to date and is content that its processes can be operated in an acceptable way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, I know, visited the plant in Greater Manchester and taken a great interest.
  I know that TDI is a highly toxic substance, but that is not to say that proper arrangements cannot be made for its control. In this case the inspectorate was consulted by the company at an early stage to establish what its requirements would be, and is now satisfied that the emission control measures proposed will be adequate to satisfy its requirements.
  The gases produced in the process are to be scrubbed to minimise the actual emission, and there will be a 100 ft. chimney to disperse emissions. The inspectorate is satisfied that these control measures are the best practicable and that they are adequate. The inspectorate has, of course, been in touch with the local authority to notify it of its satisfaction with the company's proposals.
  I do not feel that there is much more I can usefully say about the particular circumstances of this case, and I hope that the explanations I have given will have done something to reassure both the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his constituents who have expressed concern about the company's proposals.
  We have a system of air pollution control in this country that enables us to achieve the levels of environmental protection we require in a cost-effective way: that is to say, without imposing needless burdens on industry. I make no apology for emphasising this. Our policies are aimed at the protection of both man's health and his environment from avoidable risk. But no industrial society can expect to be entirely free from pollution. It is necessary to strike a balance between economic activity and environmental protection. The methods of working of the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate, as I have outlined them in this brief debate, reflect this. The control requirements are based on practicalities, on great industrial experience of what can and must be done to ensure adequate protection.
  A crucial part of our system is liaison between central and local government,
  1614
  both in pollution control matters as such and—to use the jargon—at the interface between pollution and planning. We are very conscious of the importance of good working relations between those, whether in the Alkali Inspectorate or in local authority environmental health departments, who are responsible for air pollution control, and those who are responsible for planning control.
  This is an important local matter which we have been considering tonight—as has the council—to which there are no easy obviously right answers. But I must make one thing clear. If the Alkali Inspectorate had not been satisfied that the proposed plant could be operated satisfactorily without undue detriment to the local environment and community, it would have said so. It has given its expert opinion to the company and to the local authority that the control measures proposed for the plant will enable it to be operated so as to meet its requirements. Measures will be taken both to limit emissions as required by the best practicable means for the process and to disperse what is emitted so that there is no unacceptably high ground level concentration of pollution locally. As I have said, I hope that this will reassure people locally.
  To summarise, TDI, though toxic, is a substance that can reasonably be used in industry, provided that proper controls are exercised. I hope I have shown that the expectation is that such controls will be exercised in this case. Of course, the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate will be responsible for the control of emissions from the plant, and if any problems arise, I shall be happy to discuss them with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his constituents.
  I repeat that the advisory services of my Department, particularly the Alkali Inspectorate, are available to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, his constituents, the council and, perhaps I should add, the BBC.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to the Minister. I am only afraid that Andover has missed a trick.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  Second Reading Committee
  Wednesday 22nd February 1978

  The Committee consisted of the following Members:

  Mr. Michael English (in the Chair)

  Ashton, Mr. Joseph (Bassetlaw)

  Hughes, Mr. Roy (Newport)

  Banks, Mr. Robert (Harrogate)

  Kershaw, Mr. Anthony (Stroud)

  Churchill, Mr. (Stretford)

  Lewis, Mr. Ron (Carlisle)

  Cowans, Mr. Harry (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral (Winchester)

  Tinn, Mr. James (Redcar)

  Craig, Mr. William (Belfast, East)

  Ellis, Mr. John (Brigg and Scunthorpe)

  Townsend, Mr. Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Ford, Mr. Ben (Bradford, North)

  Gilbert, Dr. John (Minister of State, Ministry of Defence)

  Walder, Mr. David (Clitheroe)

  Wall, Mr. Patrick (Haltemprice)

  GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [Lords]
  10.30 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Gun Barrel Proof Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  This is quite a minor Bill, but it is useful and is essentially for the convenience of the trade. It provides for the accession of this country to the CIP, the International Commission for the Proof of Firearms. It has no defence implications whatever, and for that reason I am not quite sure why I am here. As I understand it, as soon as the Bill is passed, if that be the Committee's wish, responsibility for these matters will pass forthwith to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. This is a formal announcement of a change of Ministerial function which has been approved by the Prime Minister, by whom all such changes have to be approved.
  1616
  Equipment that is manufactured by Royal Ordnance Factories is in no way affected because they are subjected to Crown proof and therefore do not come within the auspices of the Bill. Other than providing for accession to the CIP, which is of considerable convenience to the gun trade in this country, the Bill has a couple of minor clauses that provide for tidying up such matters as historic penalties that are clearly out of date, eliminating some minor infringements from the area of criminal law, extending potential areas of operation of the two gun proof houses now in existence in this country, and a couple of matters of definition.
  The Bill is quite straightforward. I do not wish to take up the Committee's time by going through the whole history of the matter, but I will be happy to answer any questions that hon. Members might have.
  10.33 a.m.
  Mr. Churchill: The Committee will be interested to note that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, having failed so conspicuously in his own sphere of influence, is to be entrusted with the latest stages of this Bill, which I trust we shall be handing to him in a state in which he cannot even begin to fail to get it onto the statute book.
  The Bill emphasises the value of the House of Lords, because there can be no greater collection of expert opinion in any legislature throughout the world—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that it is customary to refer to another place under that designation, and, in any case, I do not see its relevance to this Bill.
  Mr. Churchill: I accept your admonition, Mr. English, but this Bill did originate in another place, and it has been delivered to us in what hon. Members on both sides will consider to be a very satisfactory condition. I should merely like to say that the quality of British guns, which has depended to such an extent on the gun proofing which has been carried out by the London and Birmingham proof houses over the centuries, has a place second to none in the world. They are regarded as the Rolls-Royce of the shotgun and rifle industry, and they provide important export earnings for this country. The purpose of the convention, as I understand it, is to bring world standards up to the British standards which have been insisted upon for so long by the London and Birmingham proof houses.
  There are two minor points I should like to raise. First, the Explanatory Memorandum states:
  "Nearly all of the principal nations who manufacture and export sporting weapons and other small arms are now signatories to the Convention."
  It is noteworthy that the United States, Czechoslovakia, Japan and the Soviet Union, all of which are major exporters, are not as yet signatories to the convention.
  Furthermore, it is slightly misleading that the Bill should be entitled the Gun Barrel Proof Bill when it refers not only to the barrel but to the action of the gun. The 1868 Act was conceived at a
  1618
  time when muzzle loaders were going out and breech loaders coming in, but it is important to appreciate that the proving extends not merely to the barrels but to the full action of the gun in which, in many cases, failure is experienced.
  I should like to put one question to the Minister in relation to Clause 6, which provides that
  "The Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 and 1950 shall extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland."
  Is it the case that, up to the present time, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been covered by no gun barrel proof Acts whatsoever, as would appear to be the case?
  The Opposition certainly have no wish to detain the Committee. We feel that this is a much needed measure which is welcomed by the industry and will increase the export potential of our own industry by the fact that we shall be incorporating ourselves into this international convention.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. David Walder: I shall endeavour to stay within the rules of order, but I should like to take the subject of this Bill just a little further, if that is possible, Mr. English. I welcome the presence of the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, who is normally responsible for more sophisticated weapons. I hope that he can help me with this, although it may be something which goes off into the realm of another Department.
  I well accept the purpose of the Bill, which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is for the benefit of the trade. Having some knowledge, I think that there has been a period when the trade was in considerable difficulties with regard to proof marks coming from other countries, then the proofing here, and sometimes the difficulty of assuring its own customers that shotguns bought in England were properly proofed and therefore there was some indication as to their quality and, perhaps more important, their safety.
  Proofing on a gun barrel and on the action—and this is where I realise that you may well choose to stop me, if you so wish, Mr. English—is a rather complicated means of identification. There are other methods of identifying shotguns, generally by a number which customarily appears in the same place as the proofing.

  1619
  It has always intrigued me that a person who buys or possesses a shotgun and fills in the licence which allows him to keep it is not asked to identify that gun in any way when it could so easily be done by reference to number and, if necessary, proofing. I leave the thought with the Minister that it would be no bad thing if the other Department responsible produced a very short Bill suggesting that that method of identification be used. At the moment, the only identification on a licence is that of the possessor. The authorities also wish to know one's profession and height.
  If I were buying a shotgun for illegal purposes, it is unlikely that I should put as my profession "bank robber" and it would hardly matter whether I was 5 feet 2 inches or 6 feet. I suggest that my proposal would be a simple matter to achieve through governmental channels, and would provide a great restriction on the illegal possession and use of a shotgun.
  10.40 a.m.
  Dr. Gilbert: I should like first to reply to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder). I shall see that his remarks are referred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, since such matters fall within his province. The Home Office is already looking into the subject, although I do not know how far its examination has advanced.
  My reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is that Scotland and Northern Ireland have been involved only with the offence-creating provisions of the legislation up to now. The reason the Bill refers to those countries is a logical extension of removing the 10-mile restriction on the London and Birmingham proof houses. We know of no intention of Scotland and Northern Ireland to set up similar establishments, but the measure enables them to do so if that should become convenient for the gun-making trade.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little wide of the mark in saying that
  1620
  the Bill would be effective in raising world standards. The Government, of course, hope that it will, but at the moment the CIP has only 11 members. He was right to point out that one or two major manufacturers—although not necessarily major exporters—are not members of CIP, particularly the United States.
  Other countries, such as Sweden, Finland and Japan, have shown an interest. However, their principal difficulty is that their proof houses are not independent of the gun manufacturing trade. The houses have not thought it worth while to achieve that independence, but until they do the countries in question will not be eligible for membership of the CIP.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the Title of the Bill, but I am afraid that it is too late to do much about it now The hon. Gentleman is quite right—the measure not only relates to gun barrels but amends two previous pieces of legislation with a similar title. However, for future ease of reference, perhaps no great harm has been done by using the title.
  Maybe I misled the hon. Gentleman, but I should correct him on one very minor point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will not actually have responsibility in the matter until the legislation is enacted, when I am sure he will assume that responsibility with the same brilliance with which he has managed to bring down the inflation rate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Gun Barrel Proof Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  The Chairman: May I thank everyone present for his co-operation?
  Committee rose at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

  English, Mr. Michael (Chairman)

  Kershaw, Mr.

  Banks, Mr.

  Lewis, Mr. Ron.

  Churchill, Mr.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral.

  Cowans, Mr.

  Tinn, Mr.

  Ellis, Mr. John.

  Townsend, Mr.

  Ford, Mr.

  Walder, Mr. David.

  Gilbert, Dr.

  Second Reading Committee
  Wednesday 22nd February 1978

  The Committee consisted of the following Members:

  Mr. R. Bonner Pink (in the Chair)

  Beith, Mr. A. J. (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

  Moyle, Mr. Roland (Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security)

  Boscawen, Mr. Robert (Wells)

  Crouch, Mr. David (Canterbury)

  Pavitt, Mr. Laurie (Brent, South)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Windsor and Maiden-head)

  Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey (Coventry, North-West)

  Hodgson, Mr. Robin (Walsall, North)

  Shaw, Mr. Arnold (Ilford, South)

  Miller, Dr. M. S. (East Kilbride)

  Stallard, Mr. A. W. (St. Pancras, North)

  Molloy, Mr. William (Ealing, North)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard (Reading, South)

  Morris, Mr. Michael (Northampton South)

  Walker, Mr. Terry (Kingswood)

  Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

  MEDICAL BILL [Lords]
  10.30 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Medical Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  The Bill is designed to change the constitution of the General Medical Council and to make provision for certain of its functions. The Council, which was first set up under the Medical Act 1858, is an independent statutory body responsible for regulating the medical profession. At the moment, it has three main functions. First, it maintains the medical register. Second, it has disciplinary powers which can be used in reepect of doctors convicted of criminal offences or who have committed serious professional misconduct. Third, it has a role in supervising medical education. The present Bill
  1624
  which started in another place, is directed at consolidating and improving the Council's role and functions in line with the recommendations of the Merrison Committee, which was set up in 1972.
  Until 1970, the funds of the General Medical Council were provided generally by a registration fee. In 1970, the Council instituted an annual retention fee, and in 1972 it increased that fee, which led to a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the way the Council was carrying out its functions.
  That dissatisfaction was expressed by a number of members of the medical profession and, as a result, the Government set up the Merrison Committee, which in 1975 produced a unanimous report with 95 recommendations ranging over the Council's constitution and functions. The Government then undertook wide-ranging consultations, and in July of last year my right hon. Friend was able

  1625
  to announce that the Government had found a clear consensus within the profession to accept the Merrison Report.
  At the same time, we found that on many of the matters in the report there was need for fairly extensive consultation in order to resolve some points of difference which did not relate altogether to principle. Some of those matters, however, were of major importance. My right hon. Friend decided to introduce a short Bill embodying all the provisions on which there was a clear consensus and to give further consideration to the other issues.
  When the Bill was introduced on 10th November last year in another place, it covered four main areas: first, the reconstitution of the General Medical Council; second, provisions relating to the termination of the agreement with the Irish Republic; third, provisions on fitness to practise; and fourth, the creation of a statutory education committee.
  In the House of Lords, the Bill was generally criticised for not going far enough, but during the time that debates were taking place there rapid progress was being made in a series of discussions. Wider agreement developed and was eventually reached on a number of additional proposals relating to medical education and to giving the General Medical Council power to offer positive guidance on professional standards.
  At the same time, there had been discussions with the profession, the General Medical Council and organisations representing the overseas doctors relating to the registration of overseas doctors. As a result of those discussions, the Government will be moving amendments to effect a more rational system of registration in respect of overseas doctors. I shall say a little more about that later.
  I turn to the contents of the Bill. The reconstitution of the General Medical Council is dealt with in Clauses 1 to 3. No specified number of members is laid down, but the proposals closely follow the Merrison Report. The Council will continue to have a predominantly professional membership but, for the first time, once the Bill is on the statute book, it will have a majority of elected members—members elected by practising medical practitioners.
  1626
  Voting rights, and the right to sit as either an elected or an appointed member on the Council, are extended to provisionally registered doctors and to doctors who have held temporary registration for a specified period preceding an election or their appointment. The Bill also provides for an increase in the number of education bodies which can appoint members to the Council. All these reforms are designed to make the Council more generally representative, and this in turn should give greater confidence in the Council's proceedings. I need hardly say that these proposals are warmly accepted by the profession and are completely acceptable to the existing Council.
  Clause 4 relates to the legislative provisions that are necessary to allow the termination of the agreement that was made in 1927 between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State to allow the General Medical Council to operate on a British Isles basis. Both Governments now wish to terminate this arrangement because, to a large extent, it has been superseded by the implementation of the EEC medical directives. Both the Irish Republic and this country, being members of the EEC, of course, come within the purview of those directives. Consequently, it is no longer appropriate for the GMC to exercise a supervisory role over medical education in the Irish Republic.
  The clause is necessary for the repeal of the statutory provisions arising from the agreement when it is terminated, and second, to safeguard existing rights on termination. Since the negotiations are not yet complete, the Bill provides for the preservation of the status quo until the agreement is terminated.
  Clause 5, which was introduced into the Bill in another place, gives the GMC a new power to provide guidance to doctors on standards of professional conduct and medical ethics. The clause is directly intended to secure the maintenance or improvement of medical standards. It arises from the Merrison recommendation that the GMC should be given a statutory power to promote high standards of professional conduct, and has been welcomed by the GMC because it gives it legal cover in issuing advice to doctors on what constitutes good professional practice and medical ethics, and enables it to depart from the present practice of confining its

  1627
  guidance to the issue of what constitutes professional misconduct. It therefore gives the GMC a wider and more positive remit.
  Clauses 6 to 14 deal with the fitness to practise committees of the Council and again follow closely the relevant recommendations of the Merrison Report. There are two major innovations which will make the GMC's procedures more effective for the protection of the public and give greater flexibility in the sanctions which can be applied to a doctor, who has to face those procedures, in the unfortunate necessity of such a situation arising.
  First, the Merrison Committee discovered that there were doctors whose physical or mental ill health put their patients at risk. The committee felt that action should be taken to eliminate this problem. Such doctors were a very small proportion indeed of the total medical profession, but as the GMC, as the law now stands, can take action against doctors in this category only if they have committed certain criminal offences or acts of serious professional misconduct, it was felt that the existing position was too limited and too rigid.
  A new committee called the health committee will therefore be created under this legislation. It will enable the General Medical Council to suspend a doctor's registration for up to 12 months, or to make registration conditional on the doctor complying with specified requirements if it judges his fitness to practise to be seriously impaired by reason of mental or physical ill health.
  There are other fitness to practise committees. There is the professional conduct committee, which will replace the present disciplinary committee and will inherit its powers, although it will, too, be given the power to impose conditional registration. There will be the preliminary proceeding committee, which will take preliminary proceedings once a case is notified to the Council and will have the power to exercise, on very rare occasions, a new power of interim suspension. One of the functions of this preliminary proceedings committee will be to decide the course which a complaint against a doctor should take, either towards the health committee or towards the professional conduct committee.
  1628
  The Bill will also make the necessary statutory provision for the conduct of business by these committees, rights of appeal against their decisions, and transitional arrangements.
  Clauses 15 and 16 deal with the functions that are to be given to the Council's new statutory education committee. As the new committee is to be solely concerned with medical education, the Government have accepted—again in line with the Merrison proposal—that it should have a statutory majority of appointed members, that is, members appointed by various education bodies. It will assume directly most of the present Council's existing statutory functions relating to medical education along with the general function of promoting high standards of medical education and co-ordinating all its stages.
  The education committee will provide a forum for general debate on medical education matters and it will also have certain specific tasks: first, the maintenance of adequate standards at qualifying examination, and, second, the determination of patterns of experience which may be recognised as suitable in the pre-registration period of education, that is, a period of training following graduation. The present arrangements came in for some fairly vigorous criticism by the Merrison Committee which recommended that improvements be made.
  These changes and Clause 16, which amends the existing statutory provisions as regards the experience required for full registration, are widely accepted, and I think that they will help to maintain and consolidate high standards of training.
  I mentioned at the outset that the Government intend to introduce one or two amendments during the passage of the Bill. They consist, first, of technical amendments to assist the future consolidation of the Medical Acts, and second, of a number of amendments on the registration of overseas doctors. Amendments on the registration of overseas-trained doctors were tabled in another place. The Government spokesman in the other place indicated that those amendments did not go far enough, and they were withdrawn on the understanding that we would in this House put down our own amendments embracing the same principles but presenting what we hope will be a more coherent package.

  1629
  At present, overseas-trained doctors may be eligible for three different sorts of registration, according to their qualifications and experience: full registration as granted to United Kingdom graduates, which allows the unrestricted practice of medicine; provisional registration as granted to United Kingdom graduates who have not completed the necessary 12 months' pre-registration experience; and third, temporary registration, which is available only to overseas doctors. Temporary registration may be granted at the discretion of the General Medical Council to doctors who do not in some way meet the requirements for full or provisional registration.
  Mr. William Molloy: I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will explain the overall term "overseas doctor". Is there any difference in treatment between a doctor from overseas who is neither EEC nor British Commonwealth, a British Commonwealth doctor and an EEC doctor?
  Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Although it does not directly arise from the content of the Bill, I think it would be helpful to the Committee to get the flavour of the difference in treatment between EEC doctors and overseas doctors.
  There are at the moment some overseas doctors—primarily Commonwealth doctors—who can come to this country on the basis of the qualifications that they have obtained in medical schools in the land of their birth and get full registration and be able to practise here.
  Mr. Molloy: Full registration.
  Mr. Moyle: Yes, but that is under a system of reciprocity which we intend to bring to a conclusion if this Bill is passed.
  EEC doctors, under the EEC directives on the free movement of labour and mutual recognition of qualifications, can come to this country, receive full registration and can begin practising immediately. However, under present arrangements, they must undertake a language test within six months of coming to this country. If they fail that language test, the full registration may be taken away.
  The position with regard to Commonwealth doctors with recognised qualifica-
  1630
  tions is that if they come to this country they will, under the Bill, have to undertake a language test straightway. If they pass that language test, they will be able to get full registration.
  Certain overseas doctors may at present qualify for temporary registration. Temporary registration is related to a particular job in this country, and it has to be renewed every year, with consequent expenditure on fees by the doctor. Temporary registration is not satisfactory. It was intended to provide for a temporary situation but, in fact, it is being applied to doctors who are here for quite considerable periods. Therefore, we wish to replace it with limited registration.
  Once language and professional knowledge tests are surmounted, the overseas doctor will have limited registration for five years. Provision will be made for the limited registration to be converted into full registration at any time during the five-year period if the appropriate conditions of medical qualification and experience are met.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: The Minister said that reciprocity will be given up. Is that correct?
  Mr. Moyle: That is right.
  Dr. Glyn: So, presumably, those now practising under the existing arrangements will continue, but nobody else will be allowed to do so. Is that correct?
  Mr. Moyle: Yes, there will be protection provisions for people who are in this country at the moment.
  Mr. Molloy: May we have this point clear, because it is, I believe, of more than marginal relevance? I think that my hon. Friend said that an EEC doctor, for example, can come straight to Britain, be here six months, and then be subject to a language test, whereas a Commonwealth doctor would be subject to a language test immediately.
  Is there any suggestion in the Bill—I confess that I have not read it in detail—whereby some fairer method can be applied to a doctor who needs a language test? Many of us would think that, irrespective of where the doctor comes from, the fundamental issue is his standard of his English, not the language of the country whence he came.
  Mr. Moyle: The language test is a test of the doctor's ability to express himself in English. The two channels are subjected to the different controls that I have explained. The Overseas Doctors Association was consulted by me. It fully appreciates that, ideally, we should like to deal with all overseas doctors on the basis that we shall deal with doctors from outside the EEC countries. The Association is prepared to accept the existing situation because, generally speaking, it finds that the provisions relating to its members are desirable from its point of view and a considerable improvement, as the Association sees it, on the existing conditions.
  The difference in the treatment of EEC doctors arises from our membership of the EEC. It is one of the imperatives that we have to accept. Even our existing provisions for testing EEC doctors are criticised by some members of the EEC, and that may lead to eventual proceedings in the various European courts. However, that is something for the future and something which may not come about.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I do not expect an answer from the Minister this morning, but my understanding is that the French are insisting on a language qualification. I understood that it was not on a six-month basis but on a more immediate basis, rather on the lines of the query raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). Could that matter be checked?
  Mr. Moyle: Certainly. I have no intimate knowledge of the French arrangements. If that is so, possibly they, too will be criticised by some of their EEC colleagues.
  Perhaps I could now expand a little on the provision which will replace temporary registration by limited registration. Limited registration may be held only for a total of five years and will require a doctor to work under supervision. This has the great advantage that a doctor will not be tied down to a particular post as he would be under temporary registration. It provides a means for a doctor who fulfils the necesasry requirements to progress to full registration.
  In addition, limited registration could be granted for a single employment or a range of employments, and is therefore more flexible than temporary registra-
  1632
  tion. The five-year time limit will not apply to those doctors who have established themeslves in the United Kingdom at the time when the Bill becomes law on the basis of temporary registration. In other words, they will receive personal protection. However, there will be provision for the GMC, if it sees fit, to withdraw limited registration, and there will be a right of appeal against such a withdrawal.
  There are two other points I wish to make. First, we propose extending voting rights in the GMC elections and the right to be elected or appointed as a member to those doctors who have held limited registration for four of the five years prior to an election. Periods which they have spent in this country on the basis of temporary registration will count towards that qualifying period.
  Second, the present appeals structure is to be replaced by an overseas appeals committee within the framework of the GMC. This committee will have an outside chairman and it will hear appeals from overseas doctors against refusal of full registration or refusal to grant a further period of limited registration or withdrawal of limited registration.
  The Bill is no longer a short first-stage measure. It is considerably longer than it was on its original introduction. The reason is that a consensus on the additional provisions has developed more rapidly than at one time was thought possible, and we want to meet that consensus in full. I hope that, during its passage through the House, the Government and the Committee will be able to make the Bill even more comprehensive.
  The only outstanding major issue, which was covered in the Merrison Report, is the question of specialist registration. The Merrison Committee thought that there ought to be three clearly recognisable stages of education—under-graduate, postgraduate or pre-registration, and specialist.
  Unfortunately, the suggestions made by the Merrison Committee concerning specialist registration have given rise to acute controversy in the medical profession. Therefore, it is not possible to proceed at this stage with those proposals.
  Specialist registration raises legal difficulties with regard to our position in the European Community, and is therefore

  1633
  a matter for further consideration at another stage. The Bill will be an effective measure for helping to secure and maintain higher educational standards. It is a measure agreed by the profession and the General Medical Council.
  10.56 a.m.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I should make clear at the outset that there is so much agreement among the main parties over this Bill that I am able to speak briefly today.
  The Bill follows very closely the recommendations of the Merrison Committee. It is a great tribute to Sir Alec Merrison that not only was the Committee's report unanimous, but since then, its recommendations have been virtually universally accepted by the medical profession. This makes our task relatively simple today. We shall do all we can from the Opposition Benches to support the Bill's passage through the House.
  That does not mean that we shall not have a number of questions to put to the Minister and will not suggest some improvements that we should like to see in the Bill. I should tell the Committee that the Government have met virtually all the main points that we have already put to the Minister. I thank the Minister for his co-operation in this matter, and for circulating the notes on the clauses from him Department, which will be very helpfuly to the Committee.
  I thought it might be generally helpful in speeding up the progress on the Bill if I mentioned the broad areas which still concern us. We are still worried about the size of the GMC and that some of the members will have insufficient work to justify a body of this magnitude. We entirely accept that it will be a much more democratic body than at present but even so we shall want to be sure that all the main sections of the medical professions are properly represented on it.
  We are still left with the thought that 98 members is an awful lot of people and the body will cost a lot to run and to service. Who will pay for it? At present the whole cost of the General Medical Council falls on the medical profession. It has been suggested that the Government should pay part of the larger new bill, but that could mean that the
  1634
  new GMC will lose some of its independence. The Merrison Committee thought it extremely important—and we agree—that the new GMC should be a completely independent body. We ask the Government what they have in mind for the financing of the new body and, if they suggest paying part of the costs, we ask how it will remain independent.
  We are concerned also about the open-ended nature of the Bill. So much is to be left for the new GMC to be decided by Orders in Council. We believe that Parliament should hesitate several times before giving total freedom in this matter. We want to be sure that there are adequate safeguards against abuse.
  I remind the Committee that when the Bill was introduced in another place and the question arose of leaving all this to be decided in the future, it was said that this would be an infinitely simpler procedure than continually returning to Parliament. We accept that entirely, but we shall want to be sure that parliamentary responsibility and control is exercised.
  That brings me to one of our other concerns. When the Bill was introduced in another place it was a very simple, short, enabling Bill setting up the new GMC and also the health committee and really no more. The rest was merely technical details. It was intended that the remainder of the Merrison recommendations should come later. We understood that there was to be another Bill within a year. We wish to know what the position is now, and whether there is to be another Bill on specialist registration quite soon.
  Thanks to the way Lord Hunt presented his case and certain amendments in another place—we should all congratulate him on his work—the Bill before us, as the Minister said, has been changed into something far more significant than was originally intended. But it still does not include all the main Merrison recommendations on specialist registration which would bring us into line with the rest of the EEC. We should like to know more about that.
  I shall not go into much more at this stage except to say that the old General Medical Council, if I may so call it, was primarily set up to safeguard patients from doctors. The new General Medical

  1635
  Council will have the task of protecting doctors, too. The health committee proposals are part of that.
  It is not generally realised how restricted was the old GMC in giving advice. For example, I was involved in the case of a 14-year-old girl who was pregnant and wanted to keep her child but whose parents wanted the pregnancy terminated. The GMC and the BMA were unable to give direct clear advice on what the medical profession should do. The GMC said that it could not give an opinion on what was the ethical course until action had taken place, which was an unsatisfactory medical situation. But the new body will be able to give guidelines and advice before the event.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am most interested in what the hon. Member says. I do not want to go into the specific case, but I invite him to suggest what kind of advice the new-style GMC would give in a case of that kind.
  Dr. Vaughan: That is one of the matters we shall want to discuss when the Bill goes into Committee. The wording of Clause 5 still seems to us vague and unsatisfactory.
  There is also a division within the new structure between the committees dealing with negligence and misconduct and the committee dealing with health. The Minister said that there is to be a signposting, steering preliminary committee which will decide to which part of the GMC cases will go.
  We are rather concerned here. A preliminary committee may suspend a doctor for two months, which could totally ruin his career. We should look carefully at the safeguards for a doctor in those circumstances. We shall also question the confidentiality of these committees.
  Finally, there is the question of registration and the status of doctors who trained overseas. The Government have given some idea of the lines they will follow, and I hope that the Minister will let us have as quickly as he can the wording of the amendments he has in mind.
  We welcome the Bill. We believe that it will bring to life a very important medical body. It will be far more democratic than has been the case in the past, and it will have powers to ensure proper
  1636
  general standards of medicine in this country. We shall do our best to support it.
  11.4 a.m.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: We in the Liberal Party join in the welcome that has been given to the Bill. Comments from both Front Benches indicate that the old proverb is untrue; a rolling stone does gather moss, and this has gathered quite a bit in the course of its gentle roll through one House so far. Our proceedings here indicate that it will have a fairly gentle roll through the House of Commons, too.
  Perhaps because we are in the relative obscurity of the Second Reading Committee, the wider context of argument and dissent about the National Health Service seems to have left us undisturbed and unaffected in this quiet upper corridor. The public might find it difficult to understand that we are able to debate a measure of reorganisation without pausing for breath and wondering whether we dare reorganise anything further in the National Health Service, considering to what extent the responsibility of doctors has been undermined by the reorganisation that took place a few years ago.
  In this case, the consultations that have taken place and the very nature of what we are trying to do—to reform the body by which doctors govern themselves, to a large extent—indicate that we are on sounder lines. We welcome both the original provisions of the Bill and some of the additions.
  It is particularly valuable that separate provision has been made for dealing with the problem of sick doctors so that there will be a procedure available and, perhaps, more readily used, for dealing with cases where a doctor is unfit to practise and is clearly a danger to the public. This problem should now be handled with the sympathy and understanding appropriate to someone who is genuinely sick rather than with the full rigour of disciplinary procedures which are more appropriate to cases of deliberate misconduct.
  We think it sensible to sort out what has now become an anomaly in medical matters in the relations between this country and the Republic of Ireland. It seems a natural corollary of both the existence of a separate State and our

  1637
  EEC relations with the Republic of Ireland.
  I welcome what has been said this morning about overseas doctors. We shall look at the new Government amendments with great interest. It is satisfactory that, with the Bill going through the House, consultations have none the less been able to make considerable further progress, enabling us to expand the Bill in that important direction.
  I have merely two problems to refer to, and one has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan). Before going much further with the Bill, we must have a clear idea of what the end cost is to be for the doctor. Doctors are entitled to know what the effect on retention fees may be and to have an assurance that the mere size and extension of the work of the General Medical Council will not involve them in further bills which, however the Minister may say they can be met through practice expenses, never seem to appear in the opposite column of the double entry book-keeping at the end of the day. I think that doctors are genuinely concerned about the cost implications of this proposal. If, indeed, this is to be offset by help from the Exchequer, we need to know the implications of that.
  The second problem concerns the very introduction of Clause 5, to which my noble Friend Lord Winstanley made considerable reference in another place. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Reading, South because of my concern on this point. We must pause and think carefully about what is involved in inviting and encouraging the GMC to make general statements and give general advice on issues of medical ethics. The very case to which the hon. Member referred vividly illustrates that.
  It is not clear to me why the GMC should be able to make a professional judgment which the doctor himself ought to be able to make. Nor is it clear why the GMC should be invited or encouraged to make much wider judgments with far-reaching implications in cases on which Parliament or the courts ought ultimately to give a judgment.
  Dr. Glyn: The case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading South,
  1638
  was a complicated legal one, as I understand it. He was suggesting that what was required in such circumstances was a clear decision on the law, because not just one law but several are affected. If the GMC could have got its lawyers to give some advice, I think that my hon. Friend would have felt much happier.
  Mr. Beith: Yes. For the GMC to put at the disposal of practitioners the advice of its lawyers is one thing, but, as I said, the wording must be considered carefully. If the invitation is for the GMC to make a pronouncement on the law, that will be of no help to the doctor because, at the end of the day, the courts could decide in a way contrary to the GMC's advice.
  That is why I was puzzled when the Minister used the phrase "give it legal cover" in his opening comments. I think that he simply meant that the Bill would give the GMC the statutory right to make statements of this kind. It would be a misrepresentation to suggest that the GMC could in any way override or do away with the courts' responsibility in these matters. There is a world of difference between the quite genuine function which many professional organisations perform in simply supplying a legal advisory service to their members—advice which a local solicitor might give but which might be much better given by a lawyer retained for his professional experience in a particular field—and giving indications about directions in which the law ought to go, whch is a matter for the courts and for Parliament.
  We must look at these provisions carefully. There may already have been some second thoughts about the rightness of giving to the GMC responsibilities which could ultimately conflict with those of the courts and of Parliament. I hope that, as we discuss the Bill in its later stages, we can clear up that matter.
  11.11 a.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I always feel that we should take care when we are dealing with the rights of the medical profession. I do not see the responsibility of the medical profession in these matters as the total responsibility, or the only responsibility that matters. Primarily, the doctor's responsibility arises at the point of contact with his patient. The doctor, in my opinion, has only a specialist voice in the responsibility for policy matters.

  1639
  He has not necessarily the whole controlling influence over any of those matters. I do not think that he should have complete responsibility for action.
  Indeed, I may say without wanting to inject a note of bitter controversy into the debate, that any medico-political matter which receives the unanimous approval of the medical profession fills me with a certain amount of fear. It means ipso facto that once again the consumer, the patient, is left out in the cold.
  I want to make one or two points about some of the clauses in the Bill. On the constitution of the GMC, I suppose that we have to have some kind of organisation with control of a certain kind over the medical profession and that, if we have it, it is better that there should be on it more elected than nominated people.
  I think that I speak for everyone in the Committee when I say that we support the democratic principle of election. The trouble is that this election of members has a kind of phoney air about it. It is a highly selective electorate that will elect members of the GMC—the medical profession, and only a tiny proportion of the profession at that. I assure the Committee that the vast majority of general practitioners will not get a look in, and if any of those elected enjoy the humble status of a GP they will have to devote almost their entire free time to medical politics. Indeed, such a person will have to devote even more than his free time. He could be passing off some of the medical work that he should be doing in order to be involved in medical politics.
  I believe that we should be considering—though I appreciate that it is more of a Committee affair than a Second Reading matter—the possibility of electing to the GMC some representatives of the public—some consumers—not nominated, but elected. However, I shall let that pass for the moment.
  Let me say something about language requirements. This fills me with a certain amount of fear. Many doctors come from the Commonwealth—the new Commonwealth as it is called—where English is the language in which they learn medicine. If there is no longer any reciprocity, these doctors will be at a disadvantage.
  1640
  In addition, it seems strange to me that our obligations to our EEC partners mean that we put doctors coming from France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and so forth in an entirely different category from doctors coming from India or Pakistan. I can think of examples of doctors coming from Pakistan or India, or other parts of the new Commonwealth, who do not speak English very well but who speak it no worse than do French doctors. Yet the French doctor has an advantage. The interesting thing is that Indian or Pakistani doctors could find a ready-made practice in this country with people who speak their language. But there are very few people in this country whose sole language is French, Italian, German or Dutch. I find this worrying because again it seems that we are discriminating against one section of the medical community because of the colour of their skin. I am sorry to have to bring in this aspect, but this is what it appears we are doing in order to try to close the door to the immigration of doctors from the new Commonwealth.
  I turn now to the subject of medical education. I confess immediately to being somewhat out of touch with the present state of medical education in this country, in relation to the curriculum. I suspect that it is not all that different from what it has always been. I suspect that it is oriented more towards the development of the specialist than it is towards the development of the generalist.
  Medical education should take cognisance of a state of affairs which we have had 30 years to observe in this country since formation of the National Health Service—namely, the ever-increasing prominent part the general practitioner is playing in our Health Service and, indeed, the ever-increasing part that he ought to be playing in our Health Service. I submit that the curriculum when it is set up should take this into account. The worse thing that could happen to medicine in this country would be to allow general practice to degenerate into the pseudo-specialisation of continental Europe. The GP is the first point of contact that the public have with the National Health Service. Indeed, for most people he is the only point of contact.
  I can see a situation developing in this country where, if we paid the GP what I think he ought to be paid, we would get

  1641
  such an influx of the best—if I may use the term—of the medical profession into general practice that no one would want to go into the specialties. That is where it should begin. That is where the best doctors should be. This is a little wide of what we are discussing this morning, Mr. Bonner Pink, but I submit that it is relevant to the full field of medical education. Since medical education is part and parcel of what is being done by the GMC, there is a certain relevance in it this morning.
  I do not think that there is any disagreement about these matters. It is merely a question of the niggling doubts that some of us have about these matters. I think these are matters which we could take up in Committee in order to try to smooth out some of the rough edges and to try to get some assurances which were not implicit in what the Minister said this morning.
  11.20 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I am not sure whether in this Committee one declares an interest. I think perhaps I should, being married to a practising general practitioner.
  There are two or three points which are worth airing on Second Reading. I come as a layman to this matter, and I share the concern raised by hon. Members about the General Medical Council consisting of 98 persons. As I understand it, that is not the absolute number. Indeed, it can be greater than 98. I wonder whether in Committee we ought not to consider putting an upper limit on it, rather than leaving it open-ended.
  Certainly, I shall want to question the need for any form of branch council At the moment there is a natral inclination in the House that anything to do with this country immediately has to be devolved to the four parts of the United Kingdom. If there is evidence that branch councils heretofore have played an important role in the control of medicine, I shall be willing to listen and be converted. But it appears from my observations that branch councils have been fairly moribund, suggesting to me that there will be no great impetus to change their role in the future.
  Hon. Members who raised queries on Clause 5 were right to do so. We in this
  1642
  House are sceptical of guidance from bodies of one kind or another. But in this case I believe that there is a need for guidance to be given or for a view to be expresed on some of the difficult areas in medicine, albeit that the final decision must rest with the practitioner to do what he or she thinks appropriate. But it will certainly help medical practitioners to know the view of their governing body so that that view may be used as evidence should the matter go to court.
  In Committee, we should look in some depth at the fitness to practice committees. I welcome the differentiation between health and professional conduct. All of us who have had contact over many years with the medical profession know sad cases where health has been impaired. It is right to differentiate between health and professional conduct and to treat the matter with sympathy and understanding, both for the protection of the patient and in the interest of the doctor.
  I am concerned about the lack of appeal procedure in relation to the preliminary proceedings committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) made the valid point that if a doctor got to the unfortunate situation of a hearing at the preliminary proceedings committee and was later completely cleared, there would be a long-standing smear on that practitioner. It requires a person of great resolution to survive that experience.
  There is a case for differentiating between health and professional conduct on the question of an appeal. On the health side one should perhaps take the view that there should be no right of appeal. If the matter has got that far, it is obviously serious. But on professional conduct, we may wish to consider in Committee the possibilities of having an appeal.
  Although I have read the education clauses three times, and although I was assisted by the Minister's notes, I confess that I remain a little confused, particularly with regard to who would have the final say if the education committee put forward proposals which were not in keeping with the general views of the elected members of the GMC. I raise that subject as one who sat on a university council where, at certain stages, there

  1643
  were difficult relationships between the senate and the council. I sat on the council of the City University in its formative years, and thankfully the problems were resolved in the end. However, it can be a very contentious area, and we should make clear who controls what.
  The Minister has assisted us this morning on the subject of registration. It is a pity that we cannot see the Government's new proposals in detail. Hon. Members will want to look hard at those new proposals. I have worked overseas—as has my wife—and I share hon. Members' concern about discrimination. Clearly, language is important in medicine, whether one chooses to practise in this country or overseas. But we should recognise that there has to be a fairness of approach.
  The other aspect—I do not know whether it comes under registration or education—is that another pre-requisite before final registration of overseas doctors should be a course in drugs. There are all too many examples of an unfamiliarity with prescribing in one country or another, because there is no procedure for education or teaching doctors from overseas.
  Finally, I shall want to look at Schedule 1. It is probably not sound to have a simple majority in relation to decisions of the Council. If the Council is having a contentious argument about some aspect of its affairs, it is probably not right merely to have a simple majority. We have seen in our debates on the Floor of the House that there must be safeguards. If it is a matter on which there must be a vote, I should have thought that a two-thirds majority is a sounder way forward, rather than a simple majority.
  Generally, I welcome the Bill and look forward to taking part in the Committee proceedings.
  11.26 a.m.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In my experience 95 per cent. of health matters are matters of consensus. Of all the Bills coming before the House, this Bill is even more than usual a consensus measure. It has received a welcome from all sides and most of us wish it a very speedy passage because even if it receives a speedy passage, it will take about two years to bring it fully into effect.
  1644
  I therefore join the hon. and qualified Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) in welcoming the Bill and speeding it on its way. We shall not delay the Committee too long this morning.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), I immediately had the same political reaction as the hon. and qualified Member for Reading, South when he pointed out the complete unanimity of the medical profession. My political hackles automatically rise and I wonder what is the catch if all the medical profession are so much in favour. My hon. and qualified Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) made the point much better than I could that of course we should be concerned—as, indeed, is the Bill—with the rights of the patients. All too often we lose sight of the fact that such a Bill is not for the benefit of the doctors, but to help look after patients. From time to time in our debates we find ourselves dominated by the professional opinions and advice being given by the medical profession.
  I do not want to go much further than my hon. and qualified Friend the Member for East Kilbride in the problems that arise in relation to different specialities. The hon. and qualified Gentleman is a well known consultant, on the one hand, and my hon. and qualified Friend is an ordinary GP on the other. As the unqualified one in the middle, I am not prepared to go very far into the way the Bill affects those two sectors.
  I accept on the educational provisions that it was very much the primary care of the general practitioner that for years was supposed to be the front line of defence. But invariably the general practitioner has found himself at the rear when it comes to the way in which legislation is brought forward.
  We shall all be looking forward to the Committee stage, particularly with regard to Clause 15, to see how medical education can best be distributed.
  I join with the hon. and qualified Member for Reading, South—you must forgive me, Mr. Bonner Pink. I am getting fed up with "hon. and learned" and "hon. and gallant". When we have doctors on the Committee, at least we should recognise that they are qualified.

  1645
  This Bill enables us to express gratitude to Lord Hunt. I join the hon. Member for Reading, South in saying that he did an excellent job. The Bill has been transformed as a result of what Lord Hunt said in the other place. It has been to our benefit that a good deal of the debate that took place elsewhere, and the acceptance by the Government of some of the provisions that were put forward, have strengthened the Bill.
  The Bill implements the Merrison report and is long overdue. We all recognise that; we know the problems. The Minister said that there would be a short Bill to start with and that major provisions would be introduced when we reached the controversial stage. We are grateful to the Minister for providing notes on the Bill, and it would be helpful if, before we reach the Committee stage, there could be a memorandum for lay Members which will bring forward, in some logical arrangement, the kind of matters left out of the Bill even though the other place has included some of them and which would indicate what might be included in a subsequent Bill. Many hon. Members may wish to table amendments in Committee. However, we do not wish to delay progress by moving amendments on this Bill if we can be sure of being able to table them subsequently. However, if we cannot be sure of getting them later on there will be a series of Merrison-type amendments which would delay the Committee stage.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) in showing considerable concern—we have had discussions elsewhere—about the difference in treatment of doctors coming from the new Commonwealth and elsewhere, and those from Common Market countries. The matter has been helped by changes to the Bill in another place, but there is still disquiet. It would be unacceptable if, through our membership of the Common Market, doctors from the British Commonwealth, who have been part of our family system for generations, were disadvantaged compared with those from overseas. The crucial question here and in Committee will be on temporary times. We shall be looking at timetables and we may wish to table amendments to bring the two things more into line. It
  1646
  is a tragedy that the directive of the Common Market, giving free mobility to professional people, including doctors, over-rides anything that we do here. It is one of the tragedies of the Treaty of Rome that, even though the House of Commons may decide on a different procedure, it has no power to alter it in relation to decisions being made by the EEC.
  There is a provision relating to one member of the EEC, the Republic of Ireland. I know that all members of the Common Market are equal, but some have to be more equal than others, and Ireland has a special relationship. For years we have benefited from the highly qualified doctors that have come to this country, supplementing the number of medical practitioners that we need. However, I should like further information from my hon. Friend on what the situation is likely to be as a result of this Bill becoming law compared with what I believe to be, although I may be wrong, the 1976 provision relating to Irish doctors. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain that.
  I should like to raise the question of the professional conduct committee and the way in which advice can be tendered. It is a good provision because, instead of a doctor being allowed to practice or not, guidance can be given at an earlier stage and some of the earlier blunt decisions may be averted. Would my hon. Friend also deal with the problem of the age of doctors, and how the Bill will affect that. At the moment a doctor in general practice may not practise after the age of 90.
  It may well be that there are many knowledgeable nonagenarian medical practitioners, but there can be an imbalance here. For example, the average size of a general practitioner's list in the North is about 2,900 whereas in Bournemouth it is 600. Quite a number of elderly doctors who desire to retire and keep their hand in, supplementing whatever pension they get, might find it more salubrious to practise in Bournemouth than in Stockton-on-Tees or some other place in the north of England.
  Therefore, in terms of the length of time that a general practitioner may practise, I wonder whether the General Medical Council will have any way by which,

  1647
  apart from questions of sickness or incompetence in dealing with patients, some limit could be put on the age to which practitioners may continue.
  On the question of the cost of running the enlarged Council, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friends who have said that a system of election is always preferable to appointment. The appointee is usually the person who keeps his nose clean, who is very much on the side of the Establishment and whose presence is accepted. But reforms and changes in committees and councils are often effected not so much by the conformists as by the rebels who are prepared to speak up, and the latter are more likely to be members of bodies which are so much part of the medical establishment within the General Medical Council if they are elected, as the Bill provides.
  Nevertheless, the problem of the size and the extra cost involved are germane to our consideration of the Bill. The Committee will recall that a few years ago there was a pay strike when a number of doctors decided that they would not pay their fees because they felt that the increase was too much. As I understand the position, in the main it does not affect the basic income of the doctor because his fees paid for various things are allowed for in general practice, as practice expenses. Therefore, if a doctor pays out fees on the one hand, in a few years he will get the money back because the amount that the Review Body will give for remuneration will enable that amount to be reimbursed to him.
  However, there is a difference here between junior hospital doctors and doctors in general practice. The way in which the remuneration is set is different. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with the question whether the enlarged fee will mean that one section of the profession is disadvantaged against another. If that is so, one might seek to put down amendments in Committee.
  The only other matter I wish to raise applies to the way in which overseas doctors may practise here. Again, it is affected by the speciality in which they are practising. There can be a vast difference between a surgeon coming from Bonn or Paris and performing an operation in one of our teaching hospitals and going back again—leaving home early in the morning and being back in time
  1648
  for tea in the afternoon, exercising a right to practise which could be an aspect of competition which our consultants might not always welcome—and a person who intends to set up practice here and take a contract with a hospital for a period, or become a community physician or a doctor in general practice.
  I am extremely concerned that in Italy there are twice as many doctors as we have and the failure rate on international examination is 60 per cent. compared with 6 per cent. here. This could mean not just that we could have a large number of Italian doctors settling here—I do not think that that is so—but we could have a large number of doctors moonlighting for specific short-term appointments which may or may not be to the advantage of the National Health Service, from both the patients' and the doctors' points of view. I hope that that aspect will be considered when we reach Committee stage.
  I welcome the Bill. I hope that Clause 15, the education clause, will at long last facilitate some vital changes in the medical curriculum. It is said that it is more difficult to alter the curriculum of the medical faculty than it is to get a camel through the eye of a needle.
  Certainly, the Todd Report is very much older than the Merrison Report and, although some reforms have gone through. I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). The amount of general practice included in teaching a doctor to do his job is still woefully inadequate compared with the amount of training a person is given to be a hospital doctor. Yet it is the general practitioner who has the greater responsibility on his shoulders.
  I hope that out of Clause 15 will come not just the setting of standards by the General Medical Council but much greater provision for it to make not just suggestions but vital changes. For example, in the pre-registration year, for one year, the idea of just six months' surgery and six months' medicine could well be altered to some advantage. In view of the large increase in, say, psychiatric medicine and the way in which obstetrics play an important part in general practice, I wonder whether, instead of their being part of a six-month or one-year pre-registration

  1649
  period, there could be basic changes in certain areas which would be to the benefit of the patient.
  I look forward to the passage of the Bill through the Committee. I feel sure that all parties will give it their full support.
  11.42 a.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: The Bill both when it was in the Lords and as it now comes before us, together with the Merrison Report, has concentrated the mind remarkably on considering what the GMC is. As someone who has worked as a layman in the National Health Service for the past seven years, I confess that I had never given very serious thought to the exact position of the GMC.
  We were reminded this morning by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that the Bill may not go far enough in recognising the place of the public in health care and health provision. The Bill is very much a medical Bill—a Bill for doctors and consultants—for the medical profession. It is designed not just to set up a new constitution for the GMC but, as it were, to safeguard the GMC, and there is not enough, in my opinion, about safeguarding the public.
  After all, 120 years ago, the Medical Act 1858, which established the GMC, made quite clear what the GMC was being established for. The first requirement was to safeguard the public. The second was to establish and create for the first time a register of doctors, a system in which we gave the lead and which was followed throughout the world. Third, the GMC was given power by Parliament to take disciplinary action.
  In reading the debates in the other place and hearing the discussion this morning, I was interested particularly in the questions that arise on Clause 5, namely, the power now to be given to the GMC not just to take disciplinary action but, in a wide and general sense, to give advice.
  I have never seen a clause so generally and widely worded as Clause 5. I am not a draftsman or lawyer—I shall learn as we go along—but, as I read it, it gives open-ended powers to the GMC. I am not against Clause 5, but I am concerned
  1650
  about it. It is necessary that doctors should be able to get advice from time to time regarding what could be considered correct or incorrect behaviour—or even infamous behaviour, though they will probably always know what infamous behaviour is—and there must be some occasions when being unsure of the dividing line between proper and improper behaviour holds them back from something which might make a valuable contribution to medical knowledge.
  For example, the publishing of a paper might be determined by the Council at some later stage to be advertising on the part of the doctor. But too late—already he has been summoned to the GMC, not just to be told off but to be struck off.
  In the other place, Lord Gardiner, speaking from his long experience as a lawyer, said that, of course, it was not so bad for lawyers. Lawyers could go to the Bar Council. They could go to others and say "Will this be all right? Can we have a little advice?" Guidance can then be given before any error is made.
  Even in our profession as politicians, we know that we can go not only to qualified but sometimes to learned Members of the House—to lawyers—and say "I wonder whether it will be all right if I speak on television on this matter." "Be very careful", we are sometimes told, "because you might be in contempt of court", or even "You might be in contempt of the House". We can get advice.
  Doctors must find this situation arising more and more as they are more and more in the public eye and are more and more using the media. We shall hear more about this, I hope, in Committee. I do not intend to penetrate too deeply now into the subject, but there still seems to be a reluctance in the medical profession, from the existing GMC, perhaps from the Royal Colleges and other learned parts of the profession, and even from the BMA, to allow advice to be given as I think it should be given. A doctor can still ask the GMC for advice, but he may end up with the GMC saying "If you do something wrong, we will tell you off. We may even strike you off." That rather worries me.
  However, I confine my observations today to saying that I am sorry the Bill does not go as far as Sir Alec Merrison

  1651
  and his Committee recommended, unanimously and so strongly, on two matters. The Merrison Report was, after all, welcomed by medical opinion up and down the country, and the medical Press gave it a very good reception. The Secretary of State, too, gave it a good reception last July. Representation has been improved, which I welcome. But I am not quite clear what those 98, and possibly more, members will look like. I should like to think that the rank and file doctors will have a much bigger representation. Sir Alec Merrison recognised in his report that the GMC is at present somewhat remote, out of touch and out of date. Those were the very words that he used.
  Clauses 1, 2 and 3, we hope, put that right. I am not sure where the Bill specifies, as Merrison advised and recommended, that young doctors are to have a voice, but perhaps this will come out as we consider the Bill. I hope that young doctors, qualified over a number of years, will have a voice. We know that the Bill provides for an age limit of 70, which I welcome.
  Mention has been made this morning of the size of the Council. Ninety-eight members is an enormous number. I know that we are saying that we want to let in all types of persons, including lay members, university representatives, persons geographically representing the country, and so on. But 98 is a very large size. Whenever I talk to members of the CBI about its Grand Council of 200 members—which is admittedly twice as big—they say "You can never get your voice heard. There is never time". I am concerned here not about all the 98 members of the GMC, but about who will be shaken to the top, and who are the top 10 who will really make the decisions. I should like to think it possible to imagine—but it is almost an impossibility, I think—that all 98 will have a fair hearing.
  I am a member of a regional health authority. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), increased the numbers sitting on regional and area health authorities. Today, I believe that they are cumbersome and unwieldy, and that when there are more than 30 persons sitting round a table it is not as good as when there are 15.
  I must confess to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan), who
  1652
  leads us so admirably on this side—and to the Minister, who, I am sure, will lead his own team admirably, too, for there is not much dispute here this morning—that I am intrigued by this Bill in all its dimensions. But, above all, I continue to be intrigued—I have had my eyes opened—by the relationship between the GMC and the general education of doctors at various stages in the profession.
  I am intrigued by the relationship which has grown up between the GMC, the universities and medical schools and the Royal Colleges in connection with education. It has lasted very well. I do not say it is not working well. Who am I to say that? I am not in the profession. However, here is a Bill which must be concerned with seeing whether the relationship will work well in the future. I understand that it has worked well in the past, but is the Minister satisfied with this relationship? If not, now is the time to speak and to adjust. The Minister has had plenty of opportunity to seek advice throughout the profession and bodies such as the GMC and the BMA. The relationship has worked well and has had a good history, but is the Minister satisfied that the relationship has a good future with the new constitution on educational responsibility? We shall not have another medical Bill for many years.
  There are two major omissions from the Bill concerning overseas doctors and the strong recommendations for a specialist register. These omissions seem to indicate a reluctance on the part of the Government—or perhaps it is just reluctance on the part of the profession which is being reflected through the Government and the Minister—to take a step further down the road to democracy in the National Health Service, and not just in the National Health Service but in the whole of health provision in this country, because the medical profession is concerned not just about one side of the health service but about the private sector as well.
  It suggests to me that the Government are hesitant, that they have had some questions put to them by advisers and that the very strong recommendation made by Merrison regarding specialist registration has been turned aside for all sorts of reasons. I do not think that they

  1653
  can be hesitant. I do not know to what extent the Press will report our deliberations, both today and subsequently, but I should think that the public would be very concerned.
  The public were concerned to have their interests safeguarded by a register of doctors 120 years ago. Surely there is a very strong case for a register at the far end of the scale in the medical profession, of the specialists. After all, the National Health Service does have a type of register, but it does not go far enough, and I think that it is accepted in the medical profession that it is not the National Health Service which should be setting these standards, but the GMC at the pinnacle of the profession. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for setting standards lies with the medical profession. It is not the responsibility of anyone else, and the medical profession itself must not take the blame for what is happening in the Health Service.
  Mr. Crouch: I am grateful for that observation. It does not really differ from what I was saying.
  The other omission concerns the problem of overseas doctors. It is not just a question of language that is involved, it is sometimes a question of standards. I quote briefly from an article in the British Medical Journal on 26th April 1975, at the time of the publication of the Merrison report, on the performance of the overseas doctor who carries out such a valuable service in our Health Service and, as the article says, fills a very real gap. The article states:
  "Measured on their performance in postgraduate examinations these doctors have lower average standards than British graduates; out of 1,000 candidates for the MRCGP examination (essentially a voluntary test of competence) the pass rate for doctors from the United Kingdom and Ireland was 82 per cent., but for the others—mostly from India and Pakistan—it was only 21 per cent."
  It goes on to say that there is no doubt about the contribution that they make. I am sorry, too, that the Bill does not seem to take care of that point. It is a very real one.
  Mr. Molloy: Is not it much more important for the Bill, if it could, to ensure that the real ethic of the National Health Service was applied, and that those brilliant men and women in consultancy should not put up a bar against someone who needed their services, purely on financial grounds?
  Mr. Crouch: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at there. Whether or not he wishes to elaborate. I do not know. But perhaps we shall have an opportunity to further it when we are in Committee, and hear his views on that subject.
  The Bill does not seem to recognise sufficiently the concern of the public that our health care and medical standards should be improved and safeguarded, and seen to be improved and safeguarded. The public have been brought into the act by the National Health Service Acts. By recent health service legislation, we have today community health service councils. The public are very much aware and taking part in decisions to improve our health care and health provision.
  We have a considerably enlarged membership of health authorities—not just at random nomination, but by the nomination of elected members from local government authorities. I feel that this Bill, concerned as it is with medical standards, has ducked the issue and forgotten that the public are looking at it. They are concerned about health provisions in this country, and concerned about medical standards. Perhaps as we go through the Bill we might bear this in mind.
  I sensed as the Minister was talking this morning that he had wanted to go along with Merrison on the question of overseas doctors and on the specialist register, but that he had run into difficulties. I reiterate, the GMC has existed for 100 years as a safeguard to the public.
  Mr. Moyle: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, but possibly I did not express myself sufficiently clearly this morning. The Government intend to introduce amendments to the Bill in Committee to improve the arrangements affecting overseas doctors.
  Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the Minister. I did not take that on board

  1655
  when he was talking. I am glad that he has made that further correction. I welcome the Bill and I look forward to having my eyes still further opened about the functions of the GMC. Above all, I hope that we will not forget that we are here as Members of Parliament in considering this, to do what the GMC itself was required to do when it was set up—namely, to safeguard the public all the time.
  11.58 a.m.
  Mr. Molloy: I do not intend to hold up the Second Reading to any great extent. I was delighted by the intervention made by my hon. Friend. If he had not made it, I intended to ask him about it. Though I believe he said earlier that it was the Government's intention to introduce an amendment to remove what is a patently obvious distasteful discriminatory measure against overseas doctors.
  If one is a Common Market doctor, one can come here straightaway. It is quite all right. One even has six months in which to learn the language. But if one is a British Commonwealth doctor or any other overseas doctor, one has to take the language test immediately. It is in this regard, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), that I want to clarify what I said in my intervention.
  In my ethic of the National Health Service, I see nothing good whatever in any brilliant doctor from any part of the world coming here, passing the language examination, having standards of which both I and the hon. Gentleman would approve as being superb, and then spending most of his time in private practice to make money out of those high standards. I can understand the need for some form of qualification. To ensure that certain standards are maintained we have to see to it, I suppose, that language qualifications will enable both the doctor and patient to be able to communicate one with the other. But, at the same time, I welcome this provision in one respect.
  I am one of those who believe that only when we have a worldwide free, comprehensive health service instead of NATO or Warsaw pacts or things to blow up, destroy, maim, blind, kill or obliterate will we really have put sanity on the agenda.
  1656
  It would be wrong for me to put Committee stage points, as you will tell me, Mr. Bonner Pink, but a previous speaker has mentioned the role of community, area and regional health councils. One cannot see in the Medical Bill any correlation between its aims and objects and those of other organisations that we have established. I am bound to say in parentheses that we seem to go on establishing all sorts of organisations and adding more and more to the Health Service except the real quintessentials that are required from the Health Service—that doctors and hospitals can treat people who are ill.
  However, we have community, area and regional health councils whose primary job is, when they have a serious complaint, to write to the MP or to a group of MPs. We all know this. Therefore, I have a request to make. I do not want any more letters. The prime job of CHC's, AHAs, RHAs and all the vast number of people who sit on them, when they hear of a problem from someone in a particular area—a tricky problem involving a complaint against a doctor, or whatever it may be—seems to be to work out whose constituency he resides in so that they can find out to which Member of Parliament they can send the complaint. I ask my hon. Friend to indicate in Committee whether he can find some hanger for this submission, so that we can discuss the possible relationship between the new GMC, with all its appurtenances, and the other bodies that I have mentioned for the purpose of submitting complaints, getting answers back, making suggestions, and so on.
  Although, technically speaking, there may be no immediate relationship betwen the organisations that I have mentioned and the new GMC, I believe it inevitable that, at some stage, there will be a connection between the organisations already established and that anticipated in the Bill. I am aware that it is a matter that we should examine in Committee, but I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could give even the slightest adumbration that it may be possible for us to do so.
  12.3 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Hodgson: I, too, approach the Bill as a layman. As such, I have noticed that the curse of our modern age is the everlasting increase in administrative requirements and administrators

  1657
  —the point has just been powerfully made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy)—the consequent everlasting increase in committees to look after the administrators and administrative requirements, and the way in which those parent committees spawn children called sub-committees and grandchildren called sub-sub-committees.
  While that is in part a reasonable response to public demand for higher standards and improvements, it is a process that must be carefully watched over to ensure that increases are justified. My concern about the Bill is therefore in the broad context of the increase in the numbers of new bodies that are set up.
  This is not only because it is not yet clear to me that that increase in number will necessarily lead to more effectiveness or to higher standards, but also, equally importantly, because there is the other side to the equation—namely, the cost involved—the cost to the doctor, the consequent cost to the National Health Service and to the patient.
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill tells us:
  "The General Council will be put to some extra expense in servicing the increased membership … and in operating the new Health Committee. If this extra expense were to cause the General Council to increase the annual fee … the increase would be reflected in practice expenses reimbursed to general medical practitioners in the National Health Service and to that extent there would be an effect on public expenditure."
  The amount is not expected to be significant. We have heard of all kinds of projects which have gone through the House which were not expected to cause significant increases in expenditure but, when the time came, somehow the "insignificant" figure became a quite large one. I hope that during the Committee stage we shall have an opportunity to explore this in a little more detail.
  That leads me to my second point. If the GMC is to be asked to work on an increased range of topics which are more complex and quite difficult—we have heard several speeches about the difficulties of Clause 5, which will undoubtedly require the GMC to have expert advice available—is there not some argument for the GMC to look to the Government for some support in this area?
  1658
  I do not know what goes on in the EEC and how our partners there deal with this matter. Perhaps, again, when we come to the Committee stage, the Minister could say something about how the regulative authorities in Germany and France deal with the medical profession and whether the Governments are involved at all.
  I entirely underline the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) about the need for the GMC to remain independent of the Government. However, to some extent, the Government are asking the GMC to do some of their work in this Bill.
  I have one other general point. Here, if I may, I shall use a medical analogy. I believe that the Bill is something of a skeleton in that there is a lot to be fleshed out by Orders in Council and by Statutory Instruments of one sort or another. When introducing the Bill in another place the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell said:
  "This Bill is mainly an enabling measure. It leaves the fine detail … to be worked out"
  and he went on to say:
  "It is also a flexible measure."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29th November 1977; Vol. 387, c. 1150.]
  It is, perhaps, not an unworthy sentiment to try to get flexibility; to try to make it as easy as possible for the GMC to respond to changes in conditions—advances in medical technology, ethics and public morality. But on the other hand, we should bear in mind that we are here today—and this was the reason for Professor Merrison's report—because there was considerable disquiet in the medical profession about the activities of the GMC. I wonder whether we do not have a duty to ensure that, as far as possible, the areas which lack definition—the grey areas—are cut down and illuminated as much as possible.
  Therefore, when we come to the Committee stage I shall certainly be seeking to find out from the Minister something more specific about the make-up of the General Medical Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) referred to the problems of handling large committees. Of course, if we have nominated members who comprise a significant body of that overall

  1659
  large committee, they will be a powerful force because they will talk with a united voice whereas the other elected members will reflect the far more vociferous and more broken-down body of opinion. It is possible that nominated members, because they will vote as a block, will have a power that far outweighs their actual number. Therefore, I think that it is important that we should be clear, if not about exactly how many members—there should be a maximum and minimum, perhaps—about the sort of proportions that are likely to be taken on board.
  Second, there is the question of the elections in the electoral districts. Here we have a grave difficulty because the size of the constituencies must be great in relation to the number of doctors practising in England as opposed to those in Wales and Scotland. We have seen in our discussions on the Floor of the House in the Committee stage of the devolution Bill some of the problems that would come from a federal system where one part of the federal system was so much larger than the others.
  The final point I make on the constitution question concerns the branch councils to which we have already referred. Once a council has been set up, or even promised, the possibilities of getting rid of it are greatly reduced, because once it is in being, it finds a reason for existing.
  We already have a branch council for Scotland and that has existed in a nominal way, meeting once a year. There has been no particular demand for extension or expansion of its functions. It seems that here we may be creating and proliferating unnecessarily the committees that are involved in the Bill.
  The only other point I wish to make concerns the education clauses which have already been referred to. As I said earlier, I am a layman, but I could make no sense of the clauses despite re-reading them. To a layman they are extremely vague. Co-ordination, composition, make-up of committee—all are left for Statutory Instruments or Orders in Council later, or for the GMC to nominate in the way that it thinks fit.
  It is not clear how liaison will take place, particularly between universities and the Royal Colleges. They will have a definite interest in future medical edu-
  1660
  cation. I understand British medical education has a good reputation around the world and it is essential that we do not allow our reputation to slip away. On this Bill, which is obviously a rare event, we should take every possible opportunity to bring our educational standards, and the co-ordination and planning of the future development of medical education, as up to date as possible.
  With those two main provisos concerning the increase in the complexity of administration and the way in which it has been set up and the educational standards and the future planning of medical education about which I have some worries, I, too, extend the welcome that other hon. Members have given to the Bill. I look forward to discussing it in Committee if it receives its Second Reading today.
  12.12 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: I think that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) will agree that it is a welcome change to have the consensus on both sides of the House that we have seen this morning. It is very different from the last medical Bill on which he and I were engaged for many months.
  Nevertheless, this is an important occasion for the House because we are guardians of a good deal here that affects not only the profession but the public. We must ensure that the public's confidence in the medical profession and in the National Health Service is maintained and improved. It is a vital job that we are doing as Members of Parliament.
  Second, we must ensure that we have, as far as possible, a contented profession. The fact that the GMC is being restructured for the first time for a great many years does not necessarily mean that it will be in any way more effective or more responsive to the trends and thinking of the medical profession than it was before. Therefore, to achieve a satisfied profession we must ensure that the new GMC will be a positive body giving a positive lead to its members as well as a fair body, bearing in mind the great power that it has in judging the conduct of the profession.
  The Committee has shown that there are four or five particular issues about

  1661
  which it is particularly concerned and on which it wants a great deal more information. I suspect that there will be a number of probing amendments tabled on some issues. One issue which hon. Members are particularly concerned about is the question of any discrimination between the treatment of doctors from overseas and doctors from the Commonwealth. We hope that we can somehow engineer into the Bill equal treatment as soon as possible for Commonwealth immigrant doctors and doctors from the EEC. Nevertheless, I welcome the new system to do away with temporary registration by means of limited registration. I hope that we shall be able to go along with the Government amendments, when we see them, as we have been able to go along with the Government on this issue this morning.
  An issue which worries my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is the preliminary proceedings committee, the question of appeal against its decisions, and whether a doctor's whole career might be affected if he were subsequently cleared. My hon. Friend has had great experience of the pressures on a family doctor and the feelings that exist. Being married to a doctor, no doubt, he can understand that better than other hon. Members can. He is fully justified in seeking a solution to this difficult problem.
  One issue which has not been mentioned, but which was taken up by the Merrison Committee, is the anonymity of doctors who are brought before disciplinary committees. I hope that anonymity will be allowed in certain cases in the Bill. I know of cases that came before the executive councils, on which I sat for many years, when it would have been totally unfair to allow full Press publicity of proceedings when a doctor was being charged—in those cases—with breaches of his terms of contract, not with breaches of ethical conduct. Publicity could have meant total disaster for the rest of that doctor's life. I hope that a provision will be included in the Bill giving the GMC powers to see that for some proceedings the doctor's name should remain undisclosed.
  The other major issue which came up this morning and which worries many of us is the size and composition of the
  1662
  GMC. The Government should explain why they have sought to double the size of the proposed GMC. The Merrison Committee gave a lot of consideration to the matter. Paragraph 387 of its report states:
  "We consider it to be important that the GMC should be constructed so as to ensure that its considerable powers and duties do not pass to a very few members, still less to officials."
  The danger of a large committee of 98 people is that that is exactly what happens. The power passes to a small caucus of individuals and their officials and advisers, and the main body becomes just a talking shop passing ineffective resolutions. The Government should explain the size of this body more carefully, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and others have said this morning. Its size is a matter about which we want to be more confident before allowing the Bill to pass.
  A number of my hon. Friends brought up the question of specialist registration and its omission from the Bill. We understand that this is because of divisions within the medical profession itself. That may be, but we should like more information as to whether the Government are convinced that they cannot give a lead on this matter. It is appropriate to a Bill which, as several hon. Members have suggested, is not the sort of Bill that will be repeated for a very long time. It would be better to get it right now than to have to bring in an enabling Bill or order later.
  I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said, that we welcome the Bill. We hope that it will go through quickly. It is important not only for the medical profession but for the public's view of the standards of medical care in this country. We must be confident that the GMC is an effective, fair and positive body of which those who work in today's vast Health Service can be proud.
  12.21 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: In the course of this morning several matters have been raised on the assumption that I was to reply to the debate, so, with your permission, Mr. Bonner Pink, I should like to address the Committee again.
  First, I welcome the offer made by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr.

  1663
  Vaughan) of the co-operation of the official Opposition in getting the Bill enacted with reasonable dispatch, subject to discussion of the points which are worrying members of the Committee. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for his expression of appreciation for my decision to circulate the notes on the clauses. I hope that they will serve to concentrate minds, to remove misimpressions, and to speed up our debates generally.
  Finally, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Lord Hunt on the work he has done in the other place. I also congratulate members of the medical profession on the way in which they have resolved their differences. Also, I should like to thank the officials in my Department for the speed with which they reacted to that so that we have a very much improved Bill before us.
  I approached these proceedings with some feeling of relief as someone who qualified as a lawyer, in that the snide remarks which are usually passed against my profession were directed this morning against members of the medical profession. I find that a welcome change.
  Some hon. Members have given me advance notice of a number of points that they want to raise in Committee and, obviously, the correct time at which to reply will be in Committee, but I am grateful for the notice that has been given to me in order that we may be able to prepare an informed debate on those points.
  A number of points of some substance have been raised this morning on which I should like to comment. The size of the Council has attracted a certain amount of attention. The only point that I should like to make at this stage is that the figure of 98 members of the Council does not appear anywhere in the Bill. It was a thought in the minds of the Merrison Committee, and the number of members of the Council is at present unspecified, although there is a likelihood that it will be a considerably enlarged Council. I must concede that. The Merrison Committee's view was that the Council would work largely through committees as, indeed, any large body of that sort must work, and we must have regard to the full representation of a wide range of interests which have a bearing on the deliberations of the
  1664
  GMC, not least being the members of the public as well as the elected members of the profession, those representing education interests, and others.
  The question of the cost of the GMC was raised. If there is to be a larger council with extended functions—and that is bound to happen, I think—then the correct deduction is drawn that the cost of maintaining the Council is likely to be increased. The cost of the existing council is, of course, borne by the members of the medical profession. The position remains open. There has been no decision in principle about how the future costs of the new General Medical Council are to be met. But all the elements which will go into consideration about a solution to this problem were mentioned this morning. One of these is that if members of the medical profession wish the General Medical Council to remain completely independent of all outside influence in considering the affairs of the profession, the best way to ensure that is for members of the profession to meet the full cost.
  However, there is a substantial argument which says—I shall return to this in a minute—that the General Medical Council exists as much, and perhaps even more, to protect members of the public than it does to look after the interests of members of the profession. If that were accepted, there would be a case for the Government to meet at least a proportion of the cost. These are all factors that will have to be taken into consideration. Obviously, the Government and the medical profession will have to come to an agreement.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said, the whole machinery of the Bill—even if it is pushed through the House reasonably quickly—will take about two years to set up. Therefore, we have some time in which to resolve that issue.
  Reference was made to the open-ended nature of the Bill. Worries were expressed about safeguarding the public and safeguarding members of the medical profession, and mention was made of Orders in Council. A great deal of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will have to be put into operation by Orders in Council. I think that that is conceded as part of the legislation.

  1665
  There are a number of safeguards, and the primary safeguard to the public is, of course, the registration of medically qualified people in the first place. This is the fundamental safeguard, and we should not lose sight of it. It has been in existence since 1858 and has been carried forward. The fact that it has been in existence since 1858 is a tribute to its general success and effectiveness as a way of protecting the public from unqualified persons.
  Furthermore, there will be a number of public nominees on the General Medical Council. The number, of course, has still to be settled. But from that point of view the public interest will still be maintained. There will be people on the Council who can speak on behalf of the general public when questions of the future policy and actions of the Council are being discussed.
  From the point of view of the profession, we are establishing for the first time a majority of elected members on the General Medical Council. The Committee does not need any lectures from me as to the pressures elected persons are subjected to, and the way in which they perform their duty. This is particularly important with regard to Clause 5, which was referred to by a number of hon. Members, and will have an important bearing on how that clause is administered.
  Of course, the contents of the Bill will have to be fleshed out by Orders in Council. This means that there will have to be some general agreement between the Government and the GMC on what should be in an Order in Council. It will also be incumbent upon the Government to consult widely in the drafting of Orders in Council and, finally, although they will be subject only to the negative procedure when laid before the House, those who wish to pray against them may do so.
  The knowledge that a debate could take place on any one of them will, I think, help to reinforce, through Members of Parliament, the interest of the public in what is being done by the General Medical Council. Therefore, there are quite a number of general safeguards built into the machinery.
  The question of specialist registration was raised, and a number of hon. Mem-
  1666
  bers expressed their disappointment at the fact that we are not including it in the Bill. They went so far as to say that they thought there was a powerful case for specialist registration. I do not deny that that view is strongly held in certain quarters. Certainly, the Merrison Committee came to the view that there was a powerful argument for specialist registration and urged it upon the profession and the Government as a development devoutly to be wished.
  The main problem that arises is that there is no general agreement as to how the machinery to implement the concept of specialist registration could be cobbled together in such a way as to ensure that justice was done to all the parties with an interest in this matter. This is why specialist registration is not in the Bill. There is at present no general agreement in the medical profession as to how it should go forward, but if any reasonable scheme for agreement on the matter were reached within the not too distant future, I could not see this Government, or any Government, being anxious to stand in the way of its legislative implementation. I am afraid that is the furthest I can take the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) was worried about increasing specialisation, and I think that he was particularly worried about the future of general practitioners in that respect. Under the Merrison recommendations, general practice would become a specialty in its own right. In other words, generalism would become a specialty. But I do not think that from that point of view it would adversely affect the position of general practitioners. Indeed, it would rather strengthen it.
  I have been impressed by the idea that medical graduates should do a period of training as general practitioners before they can be accepted as general practitioners—that is already written into other legislation—and also by the good work being done by the Royal College of General Practitioners to raise standards in general practice.
  Mr. Crouch: The Minister has just said that he cannot go further on specialist registration because there is a failure to agree in the medical profession. But the whole purpose of the GMC is to safeguard the public. The setting up 120 years ago of a register of doctors was an

  1667
  essential safeguard. Surely, it is vital for the Government to represent the public in this professional problem of setting up such a register. The public have a part to play and should have a voice in the matter. I hope that the Minister will not give up all hope of seeing that the public are safeguarded and their concern represented so that the difficulties can be overcome.
  Mr. Moyle: Certainly, I have not given up all hope. I have indicated the general way in which we should like to see things go forward. I do not think that this is the time for the Government to go in for the fairly draconian step of imposing on the profession legislation in respect of specialist registration. After all, it is still early days for the resolution of these fairly complicated matters. For some time at least, we can hope that the profession will turn its mind to the resolution of these problems, and when the opporunity arises the Government will be prepared to act, with the advice of the GMC.
  Mr. Pavitt: Can my hon. Friend assure us that one of the bodies which he is consulting on these matters is the Royal College of General Practitioners?
  Mr. Moyle: I am certain that the College will have its say on all these matters. Indeed, it has been consulted in the legislative provision—I forget the name—which has ensured that there will be a specific form of training for medical graduates before they can become qualified general medical practitioners. That is a move towards making general practice a speciality.
  I was about to refer to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) when he asked for a memorandum on points in Merrison not included in the Bill which might be the subject of legislation later. The only major outstanding subject on which we have not legislated is specialist registration. If it would help to have a memorandum at the Committee stage on the issues involved, I am prepared to let hon. Members have it. It is a valuable suggestion which we shall consider. Apart from that, there were some minor and almost technical points which have not been included. They may be of some
  1668
  importance, but I do not think that they are fundamental.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for calling attention to some sentences in my speech which might possibly have been misconstrued. He felt that my use of the phrase "legal cover" for the General Medical Council might mean that it could lay down the law of the country on medical matters and supersede Parliament and the courts.
  That was not my intention. My intention was to highlight the point that had been made by the hon. Member for Reading, South, namely, that the powers of the existing General Medical Council are extraordinarily narrow and that the new provisions will enable the Council to give guidance—the hon. Gentleman introduced an illustration into our debate—on medical ethics and, possibly, advise Parliament and the Government on what the law ought to be.
  The Bill will give a wider remit. The clause has been criticised for being too wide. The whole object of the exercise is to give the General Medical Council a fairly free hand in these matters. But its announcements and pronouncements on these issues will be circumscribed by the fact that there will be an elected majority on the GMC who, while wishing to give guidance to the profession, will generally not wish to be tied down wtih too much intricacy and have the Council making too many pronouncements on the details of medical ethics and conduct. The two factors will be working in balance one against the other.
  Several other points have been raised by various hon. Members, and I think that I have covered a great number of them already.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) raised the issue of branch councils. The question of interim suspensions has also been raised. Perhaps I should deal with those matters fairly generally. This country seems to be moving towards the concept of devolution, and this is recognised by the institution of branch councils for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Bill. The hon. Member wondered, as did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson), whether

  1669
  this might lead to a proliferation of bureaucracy.
  We are empowering the General Medical Council to set up these councils. They will have to be set up under the Bill, but the GMC will decide, in the light of practical requirements, whether the branch councils will be used. It will decide that in the light of pragmatic experience. If it comes to the conclusion that there is no justifiable need for the branch councils, it need not use them. I assume that in such circumstances the councils need not meet, and they certainly would not require any of the elaborate bureaucracy of which hon. Members, are rightly afraid, in view of the experience we have had in the National Health Service over the past few years.
  The situation with regard to Republic of Ireland doctors, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South, is that present doctors would be protected by temporary provisions in the transition period. Once the transition period is over, Irish doctors will enter this country on exactly the same basis as will other EEC doctors—that is, we shall recognise their medical qualifications on a reciprocal basis with our own. After six months in this country on full registration, they will have to undergo a language test. As I have never yet met any Irishman who was likely to fail any test in the English language, I do not see that as any great obstacle. There will be free movement of doctors between this country and the Republic of Ireland, and vice versa. I do not think we need worry unduly about that.
  My hon. Friend asked also about the age of doctors. The health committee which we are setting up will be able to pass judgment upon the relationship of a doctor's age to his ability to practise, should that be raised. Under Clause 5 more detailed and general guidance, ahead of hearings, could be issued by the General Medical Council if it thought that appropriate. That is how that problem will be solved.
  There has been discussion about increases in fees and the cost of the Council. Practitioners would have their fees covered by practice expenses if they had to make a contribution to the General Medical Council. At the moment, the Doctors' and Dentists' Pay
  1670
  Review Body has to make a calculation as to what doctors' expenses are in fixing their general remuneration. I suppose that an increase in the retention fees of the GMC would have to be taken into account by that body in passing judgment on doctors' remuneration.
  The hon. Members for Reading, South and for Northampton, South expressed worries about interim suspension. This is the proposal that the preliminary proceedings committee might suspend a doctor for an interim period of two months. The hon. Members wondered whether there should be a right of appeal against it. The power to impose an interim suspension would be used only in extreme circumstances. There would always be a fear on the part of the preliminary proceedings committee that, in instituting interim suspension, it was prejudging the case of the doctor appearing before it. As the interim suspension could last for only two months there would be a tremendous desire to get the case, with all its rarity and its implications, before either the health committee or the professional conduct committee for an early hearing. There is written into the procedures the equivalent of an appeal from the preliminary proceedings committee to the professional conduct committee.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch)—who has now left—asked whether I was satisfied with the educational responsibility of the General Medical Council. In this, as in all matters, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. All I can say is that there has been full consultation and there is general agreement on the part of both groups—the medical profession and the education profession—on the arrangements which have been agreed. From the point of view of the Government, we think that it is a sound arrangement. So far all that can be done to make the new arrangements workable has been done. From that point of view, I am as satisfied as I can be at this stage that the arrangements will work.
  The rest of the points raised were essentially Committee issues, and we shall have a chance of debating them at length at that stage. We shall also be able to discuss the issues relating to overseas doctors. Between now and that stage it will be worth while pondering on the general desire for the equal treatment of

  1671
  overseas and EEC doctors which has been expressed this morning. I should point out that, although EEC doctors get full registration and can work in this country for six months before they undergo a language test, if they fail their language test their full registration can be taken away from them.
  The non-EEC doctor will have to undergo his language test before taking up a post in this country. If he surmounts that, he may be granted full registration. The Overseas Doctors Association was very keen to get that provision written into the Bill. If there is too much emphasis on total balance or equality between the two groups, not only will something have to be done about the

  THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

  Pink, Mr. R. Bonner (Chairman)

  Morris, Mr. Michael

  Beith, Mr.

  Moyle, Mr.

  Boscawen, Mr.

  Pavitt, Mr.

  Crouch, Mr.

  Shaw, Mr. Arnold

  Glyn, Dr.

  Stallard, Mr.

  Hodgson, Mr.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Walker, Mr. Terry

  Molloy, Mr.

  Young, Sir George

  time when the language test is taken but something may also have to be done about the length of registration following or preceding the language test. I hope that hon. Members will bear that aspect of the problem in mind when considering what they would like to do in Committee about overseas doctors.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Medical Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  Committee rose at fifteen minutes 10 One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Polygamists
  Polygamists
  Immigrant Organisations
  Immigrant Organisations
  Iranian Immigrant
  Iranian Immigrant
  Imprisonment (Sentence and Release)
  Imprisonment (Sentence and Release)
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Newham (Court Buildings)
  Newham (Court Buildings)
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Case Report)
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Case Report)
  Private Premises (Right of Entry)
  Private Premises (Right of Entry)
  Isle of Man (Capital Punishment)
  Isle of Man (Capital Punishment)
  Voluntary Repatriation Programme
  Voluntary Repatriation Programme
  Alcoholism (Offences)
  Alcoholism (Offences)
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
TRANSPORT
  Lorries (Accidents)
  Lorries (Accidents)
  Midlands Road Construction Unit (Paper Shredder)
  Midlands Road Construction Unit (Paper Shredder)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
INDUSTRY
  Village Communities (Post Office Facilities)
  Village Communities (Post Office Facilities)
  National Enterprise Board (Investments)
  National Enterprise Board (Investments)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Petrol and Oil Distribution
  Petrol and Oil Distribution
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Rail Fares
  Rail Fares
TRADE
  Performing Right Society Ltd.
  Performing Right Society Ltd.
  Keyser Ullman Ltd.
  Keyser Ullman Ltd.
  Productivity and Manning Levels
  Productivity and Manning Levels
  Grafton Manquest
  Grafton Manquest
  Airports (London)
  Airports (London)
  Motor Vehicles (Japan)
  Motor Vehicles (Japan)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Mortgage Arrears (Repossessions)
  Mortgage Arrears (Repossessions)
  Improvement Grants (Cheshire)
  Improvement Grants (Cheshire)
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Back-to-back Houses
  Back-to-back Houses
  North-West Water Authority
  North-West Water Authority
  Poisonous Waste Disposal
  Poisonous Waste Disposal
  Forest Heath District Council (Housing Grant)
  Forest Heath District Council (Housing Grant)
  House Building
  House Building
  Housing (Metropolitan Districts)
  Housing (Metropolitan Districts)
WALES
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Local Authority Employees
  Local Authority Employees
  Skateboarding
  Skateboarding
  Second Homes
  Second Homes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Deer Farming
  Deer Farming
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Produce Grading
  Produce Grading
  Animals (Exports)
  Animals (Exports)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Wales
  Wales
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
DEFENCE
  Aircraft and Weapons Systems
  Aircraft and Weapons Systems
  Armed Forces (Allowances)
  Armed Forces (Allowances)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Maintenance Allowances
  Maintenance Allowances
  Schools (Pupil Numbers)
  Schools (Pupil Numbers)
  Cancer Research
  Cancer Research
  Deaf Teachers and Students
  Deaf Teachers and Students
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Engineering Draughtsmanship
  Engineering Draughtsmanship
ENERGY
  Gas and Electricity (Domestic Supply)
  Gas and Electricity (Domestic Supply)
  Gas Explosion (Brentford)
  Gas Explosion (Brentford)
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Transfer Tax (Farms)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Farms)
  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  European Parliament (Members' Salaries)
  European Parliament (Members' Salaries)
  Gross Domestic Product (Public Bodies)
  Gross Domestic Product (Public Bodies)
  Government Contracts (Overseas Firms)
  Government Contracts (Overseas Firms)
  Government Contracts (Foreign Tenders)
  Government Contracts (Foreign Tenders)
  Public Bodies (Contract Tenders)
  Public Bodies (Contract Tenders)
  Oil Delivery Drivers (Dispute)
  Oil Delivery Drivers (Dispute)
SCOTLAND
  Deer
  Deer
  Lime
  Lime
  Farm Tenancies
  Farm Tenancies
  Hill Farming Advisory Committee
  Hill Farming Advisory Committee
  Teachers (Superannuation)
  Teachers (Superannuation)
  Residential Homes and Geriatric Hospitals
  Residential Homes and Geriatric Hospitals
  Police (Establishment)
  Police (Establishment)
  Radio Transmitters
  Radio Transmitters
  Deer Farming
  Deer Farming
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Farms (Snow Damage)
  Farms (Snow Damage)
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Housing
  Housing
  Environmental Services
  Environmental Services
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Geriatric Beds (Glasgow)
  Geriatric Beds (Glasgow)
  Companies (Liquidation)
  Companies (Liquidation)
  Social Work Cases (Assistance)
  Social Work Cases (Assistance)
EMPLOYMENT
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Coventry
  Coventry
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Questionnaires)
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Questionnaires)
  Managerial, Professional and Staff Liaison Group
  Managerial, Professional and Staff Liaison Group
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Careers Service
  Careers Service
  Wages Council Agreements
  Wages Council Agreements
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Engineering Draughtsmen
  Engineering Draughtsmen
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Grants and Subsidies
  Grants and Subsidies
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Londonderry Harbour
  Londonderry Harbour
  Housing (Rehabilitation)
  Housing (Rehabilitation)
  JUDGES
  JUDGES
  LONRHO
  LONRHO
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear Test Explosions
  Nuclear Test Explosions
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Radiological Weapons
  Radiological Weapons
  Mercenaries (Recruitment)
  Mercenaries (Recruitment)
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Indonesia (Buru)
  Indonesia (Buru)
  Chile (Human Rights)
  Chile (Human Rights)
  Horn of Africa
  Horn of Africa
  St. Lucia
  St. Lucia
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Embassies (Commercial Department)
  Embassies (Commercial Department)
  Helsinki Final Act
  Helsinki Final Act
  Nuclear Satellites (Control)
  Nuclear Satellites (Control)
  Latin America
  Latin America
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Fuel
  European Assembly (Members' Salaries)
  European Assembly (Members' Salaries)
  Political Refugees
  Political Refugees
  NATO (Expenditure)
  NATO (Expenditure)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Gas Charges)
  National Health Service (Gas Charges)
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Cancer Deaths
  Cancer Deaths
  Disabled Employees (Quota)
  Disabled Employees (Quota)
  Merseyside (Alcoholics)
  Merseyside (Alcoholics)
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Case Report)
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Case Report)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Surgeons and Anaesthetists
  Surgeons and Anaesthetists
  Immigrants (Holiday Fares)
  Immigrants (Holiday Fares)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Liverpool (Casualty and Emergency Units)
  Liverpool (Casualty and Emergency Units)
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Pregnancy Tests
  Pregnancy Tests
  Canadian Residents (Retirement Pensions)
  Canadian Residents (Retirement Pensions)
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Liverpool Royal Infirmary
  Liverpool Royal Infirmary
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)

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

LORD CHARTER'S OF AMISFIELD
Lieutenant-Colonel the Right Honourable Sir Martin Michael Charles Charteris, GCB, GCVO, OBE, having been created Baron Charteris of Amisfield, of Amisfield in the District of East Lothian, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Maclean and the Lord Adeane.

THE DISABLED: THREE-WHEELER VEHICLES
2.48 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many new and reconditioned three-wheeler vehicles adapted for disabled people are being put into storage by the Department of Health and Social Security and what they intend to do with them.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Answer is some 500 vehicles, which will be issued as replacements as required. My honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled has given a commitment that vehicles will be replaced, as they wear out, up to at least 1982, and possibly 1983. While production will soon cease, building up an adequate stock of three-wheelers is essential if Her Majesty's Government are to honour the commitment made by my honourable friend.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he knows that there are several hundred
154
brand new vehicles rusting in the snow in York at the moment, and that there are many 16-year-old disabled school-leavers who were able to use three-wheelers but who are now, completely, prisoners in their own houses and cannot get out to look for a job? Could he make any of these vehicles available to these 16-yearolds?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the last question, the answer is, no. In reply to whether I know that there are several hundreds rusting in Yorkshire, this is news to me and it is news to my Department. I should want some evidence of that, and I hope the noble Baroness will supply it. It is perfectly true that there are something like 2,000 vehicles with approved repairers all over the country. Noble Lords may know that, when a three-wheeler breaks down, the owner can take it to an approved repairer to be repaired. At the premises of these approved repairers it is necessary to have a stock of three-wheelers, so that while one is being repaired the recipient has another in which to drive around. Over the whole country there are something like 2,000 with approved repairers. We shall be keeping in the Property Services Agency buildings another 500, of which 250 are new and 250 have been repaired and are fit for the road. This is a necessary number so that we can cope with the demand for them from time to time when vehicles are undergoing repair.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's original reply on the closure of the production line, could he tell us whether there will be a spare capacity and also whether there will be a loss of jobs resulting from this closure?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is a matter to which we have given great attention. I can safely say that while three-wheelers are in use, which will be for several years to come, we do not envisage having any difficulty at all about spare parts. There have been some difficulties; but, if I may say so, there have been difficulties in getting spare parts for almost everything and anything. We do not envisage any great difficulty and therefore feel we shall be able properly to maintain these three-wheelers.

155
The noble Lord asked about the firms engaged in this field. They have known the situation for some considerable time, and have tried to diversify their functions and to take on other work. So far as Invacar Ltd. is concerned, I understand that it has issued to date something like 58 redundancy notices to workers. AC cars will have to make some workers redundant, but the extent will depend largely on the additional work they hope to get in the next few months.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that, while these invalid tricycles are unsatisfactory in many respects, they have nevertheless proved totally satisfactory for a small number of handicapped people who would be unable, if not unwilling, to drive anything else? Is he aware that many of these handicapped people have felt intensely bereaved at the prospect of losing their tricycles? Will the noble Lord take every step to make sure that this reprieve to 1982 or even 1983 is brought to the notice of all those people who are now worried about the prospect of losing their tricycles?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. It is true that we on this side of the House have from time to time said that we did not accept that three-wheelers were such dangerous vehicles as a large number of noble Lords in this House have indicated. At one period pressure was put upon us to withdraw this vehicle. In fact, as the noble Lord has said, it serves a useful purpose. My honourable friend—and I should like to repeat this—on 26th April 1977 in another place, said that existing trike holders' interests are being carefully protected by the Government. He said:
"I shall stand by … the commitment that we shall not allow people who need a vehicle to find themselves immobilised because we have not been able to provide one.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/77; col. 1063.]
We are taking steps to see that vehicle holders know that we hope to be able to continue them until 1983.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are 350 spina bifida newly-disabled people with no vehicle at all, and also many other disabled people who have
156
become disabled since the Government did not supply further? Do the Government intend to give disabled people another, more suitable vehicle to make them independent?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows better than anyone else, since she is a member of the Goodman Committee, that the Government have said that they will consider what can be done in this matter of providing another vehicle for that small number of disabled people who will need it. We are looking at this question and taking advice from our colleagues in the EEC. I must point out that when the policy changed on 1st January 1976 we said that we should have to stop issuing three-wheelers—we were under some pressure to do so—and we would therefore give mobility allowances only. This did not affect those who had a trike prior to 1st January 1976. We were faced with providing three-wheelers for disabled people who needed them to get about and to go to work, or with providing a system which would include disabled people who could not drive. By changing the policy, it may be that there are some people who could use a trike but will not have one. This has become necessary in order to apply mobility allowances over a much wider field of people.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether the Government have in mind the situation of the school-leavers in circumstances in which it is difficult to find jobs for those who are sound? Will not disabled school-leavers have very little prospect of finding jobs at all unless they can be made mobile?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, school-leavers today are 16 years of age. If they had four-wheeled vehicles they could not drive them because in this country they are not allowed to do so until they are 17 years of age. They are entitled to mobility allowances at the age of 16; so that from 16 to 17 years of age they will be getting, come next July, £10 a week to help them overcome that difficulty.

HEATHROW TERMINAL PROJECT INQUIRY
2.57 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is expected that the public inquiry into the proposed construction of a fourth terminal building at Heathrow Airport will commence; how long it is anticipated the inquiry will last; and, assuming the inquiry favours the project, how soon afterwards construction can commence.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the public inquiry is expected to begin at the end of May, but it is not possible to say how long it will last. Assuming approval of the fourth terminal project, it would be for the British Airports Authority to decide when building should commence.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, is it possible for the noble Lord to say what the British Airports Authority's view is on how long construction will take?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords, I am afraid not. The original thought was that it might be completed by 1982, but that was before the process of inquiry was entered into. That date will not now be reached.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, might I ask my noble friend whether the inquiry will include the question of access to this new airport for people dependent on public transport?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, certainly. The Government recognise the need for adequate access to major airports and will take this into account in considering schemes for roads for which they are responsible.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the work on Terminal Two will have been finished before the inquiry into Terminal Four begins; or even whether it will be finished before the work on Terminal Four is finished?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I doubt whether it will be finished by May, but I hope that it will be finished this year.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, in view of the fact that this terminal is planned to be constructed outside the present island site in the centre of Heathrow, can the noble Lord say what communications will be provided between the new terminal and the present central area?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords, I cannot give the exact information on that. No doubt the local authorities responsible for the roads will include this in their planning and I have no doubt that this matter will be fully considered at the inquiry.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, with respect is it not the case that this has nothing to do with the local authority? It is all inside the existing boundaries of the aerodrome. I am asking about communication between the new terminal and the existing central area.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. That would be a matter for the British Airways Authority in achieving its plan after the conclusion of the inquiry.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not know whether I am going to ask the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, but as the Minister said that roads would be taken into consideration, is he aware that I am concerned not only with roads but with what goes on them? Will there also be consideration of passenger conveyance on public vehicles from the centre of London to the new airport?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is open to anyone to make written representations to the inquiry. There is no limit on the subject matter about which people can write. Therefore I am quite sure that the matters that my noble friend has in mind will be before the inquiry.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as well as conveyance to the airport, passengers will need service when they get there? Will he take into account

159
that a great deal of extra labour will be required if this fourth terminal is brought into existence? Is he aware that there is already acute over-employment in that area and the local authorities there are extremely anxious? Will he please make sure that he hears their views and takes them into account before he considers sanctioning the fourth terminal?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord seemed to be addressing those remarks to me personally. It will be for the inquiry and, subsequently, for the BAA, to take these matters into account. They are important ones; I do not deny that. I will ensure that the points which the noble Lord has made are conveyed to those concerned.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, will the fourth terminal provide for the more expeditious handling of luggage than the existing three terminals?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that will be looked at.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, will my noble friend have regard to the fact that many view this area as having reached saturation point now from the transport point of view? Will he consider what the position will be with another terminal, bearing in mind the commuter traffic which goes in and out along that route every morning and night?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am of course aware of the anxieties that have been expressed in these matters. They will undoubtedly be before the inquiry and will be raised by people like my noble friend who is particularly concerned with the amenities in the area.
3.2 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, assuming that the public inquiry rejects the proposed construction of a fourth terminal building at Heathrow Airport, how the growth of passenger traffic to
160
London area airports up to 1990 will be handled, given the maximum expansion of the three other airports already allowed for in Airport Policy (Cmnd. 7084).
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I would not wish to anticipate the outcome of the public inquiry, but clearly an unfavourable decision on the fourth terminal at Heathrow would introduce a new factor in the development of airports policy which the Government would have to consider.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, supposing the terminal is rejected, can the Minister explain how the passengers who they have assumed in this document will use London Airport up till 1980 will be looked after having regard to a new terminal's existence? The other London area airports will, according to this document, be at saturation point all the time up to 1980.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Government have explained in the White Paper to which the noble Lord refers that the expected growth in air traffic demand up to 1990 could be met by the expansion of the four London airports. Without the fourth terminal at Heathrow, capacity in the London area is likely to reach saturation earlier than expected. But traffic forecasts are inherently uncertain, and this would depend upon the actual demand that transpired.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, according to the reply, do I gather that, if there is no new terminal and the capacity of the other airports is up to saturation, the Government have no plan which they can now announce as to how they will cope with the excess at the other airports which have already reached saturation?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, of course there will be consequences which the Government will have to take into account and other airports will be affected. I should not like at this stage of the proceedings to speculate at Question Time on the particular consequences that might ensue for the other airports.
Lord DARLING of HILL-SBOROUGH: My Lords, to deal with the problem of congestion, will my noble

161
friend ask the Government to consider now a proposal that was put forward when the Roskill Report was under consideration—that is, that the next London Airport should be built on Thorn Waste, with a direct rail link to King's Cross?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, there is a long and vexed history about this matter, with many propositions such as my noble friend is now reviving. We ought to rest on the White Paper which is now before Parliament and the inquiry which we have been discussing, and see what progress can be made on the basis of this policy.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at a very interesting seminar given by BP to a number of noble Lords yesterday morning it was shown that a world supply of oil could not possibly he maintained beyond the year 1990, or thereabouts? In view of the fact that this implies diminishing supplies of oil and rapidly increasing price, would it not be realistic to assume that airline traffic will peak in about 1990? It would therefore be folly for us to provide very expensive terminal facilities which could only he used for a very limited number of years.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. Oil supply is of course one of the major factors that has to be taken into account in making forecasts of future demand. The kind of information which the noble Lord has brought forward is one of the hazards in this business. I indicated earlier that the forecasting of demand for airport facilities is a very tricky business because of the kind of factor that the noble Lord has mentioned.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the hidden motive behind this Question was to see that Stansted in Essex is made into a major airport? Is he aware that such a step would have the effect of destroying one of the most delightful, quiet parts of England and would do very great damage indeed to very efficient agriculture?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my noble friend is perhaps more expert in detecting
162
sinister motives in Questions than I am. I am sure that my noble friend, with his particular interest in Stansted, will have read the White Paper and seen what is the Government's position in respect to this.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, in a stupid slip of the tongue used the figure 1980 when of course I meant 1990. I apologise.
Viscount MERSEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware there is very great concern at Gatwick Airport about the additional runways being started? Will he confirm the undertaking given on several occasions to the West Sussex County Council that there will be no further development there? Will he confirm that that is so?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it depends what the noble Lord means by "development". He referred to a second runway. The White Paper makes it clear that there will not be a second runway. The Government have firmly made up their mind on that point. Equally, there is development proposed in the sense of a second terminal, which is another matter, of course.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, is it the expectation of the Government—
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I feel a little embarrassment about rising because I am to answer the next Question. But I think I have the feeling of the House when I say that we have had over 20 minutes on this third Question—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear !

AID TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES
3.8 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 take into account the

163
effects upon United Kingdom invisible exports, as distinct from visible trade, in their aid policy towards underdeveloped countries.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, yes. In general, the aid programme gives a direct stimulus to invisible exports from the United Kingdom. The economic development which our aid programme seeks to provide naturally adds to the volume of both invisible and visible exports.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply; but is she aware that the proposed deal with India appears to be virtually giving away ships as aid at a time of a world surplus and with many ships laid up? India certainly needs aid for her rural areas, but not in shipping. At present, India carries half the trade between Britain and India. As these ships will be competing directly with British merchant vessels, are the Government taking this fully into account in the arrangement?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords. We are very much aware of the whole question of Indian shipping. We are also aware of the over-capacity of shipping and in many international meetings have done our part to try to reduce that. I am sure that the House will understand that India would have bought these ships from somewhere else—Japan, possibly. In any case, the competition would have been there. Her Majesty's Government considered that it would be a good idea for aid to be given which would at the same time provide employment for people in areas of Britain where there is high unemployment.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, can I ask the Minister whether the teaching of English and also the training of technicians in developing countries figure largely enough in our aid programme? Would it not be a good thing to give the British Council rather more resources?—because, with the furtherance of English teaching and particularly with the training of the young men and women who service the plant which goes abroad under physical aid programmes, we should be benefiting both ourselves and them.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as the noble Viscount will know, we have a very large technical co-operation programme: I think it was about £124 million last year. Of course we do a great amount of teaching of the language and of training of people to run the plants. We do a great deal for invisible exports of all kinds, but we did feel that India needed the ships, and wanted the ships. If we had not done this under our aid programme, someone else would have provided them.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that, if we taught more of these Commonwealth citizens the English language it would make more of them eager to come to this country—and that would get us into trouble with Mrs. Thatcher?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has a marvellous command of the English language.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while I accept that there are cases where other countries might supply ships, is the noble Baroness aware that, in this case, the British shipping industry believes that no other country would have supplied these ships had they not come as aid from this country? Will the Government also bear in mind that India charges a turnover tax on British shipping, whereas there is no equivalent tax which Britain charges on Indian shipping?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as I think the noble Lord will know, my right honourable friend the Minister has met the General Council of British Shipping and is very much aware of their views on this. They have been taken into account. I do not think there is really anything more I can add. It is not our information that India would not have obtained ships from elsewhere: rather to the contrary.

PROFIT SHARING: THE FINANCE BILL
3.12 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS rose to move, That this House welcomes the Government's declared intention to include in this year's Finance Bill provisions to encourage

165
profit sharing. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I should like to begin by saying that Liberals are naturally delighted that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have agreed to incorporate in this year's Budget and Finance Bill incentives to encourage profit sharing. These were contained in the consultative document and in the reply to a Question put by Mr. John Pardoe in another place on 2nd February.
As a Party, we have been campaigning for the adoption of such a policy since 1928, when it was included as a major feature of the Liberal Yellow Book or, to give it its proper title, Britain's Industrial Future. Many of your Lordships will have read that book: I do not suppose there have ever been brought together, as authors of a detailed political and economic testament, so many distinguished thinkers as were assembled by Lloyd George to compile that particular book. It was compulsory reading at the universities in the 1930s, and had a profound effect on political thought, not least upon members of the Labour Government of 1945. Unfortunately, that was too shortlived. Among its contributors framing these policies were Walter Layton, H. D. Henderson, John Maynard Keynes, Ramsay Muir, Seebohm Rowntree, Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir John Simon and many others.
Oddly enough, the section dealing with profit sharing never attracted the support of the Labour Party and the trade unions. I say "oddly enough", because profit sharing was specifically not dealt with in isolation; nor do we believe that it should be. The recommendation was:
"The real purpose of profit sharing is to show that the worker is treated as a partner and that the division of the proceeds of industry is not a mystery concealed from him but is based on known and established rules to which he is a party and must be regarded, together with the system of organised consultation, to form the basis for a satisfactory industrial relations policy".
When one looks at the detailed policy laid down in that Liberal Yellow Book, as compared with the amateur nonsense contained in the Bullock Report, one wonders why we have been wasting these last 50 years. Perhaps 50 years is now regarded as a short time in British politics; and I must say that I would have welcomed
166
as many trade union Lords taking part in this debate today, a debate which will do something to help their members in the field of profit sharing, as took part in the Bullock debate, which was merely to give more power to the trade union movement.
Looking back, one can appreciate the relative simplicity of those early Liberal proposals—an approach which could have made a lot of difference to our economic growth had it been adopted, based as it was on the concept of a standard wage, extra reward for extra effort and the recognition of the worker's interest in the concern for which he works by providing that he receives a share in its prosperity to which he contributes.
The authors of the Liberal policy also stressed other principles—and these principles are just as true today. The first was that the amount of the bonus must not depend on the will of the employer but should be determined by a scheme settled beforehand and clearly understood. Secondly, workers entitled to benefit under any scheme should be given access to such financial data as would show that it has been carried out. That was 50 years ago. This disclosure of financial data is vital even if there are no profits to divide, because it explains what is happening in the business and gives the worker a real interest in the prosperity, or lack of it, of the concern.
Having expressed our general welcome for the adoption of incentives for profit sharing or, I believe more correctly, schemes for profit equity sharing, I should like to spend a moment or two on the three proposals contained in the consultative document. Of these, our preference would be for Method III, in which a company can make an allocation from profits each year which can be used to buy shares at full value. The shares would be apportioned between the employees but retained by a special trust for a period of five years, during which the employee would not be permitted to sell the shares. When he did sell the shares there would be a charge to income tax on a reduced scale, depending on how long the shares would have been held and, subject to the sum realised being within the exemption limits, there would be no charge to capital gains tax.
So far so good; but three main points arise from this scheme on which I would ask the Government to comment. First, why is the tax relief obtainable only if the shares are held for a minimum of five years? I had personally hoped it would be possible to persuade employees to hold on to their shares for a very long time, but if the policy is to adopt a fixed term of, say, five years—and I would love to see them holding shares for a minimum period of five years, though not compulsorily—there will inevitably he a tendency for a very substantial number of shares to come on to the market at a particular time, with a resultant unnatural depression of the price. Even if the number of shares sold is not substantial, the market anticipation will inevitably adversely affect the price. I think it would be better to leave the employee free to dispose of the shares when he wanted to do so.
Secondly, the consultative document states that it would be necessary for the trust which is holding the shares to arrange for the employing company to apply PAYE to the appropriate part of the sales proceeds. I do not believe that the authors of the document have appreciated what a tremendous administrative burden that could pose, even to the point of deterring companies from adopting profit-sharing schemes. In my view, this reinforces the argument that the shares should be allocated directly to employees, who should deal with them as any other shareholders do.
Thirdly, I do not follow the thinking behind the insistence that there should be an upper limit of £500 worth of shares per annum per employee. I do not think we can continue to subject our middle and upper management to much more leveling down and egalitarianism. If it is the Government's intention to restore the real standard of living of middle management by very substantial tax cuts, there could, of course, he a case for some upper limit. But I will believe these tax cuts when I see them, and not before. In the meantime, the imposition of an upper limit of £500 makes the scheme derisory above certain salary levels.
There are already two limitations at work; namely, the amount of shares a company is prepared to make available for
168
its scheme—that is quite a serious limitation—and the incidence of high taxation which erodes the net gain to the higher paid individual, and that, certainly, is a limitation. I think that this aspect should be re-examined, if substantial tax cuts are not forthcoming in the upper income brackets. In this connection, I think that we should look carefully at the possibility of resurrecting share option schemes for senior and middle management, such as we had before 1974. This was a system by which profit from the sale of shares was subject to capital gains, but not to income tax.
The political objection to this was that it discriminated strongly in favour of the very highest salary earners. But I believe that the situation changes when a profit-sharing scheme is introduced to cover the whole business. Those with lower salaries and low taxable incomes will find profit-sharing proposals very attractive—at least, I hope so. But the higher salary earners, because of the upper limit and the very high incidence of income tax, need something like a share option scheme to give them an equivalent incentive. I believe that this is worth Government consideration, and that it could help to provide the industrial stimulus which we need in this country for economic growth. It is interesting to note that British Airways staff have come out overwhelmingly in favour of a scheme to allow them to buy shares in their own airline.
If the Government do adopt Method III unamended, I would ask them whether there will be any liability to tax when the trust hands over his shares to the employee at the end of the five-year period, or is tax to be chargeable only when the employee sells his shares? I must say that I do not feel attracted to Methods I and II, but I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Government whether they could elaborate on the discount which it is permitted to make in arriving at the cost of employee shares by virtue of any restrictions placed upon them. In other words—and I have given the Government notice of this question, because it is puzzling a lot of people—what restrictions will be regarded as equivalent to the maximum 30 per cent. discount referred to in the consultative paper?
There is, I think, a strong parallel in these proposals to the way in which some

169
of us, in all Parties, were able, with good will, give and take and patience, to get across-the-board agreement on the 1975 Social Security Pensions Act. I would plead that we should get something like that political consensus in this matter, because I want to make it clear that, although I may have certain criticisms and reservations, I and my colleagues wholeheartedly support the giving of incentives to encourage profit sharing. Without the incentives, I am afraid that such schemes will inevitably be limited to the few really enlightened employers. I want to see them more widely spread.
But if this is to happen and we are to turn—as I hope we will—our few hundred schemes in this country into several thousands, I believe that we need to examine certain aspects with great care. We must not make the administrative burden on employers too great; otherwise, we will deter them from going ahead. We must aim for flexibility which avoids the imposition of one standard scheme for the many different companies and the many different circumstances which exist in British economic life. And, as I say, we should try to obtain all-Party consensus on the schemes and the structure which are finally adopted, because this is something which ought to be with us for a very long time as part of our economic system.
I referred to the consensus and goodwill which we managed to bring about on the Social Security Pensions Act, and I hope that all Parties will now approach this field of profit sharing in a similar spirit, and build up together acceptable structures which will not be dismantled at every change of Government. I believe that we could be witnessing a new era in industrial relations, a new era in the mixed economy and the beginning of really enlightened capitalism. I welcome the Government's intentions. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House welcomes the Government's declared intention to include in this year's Finance Bill provisions to encourage profit sharing.—(Lord Byers.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for initiating this debate today. He seems to me to
170
have made a Conservative speech, because so many of the things that I was going to say he has already said much better. It is indeed appropriate that the noble Lord should have introduced this debate today, because, as he said, the Liberal Party has campaigned for profit sharing for half a century or more. Also, as is well known, we on these Benches are in favour of this principle and now it seems that the Government, for whatever reason, also favour the principle. That, for this Government, is a really remarkable development. Up until yesteryear they appeared to have a distaste for the profit motive, so this is an astonishing transformation. If the Liberal Party has done nothing else, to have succeeded in effecting a consensus on this concept, which, if we get it right, has enormous potential for improving both productivity and industrial relations, is no mean achievement.
But, my Lords, have they? We should be wise to ponder on the announcement in the recent consultative document, which reads as follows:
"The Government has agreed to consider ways of encouraging the creation of schemes for profit sharing in private industry with a view to legislation".
This, of course, is no commitment to embark on legislation; just an agreement with the Liberal Party to consider. But even this is remarkable, so let us not be too cynical or grudging in our welcome of this change of heart.
Many policies of the Government have altered dramatically since the bad old pre-IMF days, and greatly for the better so long as they are not transitory. So that, however tentative the Government's intentions may be, let us try to establish a real all-Party consensus to the principle of profit sharing, and to undertaking an exhaustive study of the subject, so that we get the legislation right, so far as is humanly possible, first time.
Fortunately, there is a great deal of experience on which we can draw. There are only some 100 profit sharing schemes for general employees in this country, so that we shall also have to look elsewhere. In France and West Germany, many millions of employees benefit from such schemes. But by far the most fruitful area is the United States where nearly 200,000 companies operate voluntary schemes, all enjoying fiscal encouragement

171
and predominantly based on deferred share ownership. Many of these schemes have been going on for a long time, and their value is revealed by a study over 18 years, from 1952 to 1969, which shows that companies with significant employee shareholdings grew faster than those without them, their share prices grew twice as fast, earnings per share 1·9 times, net worth per share 1½ times and sales revenue 1⅓ times. Is it not possible that profit sharing could be the key to the radical improvement in productivity that we so desperately need?
Having given a warm welcome to the Government's conversion, I should like to make a plea that we should, in future, seriously consider the term "productivity sharing", rather than "profit sharing". There are, I believe, still areas where the word "profit" is regarded with suspicion, but no sensible person thinks other than that the continuing improvement of productivity and efficiency should be the goal of any enterprise.
It could very well be that a value added system would be preferable to one based on profits. This is the system now used by ICI after more than 20 years' experience. If we keep on referring to the word "profit" we may be muddying the water and making it harder for employees to understand how their bonuses are calculated. There is another reason why profit may not be the best yardstick. What would happen in a loss-making company which the management is straining to make profitable? Are the employees, however hard they work, to wait for their bonuses until some particular figure of profit has been reached at some indeterminate time in the future?
Several aspects of the consultative document concern me. First, in paragraph 5 it is admitted that the three methods of fiscal encouragement are to apply only to employees in the corporate sector. But looking at paragraph 6 the term "market value" of shares is used. This suggests that unquoted companies are to be excluded. I hope that this is not the intention because there are many unquoted companies, such as Habitat, who have adopted such schemes and I see no reason why they should be excluded. I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, if, when he comes to wind up,
172
he would clarify this point. I imagine that the reason why the Inland Revenue have limited their proposals to the corporate sector is that this is much the easiest way to start. Unless it is made clear that this is just a start and that it is intended, with the light of experience, to cover other sectors as quickly as possible, are not the Government asking for trouble? Millions of workers would be excluded—those in the nationalised industries, those in partnerships and so on. There is of course the argument that those who enjoy indexed linked pensions require no further incentives, but I think we must be careful.
Incidentally, on the subject of the nationalised industries we should study the Renault scheme in France. As regards nationalised industries I think it would be better to use the term "productivity"—and hopefully get some—rather than profits. I appreciate that to incorporate all employees is a colossal and perhaps impossible project and I agree that the first priority, as expressed in the Conservative Green Paper of last year, is:
"to make work in the wealth-creating sector relatively more attractive again".
So I hope that the Inland Revenue proposals will be warmly welcomed as a spearhead to a wider application in future to such sectors as it proves practicable to include.
Secondly, returning to paragraph 5, I understand the view that to allow tax relief for profit sharing in the form of cash would be tantamount to payment of wages free of tax. But I suggest that there should be a cash alternative. It will take time for employees to realise the advantages of holding shares with tax benefits and much education will be necessary. There will often be occasions when cash in hand will be more beneficial to the employee than a more valuable stake several years later. Interest in share ownership is likely to build up gradually as employees become aware of the capital which has been accumulated by their more prudent colleagues. As I see it and I am speaking only for myself—I do not think that it should be compulsory to take the bonus in the form of shares. The fiscal inducement should apply only to shares but the cash alternative should be taxable.
Thirdly, I wonder whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned, the egalitarian approach is necessarily correct.

173
One of the main problems today is the narrowing of differentials, and though tax reliefs on £415 or £500 per annum may well prove to be an incentive to the lower paid, it would be insignificant for skilled workers and middle management. Again I speak only for myself and I am open to persuasion that any two-tier arrangement or one based on a percentage of salary would not be practical. I hope not, as I personally believe that it is from those who hold responsible positions that the leadership and the drive to greater productivity and efficiency should come.
Fourthly, I doubt whether participation should in all cases be restricted to employees of five years' standing. Though this would no doubt be appropriate in some industries, a shorter period, say two years, could be appropriate in others. I also wonder whether part-time employees would be eligible. Fifthly, I am more attracted to the tax reliefs outlined in the Conservative Green Paper. Under the Inland Revenue schemes no tax relief would be available, except in compassionate or special cases, unless shares had been held for a minimum of five years. Conservative proposals envisaged a tapered deferred tax with a minimum holding period of two years during which any compassionate disposals would be subject to tax at the standard rate. In the third year disposals would be taxed at 20 per cent., in the fourth year at 15 per cent., in the fifth year at 10 per cent., and after five years tax free. At this point the shares could either be sold and the proceeds reinvested or retained and the then share price would be the base value for capital gains tax for a future disposal.
I now come to the oft repeated argument about eggs in baskets. I do not think this argument can simply be brushed aside. There are many thriving companies in which employees will have no inhibitions on this score—IBM is a very good example. But what would be the position of an employee in a well run company in an industry which was going through a particularly difficult time? Not only would he be likely to have qualms about the security of his job but he would see little incentive in having a stake in the company. I think it would be worth considering the idea that an employee could, if he wished, be offered the alternative of applying his bonus to
174
the purchase of authorised unit trust or investment trust securities. I fully appreciate that this departs from the basic conception of involvement by participation by an employee in the enterprise in which he works, but I think that there should be some provision for circumstances in which the incentive is negligible or non-existent.
My last question about the proposals is the assertion that profit sharing is quite distinct from industrial democracy. I disagree, but I think that this provides an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Oram, to explain to the House what, in the opinion of the Government, industrial democracy really is. Are not involvement and participation essential ingredients of what most people think industrial democracy is all about, whether it be in decision-making or having a personal stake in the enterprise concerned? It is almost as bad as the different interpretations of the world "détente". We really should clear up this point or all sorts of actions that are taken by one Government or another in the name of industrial democracy will be tangential. Perhaps we should first have debated industrial democracy before today's debate. Moreover, it would have been better if it had been debated before the Bullock Report.
I have made inquiries with several publicly quoted and private companies who have profit-sharing schemes. Naturally there is a general welcome for tax reliefs of any kind. Method III seems to be preferred to I and II, but what is thought to be vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, is flexibility so that companies can design schemes which suit their particular circumstances. For example, some companies regard eligibility after five years' service as suitable, but others find that to be too long a period. There are different views as to whether shares should be immediately encashable or have to be held for a period, and as to whether a five-year period may be too long for many employees to contemplate. When discussing Method III, one company put forward the suggestion that when the shareholding period was completed the shares should be transferred out of the trust into the name of the employee. Another company operates a system whereby the bonus is proportional to salary or wages, quite contrary to the

175
Inland Revenue proposals. So it all boils down to the need for flexibility.
In conclusion—and I feel that I have spoken for rather too long—I commend to your Lordships the Conservative proposal that new shares should be issued rather than buying in existing shares on the market, up to a limit of 10 per cent. of pre-tax profits if we are working on a profit basis. This not only would be a safeguard against excessive cost but would prevent disturbance of company cash flow. Having touched on some of the many points that we need to consider, I should like to repeat my welcome to the Government's change of heart. I hope that their heart will beat strongly. Converts are often the greatest enthusiasts and I am hoping to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that the Government are truly converted. If that should be the situation, the Government will need to pursue policies which positively encourage the creation of wealth so that there is some wealth to share.
3.42 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that no noble Lord will read too much into the fact that I am going to begin by agreeing quite considerably with the views which have been expressed, on both the Liberal and the Conservative Benches, but I promise to be duly controversial before I sit down. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, did not give an unqualified welcome to these proposals. I agree with him that even Method III, which is far less complicated than Methods I and II, is so complicated that it will deter companies which might otherwise wish to adopt the proposals from doing so. The proposals are far too restrictive. Certainly they are not attractive to employees. This is a point which it is necessary to get over if it is the intention of the Government to go ahead with the proposals contained in the Finance Bill.
All that the proposals mean, taking Method III as the example, is that the equivalent of a few weeks' wages of an employee would be tied up for five years without much chance of that investment increasing greatly in value, unless the shares are in a company where the share values increase enormously over that
176
period. Clearly that is a risk that I am not sure the employee should be called upon to take. Most employees would prefer to take a cash bonus rather than to have this complicated arrangement of shares being handed to them, whether they like it or not.
Assuming that this proposal is accepted, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would go on to say that the employee should have complete freedom to sell the shares. I should prefer to put it the other way round: that whatever incentive bonuses we may agree on for an incentive scheme such as that to which the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, referred, of which I am in favour, the payment to the individual workman for taking part in these schemes should be in the pay packet. This is the trade union point of view and I thoroughly support it. The workman should be allowed to decide for himself what he is going to do with the cash which the company has now agreed he has earned. It is part of the incentive arrangements for the benefit of the company. The workman should be allowed to have the cash and to spend it, or to put it into savings schemes, of which there are plenty, or, if he wishes to do so, to buy shares in the company under the share option schemes or any other schemes for the favourable purchase of shares. A great matter of principle is involved. I disagree entirely that even in this beneficial way we should return to any form of the truck system, by saying to workers, "You'll get the pay in the form that the employer determines". To lose the freedom of the workman to decide for himself what he is going to do with the cash is reprehensible.
I am dubious about the wisdom of inviting the employee to put both his job and his savings into the same basket. That is why I want savings schemes to be developed. As I have said, if the employee wants to buy shares in the company he should be allowed to do so, but there should be no compulsion about it. I do not care for some of the proposals contained in the document. I want there to be what I call fair and honest incentive schemes. I do not agree with the suggestion contained in the document that it would be impossible to work out fair tax relief on cash bonuses. I do not believe that is the case. We ought to examine the possibility of obtaining tax relief on genuine incentive schemes.

177
Then there is the further drawback, which I have already mentioned, of the five-year period during which, according to these proposals, the employee has to hold the shares. If the purpose of incentive schemes, or profit-sharing, or whatever you care to call it, is to obtain from the employees a greater degree of loyalty to the company, may I suggest that the encouragement should not be a reward for past loyalty but should start right away and be given, if that is the right word to use, to the newest and the youngest employees in the business. This is how loyalty is encouraged.
Many noble Lords, if not all, will know of my connection and association with the co-operative movement where there is partnership in practice on a very large scale. I should like to stress the view now that in this country there are many enterprises that would benefit greatly from changing their status from public companies and registering under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. However, I agree right away that there is very little chance of that happening on any scale. I want there to be more workers' co-operatives. Certainly this would be beneficial, but I do not think that it is a very practical idea. However, we need a new type of company that incorporates some of the virtues of the industrial and provident societies as well as some of the virtues of the company system. I believe that we can now make a start. I have been trying to pursue this idea and have advocated it for the last 25 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that the Yellow Book made very little impact on anybody outside the Liberal Party. So far my ideas have made no impact on anybody, but that will not deter me from putting them forward again. The reason why I do so is that I think that in this country there is an area of enterprise which greatly needs a new type of company for entirely different reasons from those that we are discussing now. Those are the close companies, the partnerships, the unquoted companies. Their legal status is, to say the least, ambiguous and their fiscal position is deplorable. The small family business—although many of them are not small—is far too heavily taxed.
If we want partnership in industry, which I gather is being advocated by the
178
noble Lord, Lord Byers, and apparently it has not been turned down by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, surely the way to get it is to have a company that is a real partnership right from the beginning. I do not think you can attach to the ordinary public company these ideas of partnership that are now being canvassed, because the employees' position is always going to be a small one; he is not going to have control of the company. Even with wide profit-sharing schemes and shareholding schemes, he is not going to have a great deal of influence on management, as a shareholder, as an employee or whatever. Therefore, if we really mean that we want to develop a partnership the thing to do in a new type of company is to have fixed value and fixed interest shares which are non-transferable; in other words, get them out of Stock Exchange gambling.
Many of these companies are afraid to go public because the family does not want to lose control, and they do not want to get into the greedy paws of the take-over people and the asset strippers. So they do not go public, and they suffer all the disabilities of the very high taxation that is levied upon them. So get rid of that by having fixed value fixed interest shares. When all the other arrangements have been made for the disposal of the surplus of the company, every six months or every year, reserves, depreciation and so on, whatever is left, let the partners decide how to divide it up, bonus on wages, bonus on shares or whatever. This is the way to do it, so that all the partners are completely and deeply involved in the business and take part in the management of the business.
I know very well that there is very little chance of ideas like those I am putting forward being accepted unless you can put in a financial inducement; and, of course, the financial inducement is that if you establish the legal basis, the legal status for this kind of company, a close company that takes advantage of this idea and registers as a new kind of company, what I would call a partnership, would get the tax relief that it now should have as a close company. I think a great deal could be done in that direction if we set our minds to it.
As for the proposals in this document, they are too restrictive. I do not know

179
whether it will be possible for the criticisms and suggestions that have been offered so far to persuade the Government to make changes, to widen the scope, to make the proposals less restrictive. We shall have to see when the Finance Bill comes along. But even when that is done, they are so complicated; I do not think you can get rid of the complications if you are going to have this form of tax relief, because I doubt very much whether more than a handful of companies in this country will take advantage of the proposals.
3.53 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have had three splendid speeches to lead off this debate. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Byers, if I may say so, made a model speech to kick off a debate of this kind, and I am sure all noble Lords appreciated the thoughtful and very well researched speech of my noble friend Lord Cullen. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, made the classical opposition to profit-sharing investment schemes, and put forward suggestions which I am afraid he himself admitted are going to be rather difficult to realise. We are really dealing in this debate, as I see it, with the particular proposals that the Government have put forward to encourage share holding by way of concessions on employees' share holdings.
The debate, on the face of it, is on profit sharing, and one could say very broadly that there are two forms of profit sharing; first of all, the annual cash bonus, and, secondly, the annual allocation of cash out of profits for the purchase of shares. I did not interpret the Government's consultative document as indicating any opposition to a straight cash profit bonus. What they were talking about was the kind of tax concessions which you could give in certain cases. It seems to me, taking all into account, that it is reasonable that cash bonuses should be chargeable to income tax. It is, if I may put it this way, a reward for collective effort in the past. But profit-sharing investment schemes are quite different in that they involve allocation of profits in the past year for purchases of shares the value of which in future will reflect collective effort over the years to come. They represent a combination of reward for past effort and encouragement to effort in the future.
180
What is perhaps more important still is that, properly devised and with general support in the company, they can engender a sense of common purposes and an industrial commitment to the interests of the company as an entity, to its wellbeing and to the advancement of the services it provides for the community.
It will not do so if the scheme is in any way divisive. I agree with the White Paper in that. I agree, too, that the scheme should be open to all employees who have qualifying service prescribed in the scheme. I agree that this should be left flexible, whether it is one year's service or many years' service. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, that it should run from the start. I think there are very few such schemes in being that do run from the moment a person becomes an employee of the company.
The social usefulness of employee share investment will be small if share investment in general is discouraged, as it is at present, notably by the enormous surcharge of 15 per cent. on investment income and by the very large chunk of any appreciation in value of shares which the Government take on realisation. This is a severe deterrent, particularly in times of high inflation. This is particularly disadvantageous to the employee who holds shares only in his own company, since he would not be able to set any fall in the value of shares in his company against gains in any other investment. The first priority should, therefore, be to reduce taxes on savings in general.
I shall confine my remarks to profit sharing by way of employee acquisition of shares in the employee's company. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and by my noble friend Lord Cullen, that Method II in the consultative document is not a satisfactory alternative within the confines of the Government's consultative document. I do not myself regard Method II in the consultative document as coming into the category of profit sharing by way of employees acquisition of shares in their company; it is a different animal altogether, as it would simply enable individual employees to acquire shares on favourable terms. It could be described, perhaps, as dividend and appreciation in value sharing, rather than profit sharing. It

181
seems to me that it would be divisive as between employees who availed themselves of the offer and employees who did not. Nor am I attracted to the idea of encouraging a company to lend money, or arrange for money to be lent, to employees to purchase shares in the company for which they work.
With regard to Method I, that involves investment of profit bonuses in shares of the company after deduction of PAYE on the bonuses, subject to a condition that the shares would not be sold for five years. I am not clear about this, but it appears that, under this scheme, the employee would have the option of either keeping the bonus as a cash bonus and paying income tax on it, or investing it in shares in his company. If he chose to invest the bonus, it seems that he could buy shares at up to nearly 5 per cent. more than the full value of the bonus at a preferential rate, which would, in effect, give him shares free of income tax at the basic rate.
I should like to ask, because it is not very clear from the somewhat schematic explanations of how the release would work, whether all these are to be charged at the basic rate of income tax, or whether the rate of income tax that would apply would be in accordance with the whole range of income tax on the higher incomes? I am not at all clear what is meant and I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will bear that point in mind. No doubt, a trust would have to be set up to hold the shares for at least the restriction period of five years, to receive the dividends and to pay them to the individual holders, less income tax at the basic rate. The extent of the preference—that is the discount on the current market price—would apparently be left to the company to decide.
Under Method III, the shares would be purchased by trustees at full market value and would be held by them for the restriction period of five years. There would thus be no complications in cases where the employee died during the period, because his representatives would, as I understand it, simply receive the current market value, less tax. After the end of the restriction period, he would be encouraged to hang on to the shares for a period of up to 10 years by a tax concession of either half the original cost
182
on realisation after five years, or one quarter after 10 years. Alternatively, as my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne suggested, there could be a tapering scale, which I agree, would be more desirable. The proposal would result in an annual rate of tax of 17 per cent. over five years at the current basic rate of 34 per cent., or 8½ per cent. after 10 years. I hope that I am right about that.
In both methods, any appreciation in the value of shares over their full purchase price would be chargeable to capital gains tax. I suggest that the shares should be free from capital gains tax during the restriction period. Of course, the market value of the shares could go either up or down during the restriction period. If it went down, the employee who wanted to realise his shares would receive less than the amount he might have expected. I suggest that that is as it should be. It is all part of the collective responsibility of the employees for the fortunes of their company.
However, I suggest that, because of its relative simplicity, Method III is much to be preferred to Method I. From the start, the employee would know the value of his shareholding at any point in time. It is, of course, possible that the market value might fall so heavily that, after five years, the realisation price would be less than the preferential price he had paid for the shares, but that is, as they say, "one of those things"—it is inherent in this kind of system.
I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, am I right in thinking that the Government intend the sums allocated for profit sharing to be deductible from the pre-tax profits and not post-tax profits in the hands of the company? Secondly, would it be open to companies to issue new shares under Methods I and III rather than to purchase—or, rather, get trustees to purchase—existing shares on the open market?
I entirely agree that the tax advantages should not be allowed to a range of shares reserved for employees only. However, provided that the new shares issued each year for employees ranked equally with the category of shares already issued and could be sold pail passu with them on the open market, new shares would have advantages over the purchase of existing shares.

183
For instance, the annual purchase of existing shares could tend to distort the market just as, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, the sale of the shares after five years, once the restriction period was over, would tend to distort the market.
Moreover, the purchase of existing shares would, in much the same way as the distribution or profits to shareholders reduce the resources of the company that were available for internal financing, whereas the issue of new shares would have much the same effect as profits retained in the business. It would represent new capital resources available to the company. The employee would be contributing, in effect, to the capacity of the company to modernise and expand. I am sure that the Government must have considered this matter and I look forward to hearing their view.
Thirdly, is there any reason why trustees used by one company should not also be used by other companies? So long as the trustees were not in the public sector, that would seem a reasonable proposition. If companies could get the expertise, a single block of trustees or a corporation of that kind could handle the trusts.
My fourth question is slightly curious. What happens if a multinational board, based in Britain, runs similar schemes for its subsidiaries in other countries? The Government's proposals are limited to employees in the United Kingdom, no doubt because they are considering United Kingdom tax concessions. However, would it be right—I merely pose this question—in principle for United Kingdom employees to share in the profits of an overseas subsidiary which had its own profit-sharing investment scheme and which, indeed, might be obliged by the law of the host country to have such a scheme? I merely pose that question for consideration. I do not expect an answer today, but I hope the Government will think about the matter.
I do not know what the Government have estimated would be the cost of the three methods outlined in the consultative document. However, I would hope and expect that, if the schemes proved successful and if the economic climate was right, the Government would stand to gain much more in increased revenue than the amount that the tax
184
concessions would cost. Even if that proved an over-estimate, the intangible gain in wider understanding of what the company was trying to do and in greater confidence and co-operation would be considerable indeed.
I am glad that the Government have made it clear that profit sharing is quite distinct from industrial democracy. Of course, we have been waiting a long time to hear exactly what is meant by "industrial democracy". However, if it means what we have come to understand the Government to mean by it, then I think that it is absolutely right. Nothing could be more divisive than getting the two confused or making the share of profits a subject for the kind of negotiation that take place on wages and conditions of work. That does not mean that there should be no democratic element in this matter. I entirely agree with what I gathered from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Byers—that is, that there should be the fullest consultation with all the workers in whatever body it might be—a works' council, a company's council, or something of that sort—before such a scheme was instituted.
Not very much has been said about small businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, referred to this matter, but clearly the Government's present proposals are limited to quoted companies and for my part, can understand why, although I hope that the categories of companies to which they apply can be extended. I do not want to develop this matter as time is limited. However, there seems to be no reason why comparable, though not identical, schemes should not be devised for small businesses, and I hope that that will be the next step which will soon be taken.
To conclude, I support the encouragement of profit-sharing investment schemes by tax incentives and in any other possible way, though I suggest that they do not go far enough. I believe that all of us are seeking—or at least most of us—ways in which to raise the level of productivity, which has fallen so far behind that of other comparable countries in too many sectors of our industry. The more employees can feel themselves involved in the interests of their company and the stronger becomes the sense of common purpose, the more chance there will be of us catching

185
up and even overtaking our competitors abroad. In some instances groups of employees can be stimulated towards more efficient production by productivity deals or stimulated to more efficient marketing by bonuses of one kind or another. But there are many activities where the collective efforts of an enterprise can only really receive tangible recognition through bonuses in the form of profit-sharing, varying from year to year with the financial success of the company.
I am no new convert to the idea that profit-sharing investment can play an important part in improving the collective efficiency of a company and, above all, in enhancing the sense of common purpose within the enterprise. Obviously, this is not a panacea; but neither is it a placebo; nor is it merely an attempt to placate the Liberal Party, important as that may be to the Government. It is something that has a useful contribution to make towards stimulating the ability of the British quoted company to compete successfully in a highly competitive world as an efficient and mature team. It is for that reason that I support what the Government are trying to do, and hope that between now and the Finance Bill the scheme itself will be improved.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I am, of course, delighted that my noble friend Lord Byers should have raised this subject for discussion here today. I have been tremendously impressed by the contributions made by noble Lords on both sides of the House, much of which I fully endorse. But at the risk of being repetitive, I should like to state what I believe the basic objectives of schemes designed to encourage share ownership through profit sharing in the corporate sector should include or should achieve.
First, such a scheme must be aimed at achieving greater company loyalty. It must be aimed at better industrial relations; it must be aimed at greater productivity and it must be aimed at more effective employee participation in the managerial process. Above all, it must be aimed at creating a property-owning democracy in this country. I agree with my noble friend Lord Byers and everyone else who has spoken that Method III is preferable. If
186
we look at the proposals emanating from the Treasury on Method III and measure them against these criteria, I, personally, do not believe that they go far enough in creating a property-owning democracy.
Like my noble friend, I am delighted that the Government should have listened to Liberal proposals for profit-sharing. I am sad that the suggestions put forward in the Liberal Yellow Book in 1928 have had to wait 50 years because, although I agree with my noble friend that they are still perfectly relevant today, our economy has changed to such an extent that many more things are needed today in order to create a property-owning democracy. Perhaps I may return to one of those later in my remarks.
As I have said, I agree with many of the contributions already made as regards Method III and, although I agree with the suggestion that to qualify for membership of a profit-sharing scheme one should have had to work for the company for some time, I think that five years is much too long; because if we superimpose upon that the fact that one would have to wait another five years before one could obtain a tax benefit, that would mean that it would take a person 10 years to achieve a share in the company for which he works. Not only is that not enough of an incentive at this time—because I think people are more impatient than that—but also it can be a dangerously long period, because it can add to the already difficult problem of the immobility of labour.
The other aspect of Method III about which I am a little concerned concerns the conditions under which an employee can withdraw his shareholdings prior to the five years. The conditions include injury, ill-health and death. But I think they lack one reason which should also be included. Some kind of phased tax relief should be given depending on the number of years the person has had the holding if he withdraws it for the purpose of purchasing a house for himself and his family. Again, I believe that the basis of a property-owning democracy is the capability of owning one's own house. If, having contributed to the scheme for two or three years, he has the opportunity to purchase a house, I believe that that should be one of the conditions under which he could withdraw his shareholdings from the trust.

187
I am also very much in agreement with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, about the problems of the loss-making companies. I am enamoured of the idea mentioned by him of using the value added principle in order to encourage workers in companies such as British Leyland to become involved in a productivity drive for this country.
Other problems that have been raised by various noble Lords include the problem of subsidiary and close companies. I should like to ask the Government, in conjunction with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, to see whether it would be possible to include the close companies under this particular method of profit sharing. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to design a system whereby we could include those companies that are at present not viable under the scheme.
Those are some of the remarks I wanted to make about the scheme itself. But I said earlier that our nation's economy has changed enormously in the last 50 years and there are large sections of the community that work in the large nationalised industries—the service industries—that are not included in the scheme. I should like to ask the Government to think in wider terms and to devise a tax incentive designed to encourage wider share ownership by all salary and wage earners. In one sense all of them are engaged in the production process, including those employed in the public services and in the private sector.
Few Members of this or the other House in the 1930s envisaged the scale of the pension fund and insurance savings that would flow from allowing, as a charge for tax purposes, company contributions to superannuation funds and the personal income tax relief for savings by insurance methods. Pension funds for the benefit of large sections of our national workforce, including employees in our nationalised industries and public services, now total £26 billion and insurance funds are estimated at £30 billion; that is, £56 billion in all. We therefore live in a society where large sectors of industry are owned directly, or indirectly, by employees in both the public and corporate sectors of our society. Why should not we, as a
188
nation, build on this success by taking more ambitious steps towards a property-owning democracy by the provision of attractive taxation incentives designed to encourage share ownership by all members of the nation's workforce? Such incentives can be designed to play an important role in the wage and salary structure.
Other nations' economies, including those of Germany and Japan, have for many years adopted these policies which have been an important strengthening factor and have resulted in much higher capital investment in their industries. The total payroll of the nation is £80 billion. Personal savings schemes encouraging savings of 5 per cent. would produce £4 billion of extra savings per annum. The Chancellor, I believe, has the opportunity in this coming Budget to encourage savings rather than consumption, and savings are badly needed if we are going to conquer unemployment and if we are going to get additional investment in British industry. I know that this is not exactly the subject of the Government's proposals on profit sharing, but it is related because we have to get a system which brings the whole nation together to work for a better future.
4.22 p.m.
Viscount HAMPDEN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, when introducing this Motion quoted from the Liberal Yellow Book of 1928. I should like to go back a little earlier than that, with the following quotation:
"We shall not have a satisfactory settlement of the wages question until a labourer receives, in some way or other, a share, however small, in the profits of the business in which he is engaged".
Those words were spoken by my great, great grandfather in 1872, when introducing a profit sharing scheme to his own agricultural employees in Sussex. As he was for about eight years Chief Whip of the Liberal Party in another place, I am sure he would be delighted that what he practised in the 1870s is now being preached in the 1970s.
While I welcome the general tenor of the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has introduced, I have certain reservations about it. I think what we are trying to do is to improve the general profitability of industry by creating a

189
better atmosphere through having employees more involved in industry by owning shares. But we have a problem here. I am a director of a small public company which has two subsidiaries doing totally different things. The morale and the esprit de corps in both those subsidiaries is very high, but the morale is to the different subsidiaries and not to the head office or to the group as a whole. I am sure that if I went to our employees and asked whether they would like an investment in their own jam-making factory, or whatever, they might be quite interested in the idea; but actually to buy shares in a publicly listed company which they know very little about, I think would cause them not a great deal of interest at all.
There are a number of big companies which are one product companies in which a share incentive scheme is a natural. I noticed that Lloyds Bank introduced one last week. That is perfectly natural because employees of Lloyds Bank, whether they are the cashiers in a small branch office or in the head office, can feel associated with such a bank. But a large part of our industry is spread over a number of very large companies which are very diversified, and one wonders really whether employees are very interested in having shares in the large holding companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, mentioned ICI and said it had had a very successful scheme for the last 20 years. I say, Yes, but there is a slight query over that because I remember in the days when I worked in the City, that people dealing in ICI shares were always anxious to know when the company was sending out the stock certificates because they knew that the following day there would be a large number of ICI shares being sold by the employees. Now a nice cash bonus for the employees is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Darling, was talking about, and I think that is perfectly satisfactory. But I do not think it is what we are really trying to do. There are problems about the attractiveness of these private profit sharing schemes.
The other point which I should like to make concerns the question of share price. Noble Lords who follow the stock market will know there has been a great deal of volatility in stock markets over
190
the last five or six years. A high was reached in May 1972 when the Index reached 550. By December 1974 it was down to below 150, and again in September last year it went up to 560. I can foresee a great deal of disappointment, indeed bitterness, among employees who get offered shares when the market is at the top against those who get offered shares when the market is at the bottom. Some make a lot of money and some do not make any at all.
A little more concrete example of what looked an attractive way of getting employees involved in a company but which backfired rather badly occurred some 10 years ago, when a very well known private company, with a fine product and a fine profit record, decided to make an issue of its shares to the public, becoming in fact a publicly listed company. Under the Stock Exchange rules applying at the time—and they are still the same now—10 per cent. of any public issue can be applied for and allotted in full in a preferential way to employees and executives. This company announced that it was going public. There was a great deal of excitement among the employees, and they applied for these shares allotted in the pool. Unfortunately, the public took a slightly different view of the pricing of the issue and did not subscribe for that share in the way in which it was hoped they would do so. The result was that two days later, when the dealings started in that company, the employees suddenly realised they had made nearly a 10 per cent. loss on their initial investment. That caused a great deal of not exactly unrest, but disappointment. Therefore, while I welcome the general tenor of Lord Byers' Motion, I should like to make the appeal that any scheme that is put forward does not do exactly the opposite of what is intended; and if we are going to have a share in democracy, do not let us have that share in democracy with a number of very bitter shareholders.
4.27 p.m.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I agree warmly with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, not only on their technical comments but on their anxiety that this problem of profit sharing should be the subject of an all-Party consensus. It ought not to be subject to

191
constant change, as the kaleidoscope of our Party structure changes, if that can be avoided. I agree that a measure of profit sharing, very flexibly framed, would be a good thing in principle. I think it would encourage workers to take an interest in the profitability of the enterprise they work for, and would encourage sensible productivity agreements, though I do not think that the Inland Revenue proposals are very generous.
We have to face the fact that now we are in the Common Market we must, over the years allow our levels of salaries and wages, and our productivity, both artificially held down by the Government and the trade unions and workers respectively, to rise to more or less European levels. They must, incidentally, be got to move together, and that is pretty difficult to ensure. If profit sharing would help, that would be an excellent thing in principle.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that this ought not to be dealt with in isolation. In practice—and I repeat "in practice"—we have to look at profit sharing against the general background of the muddle in our economy and in our industrial relations. I suggest that profit sharing should be brought in as part of a general reform of taxation, social security and industrial relations, which really is essential for our long term survival. All these things have got terribly complicated. They really need simplifying. It is because there are hardly any profits by the time the Government have taken a huge slice of them and after the workers have so often refused to make proper use of new machines and production methods that we have so little investment in Britain.
The return on ordinary shares is in general much less than the current rate of inflation, even the present rate of inflation, especially when income tax is deducted, and this reduces the incentive effect which workers would be given when they got the shares. This has been recognised by some noble Lords who have suggested with considerable point that there should be a cash bonus. I believe the object should be to get workers to take the shares in the company in which they work because that would increase to some degree their interest in making the firm work profitably.
Will the Government tax profits less highly to change this situation and will
192
the workers then agree to make a proper use of profitable machinery? The history of the last years is littered with almost inexcusable absurdities to raise one's doubts on this. The magnificent new steel works at Llanwern costing many millions of pounds were idle for 18 months or even two years before they were put into proper use. Skelmersdale, full of top quality textile machinery used profitably elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is now bankrupt and closed with many people unemployed. The first-class motor factory at Speke is now to be closed. Halewood, also a motorcar factory, is teetering on the brink of disaster. The list is long and I will not bore the House by reminding noble Lords of it.
I wonder whether a measure of profit sharing would be liable to start another round of strikes and stoppages to raise the workers' share? Under the Government's legislation the workers can break any collective agreement more or less at will. If so-called collective wage bargains are not kept they become rather an organised swindle. The system which has been imposed on this country by the Left Wing is exactly that which the Swedish Communists wanted to have in Sweden but which the Swedish TUC would not allow them to have. The result is what we see at British Leyland, in British Steel, at Swan Hunters and elsewhere.
Where do profits go when, after the ridiculously short-sighted disruptions by the outfitters and then the boilermakers at Swan Hunters, those who have to be dismissed to avert bankruptcy of one of our best shipyards have to be rewarded with up to £10,000 each in redundancy payments? Is this not completely quixotic? Where do profits go in those circumstances? And how can we expect workers to work well or even obey their own trade unions if we distribute public money to them when they strike in breach of agreements? What, I wonder, will be the cost of closing Speke? It must be at the expense of profits in British Leyland. All this money is paid out without any condition about retraining for another industry which is short of skilled labour. Our retraining programmes are still inadequate anyway and, as a matter of fact, they are not adequately used.

193
If it were not for the oil money I think the whole country would be much more nearly bankrupt than it was before the oil money began to come in. We shall find that in the long run this country must depend on commerce and industry and competitive exports for the imports we require to live on. The oil money is a valuable addition but is small by comparison, and if we have more industrial disasters like Swan Hunter, Speke and Skelmersdale, and do not correct the scandalous abuses which cause them, the oil money will be wasted like most of our investments which earn such meagre profits, if they earn any profits at all.
Profit sharing, yes, very good in principle, but there must be sensible profits to distribute. It is high time for the Government and Parliament to examine why there are so few profits, where the tax money goes and what in the last resort is being done with it. When they have set flatters right we can usefully discuss profit sharing in practice, and I hope that the most careful consideration will be given to it.
4.36 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, it is very cheering to hear all this talk of profits, but, personally, profits are something that I have always found it very hard to come by. So many people think profits fall from the sky without much effort, but many of your Lordships will know that, as I say, they are very hard to come by. I have always been keen on some form of profit-sharing basis in companies and, as the House will be aware, many companies today indulge in various schemes of profit sharing and bonuses. My noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne mentioned ICI in this connection. That excellent firm Marks and Spencer I believe indulges in all sorts of such schemes. Going further down the scale, even private employers give bonuses. Yet, for instance, in agriculture—I have had a factory but I also employ people in agriculture so I can speak about both sides—bonuses are paid to shepherds for the number of lambs produced over a certain percentage.
Profit sharing is, therefore, no new idea, and I agree it is a very nice idea. However, it is a difficult one to put into law. The 64,000-dollar question is this: If all
194
employees are to share in profits, will they also share in making up any losses which their firms suffer? The answer, of course, is, No; in any event, it would be quite impracticable to have such an arrangement. To put it another way, is it morally right that a man who is assured of a wage from a firm with no risk to himself should share in the profits when he is under no obligation to pay his share of any losses, and when of course he has the protection of the Employment Protection Act and the Welfare State to give him complete security?
On the other hand, the poor employer with enterprise and energy who builds up a company, together with the aid of shareholders who have invested their money, can be completely destroyed financially if things go wrong. However, having said that, I am still not against profit sharing; I wanted to make the point that profits do not fall from heaven, though many people think they do. Profits are extremely hard to come by unless one is a pop star—something which I have never aspired to; I do not think I would be very good at it, anyway. Suffice to repeat that profits are very hard to come by.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for initiating this debate and I agreed with him about Method III of the proposals. I agreed also with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough. I am all for the share bonus idea. I, too, question the period of five years in this respect because, if it is a matter of giving encouragement to employees to work harder—I do not want to appear smug about this—or making them more responsible to and having a greater interest in the firms, for which they work, I should personally prefer the share bonus idea; but I do not think the average employee would prefer it, and certainly not if he had to wait five years. Could we not have a bit of both? Could we not have some shares (that is, if the company has had a good year, of course) and some cash? I think that might perhaps be possible.
This profit-sharing idea could work very unfairly for some employees. If you take the employees of a number of the nationalised industries, which make no profits but enormous losses, they would be very badly off, and I think they would

195
look with envy at their colleagues in some highly-profitable private enterprises. I do not want to go from the sublime to the ridiculous, but if you are also including unquoted companies—and I think it ought also to apply to unquoted companies—there could be two theatre companies, say, one of which puts on a play of pornographic filth and makes a fortune and the other which goes in for Shakespeare and very highbrow performances. If you take the stagehands, the scene-shifters, of those two companies, the ones who are working for the company which puts on pornographic filth and which makes a vast profit will do very well out of a profit-sharing scheme, but those working for the highbrow company—Covent Garden, for instance, which I think makes a loss, as do, I believe, the Royal Shakespeare Company, too—will fare very badly. That may seem a rather ridiculous example to your Lordships, but it is a factor which will lead to unfairness in many instances.
I have very little to say on this, but I have made a few notes to try to answer one or two other speakers. I favour share bonus profit-sharing, because, if it is all given in cash, you may think that the individual will go and buy shares in his company, and some of them probably will. They might also put the money into savings; but I am afraid that a great many of them will spend it in the betting shops and in the pubs, or perhaps on trashy consumer goods which will be of very little use to them. There is also the tax angle. Unless the Government give tax benefits to employees who have cash or shares in some profit-sharing scheme, I think it will fall rather flat.
I should like to say that owning shares ought to bring responsibility, but that what the public—the working man—would really like—and I do not think the present Government are really keen on it—is to own his own house. I think that comes before profit-sharing schemes, and I should like to see every help given to home ownership. I am for profit-sharing, but I am just a little worried about the firms which do not make a profit. The employees in such firms would come off badly; and, if you apply to the Registrar of Companies, I believe you will find that far more companies have "gone down the drain" than have succeeded. I think that
196
it is a valid point that profit sharing might work unfairly as between employees in different firms. But, as I say, I support the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his Motion, and I am very glad that he brought it forward.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, neither the authors of the Liberal Yellow Book 50 years ago nor my noble friend Lord Byers today suggested for one moment that profit-sharing schemes are a panacea for all our ills, or will do more than take a small step in the direction in which we all want to go. I think both the proposal and today's debate, interesting and valuable though it has been, have to be put in that perspective. It is, however, a step in the direction in which we wish to go: the direction of a much wider diffusion of wealth and, therefore, because of a wider diffusion of wealth, a wider diffusion of power. The over-concentration of both power and wealth is probably the basic ill from which this country suffers today.
Having said that, we on these Benches of course welcome very greatly the Government's conversion and commitment—and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, that it is a commitment. If he reads the reply given in another place to my honourable friend Mr. John Pardoe by Mr. Joel Barnett, he will see that the Financial Secretary said:
"It is the Government's intention to include in this year's Finance Bill provisions to encourage profit sharing".
It is their intention: they have it there in writing, and there is no harm in repeating it in your Lordships' House today to get it on the record once again. It is a commitment of the Government, and it is a commitment which we very greatly welcome.
My Lords, not only is profit sharing a small step in the direction in which we want to go, a small instalment of Liberal policy for which we have been pressing for a very long time, a small achievement out of the pact which all the world will recognise for what it is—for they do not always recognise the achievements of the pact for what they are—it is also a peculiarly appropriate step to be taken at this time. The nature of Method III is also particularly appropriate to the needs of the present time. A great many speakers

197
today have said that employees would much rather have some money in their pocket than a share which they cannot get hold of for a period of five years. This may well be true. I would agree that it is a pity that the shares should be tied up for five years. Of course, they are not absolutely tied up, even in Method III. It is possible for the employee, at a sacrifice of tax advantages, to get hold of the money. I would suggest to the Government that it should be made somewhat easier to do so. I think it should be possible for the person who has received the share, if he wishes to forgo the tax advantage, to be able to get hold of the money; because there are reasons—very good reasons; some of those put forward by my noble friend Lady Robson, such as the desire to purchase a house—which might make it sensible for him to get hold of that money. So I would ask the Government to look again to see whether it could not be made slightly easier, with slightly less discouragement, for the employee with the share to get hold of the money without too much discouragement before the period of five years is up.
Having said that, my Lords, of course it is desirable, in present circumstances, that the money should, as far as possible, be retained in industry; just because we want, on the one hand, a much higher degree of investment and encouragement for investment, and, on the other hand, because we do not want additional money going into circulation over and above what is being paid out as pay. This is the answer, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Darling, who was arguing that really this money belongs directly to the employee and that it is being held back from him, as it were, by encouraging him to hold it in shares rather than in cash in his pocket.
All Liberal schemes, from the days of the Yellow Book onwards, have said that profit sharing must be something which is paid out over and above what is paid as a result of a trade union agreement. Any idea that this is in substitution for the proper, paid wage, the result of a proper trade union agreement, is against the whole principle of profit sharing. It is essentially something extra which they get, and to that extent it cannot possibly be seen as being something which they are entitled to have immediately because they have earned it but which is being withheld from them.
198
If one can say, in the much-used phrase, that the employee will have "all his eggs in one basket", he will have the company's egg in his basket. That is something quite different. His egg is his wages. This is an additional egg laid by the company that he is then able to put into, normally, his nest. So do not let us get too confused with the egg-in-the-basket analogy which is used too easily in this case. It must be seen as an extra. In the particular context of today, it is desirable that as much as possible should be retained in the company. For my part, I see this only as one form of encouraging employees to develop the habit of investment because I should like to see the encouragement extended way and beyond the company in which the employee is employed.
But I think probably we will have to start the investing habit in the company in which the employee is employed. It is not a habit which has been acquired widely by wage earners in this country in comparison with those in the United States, for example, where shareholding is very common. The habit goes against the tradition, perhaps, in this country. A break with that attitude has to be made and encouragement in share holding in one's own company is a step towards wider share owning which, I think, should be the next phase to receive encouragement by means of tax concessions of one kind or another.
I should like also to pick up a point which has been made, and is often made, about the risk, the fact that sometimes people will not get the additional payment because the company has not done well. There are two things I would say about this. First, I agree—and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, who said this—that it would be a good thing to talk not so much about profits as about value added: about payments being related to value added, that value added being the value added by the people who have been employed in the company. Profits are subject to variation for matters which are quite beyond the power to influence of the individual employees: a change in raw material prices, for example, may have a considerable effect on the profits. But value added is more closely related to the contribution made by the employee. It is also a term—and this is, perhaps, really in the nature of a trick; but one has to indulge in these things—

199
that gets away from the term "profits". That term is so misunderstood and so abused that we want to get on with the idea of encouraging people to recognise that if there is to be any real increase in wealth and in standards of living, there must be value added.
The term "value added" has not been denigrated in the way in which the term "profits" has been denigrated. So, both the real meaning of the term is better in this context for what we are trying to do; and also the word itself gives the scheme a better chance than the use of the word "profits". But that is, to some extent, beside the point.
If we are going to do this, I think the fact that sometimes there will be a good return and sometimes there will not, so far from being a disadvantage, is a positive advantage; because industry, by its very nature, is risky. Sometimes it does well and sometimes it does not. One of the things we suffer from is that people apparently find it difficult to understand that there is no automatic increase in wealth, no automatic rise in value, which justifies a continuously rising level of expectations, which is always being referred to. If, by the experience of participating in value added schemes, employees come to realise—and the country as a whole comes to realise—in quite a different way from the present state of affairs, that there is no way in which standards of living are going to be improved unless there is genuine value added, then the overall educational effect of this and the opportunity it gives for real improvement in living standards are of very great value.
That is learnt only when people experience both the benefits which come when an enterprise is successful and the falling away of benefits when the enterprise is not successful. I believe that just because schemes of this sort could bring home to people this simple truth, which is not understood and accepted, this is, in itself, a great and strong reason why we ought to proceed along these lines. I would ask the Government, while thanking them for the progress which is being made, and while recognising that it is only a small improvement which is being undertaken, whether they will look again at the opportunity for people to withdraw
200
shares more easily; to think about the incentives to share owning outside one's own company; to begin and to look beyond to what might be possible inside the nationalised industries. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that value can be added in the nationalised industries. I believe that there is room for a committee to consider ways in which some of the same kind of ideas might be applied inside the public sector. With those comments, I should like to give the greatest welcome to the Government's intention regarding the Finance Bill.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I agree that it is a good idea to change the name "profits" to something else; but does not the noble Baroness think that "value added" might be a dangerous term? Some people might get it mixed up with value added tax, which is not popular in many quarters. It is rather near to that term.
4.56 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to join those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having introduced this debate this afternoon. From the Government's point of view, I am sure that it has been a most useful exchange that has ensued. For me, personally, to take part in a debate on profit sharing has a considerable element of nostalgia; for in the distant past, now, alas! nearly a quarter of a century ago, I made my maiden speech in another place on this subject of profit sharing. I do not think that the great-great-grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, was Chief Whip at the time; but sometimes I feel as though that might have been the case.
I mention this; but far be it from me to suggest that that particular copy of Hansard should be "required reading" for anyone beginning to study this subject now. However, I recall that my first nervous efforts on that occasion long ago were directed to a comparison between the profit sharing schemes in companies such as we have mainly been discussing today and what is to me, and to my noble friend Lord Darling, the more adequate involvement of workers in economic enterprises through the methods used in workers' co-operatives. In co-operative societies,

201
which I have sought to serve throughout my life, workers are the owners; and profit sharing is complete. Indeed, that is very heart and driving force of the co-operative method.
In companies, on the other hand, profit sharing, however successful, is only a secondary part of the financial operation. But I can assure your Lordships that my personal preference for co-operatives does not make me less appreciative of the points of view that have been put forward in today's debate. I know that the Liberal Party, which, as we have been reminded, has espoused this cause of profit sharing, also favours the development of co-operatives. Indeed, as I understand it, they espouse the concept of the Co-operative Development Agency to which this Government are committed. So there is nothing between us, or little between us, in respect of the two methods.
As I have said, the co-operative method is, to me, the best; but the best should not be the enemy of the good and I agree that the proposals for profit sharing put forward in the consultative document are good. As we were reminded, they are a good and fruitful outcome of the discussions which took place some time ago between my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. John Pardoe on behalf of the Liberal Party and other interested parties.
We have heard, largely from Liberal spokesmen, many of the more general arguments for profit sharing. First and foremost is the argument that when employees enjoy a share of the company's profits, they will show a greater personal interest in the company's well-being. From this increased involvement in the company, it is argued that various other advantages will spring. These include an increase in efficiency, an improvement in industrial relations and a reduction in labour turnover. Other benefits claimed for profit sharing are that it will help promote social justice by redistributing wealth and income more fairly, and that it will encourage savings and so lead to an overall increase in investment. A number of these points were made recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
They are perhaps rather bold claims, though I was glad to hear the noble Baroness say that this is only one step towards fuller objectives. But it would
202
not be unreasonable to hope that some at least of these objectives will be achieved. But just how great an impact profit sharing will have on the economy is perhaps debatable. I sound this note of caution for a number of reasons. First, firms are already free to introduce profit-sharing schemes, but not many have done so. Some half million employees currently benefit from profit-sharing schemes, and there are indeed some quite notable schemes such as that mentioned by several speakers, run by ICI. But the half million employees represent only some 2 to 3 per cent. of the total workforce.
Secondly, profit sharing will not encourage employees to identify their own interests with those of the company unless the profit sharing is on a sufficient scale to make the employee feel he has a real stake in the company; and some schemes have not been generous enough to achieve this. Thirdly, profit sharing could foster income inequalities because it favours employees in buoyant parts of the economy to the disadvantage of employees whose companies fail to make good profits for whatever reason. There must be some doubt, therefore, about how great an impact profit sharing will have on the economy. As I have suggested, it would be wrong to be swayed too much by the claims for it which have been made. On the other hand, if companies and their employees wish to introduce such schemes, it does not seem unreasonable that some encouragement should be provided through the tax system.
I now turn more specifically to the consultative document on tax incentives for profit sharing which has been the main subject of today's debate. I should like again to pay tribute to the constructive outcome of the talks between Mr. Pardoe and the Chancellor and other interested parties. I think the suggestions contained in the consultative document form an extremely useful basis for comment and discussion on how we might legislate on profit sharing. Having said this, however, I think it is important to stress that the suggestions set out in the consultative document are not firm proposals—we have not been dealing with a Parliamentary Bill—but are intended to serve as a basis for comment and discussion, which is why I welcome the debate today. There is nothing sacrosanct at this stage about any

203
of the schemes set out in the document. The Government have made it clear that in drawing up the legislation which they intend to include in this year's Finance Bill—and I therefore repeat what the noble Baroness repeated—they will take full account of any comments which are made on the document. It follows that the views expressed by noble Lords and noble Baronesses in the course of this debate will be drawn to the attention of those concerned, and I hope your Lordships' will agree that because it is at that stage of discussion it would not be appropriate for me to pretend to give a final view on most of the points that have been made.
As I have said, nothing in the document should be regarded as sacrosanct at this stage, and it will be clear to noble Lords that the degree of fiscal generosity to be provided in any scheme which may finally be selected for legislation must be a matter for decision in the context of the Budget as a whole. But the limits on the value of the shares which might be taken up by an employee in any one year—£415 in two cases or £500 in the other case—are intended to ensure that any scheme which might be introduced would not be exploited by companies by making large parcels of shares available to higher paid employees. This was one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, had in mind. He may not agree, but that is the reason for the Government's suggesting these limits.
The Conservative Party's latest scheme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, referred, is conceptually somewhat similar to the third method set out in the consultative document. But these Conservative proposals are in the Government's view over-generous. As I understand them, they envisage a scheme under which companies would allocate shares to employees up to a maximum of £1,000 a year—as distinct from the figures in the consultative document of £415 or £500—and while the shares would, as under Method III in the document, be held by trustees for a five-year period, participants would be free to sell them after two years and would escape income tax altogether if they sold them after five. I hope I have summarised the new proposals which I have characterised as having been overgenerous.
204
Under Method III in the consultative document there would be an income-tax charge—though on a reduced basis—whenever employees sold their shares after five years. This was a point again which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, raised about the disposal of the shares after five years. I would say to him that the £500 or the £415 ceiling is an annual ceiling and would permit employees to acquire quite substantial holdings of shares over a period. As I have said, the Government are concerned that any scheme introduced should not be open to exploitation as a tax saving device for higher paid employees and directors. With this in mind, we believe—although I can see that it is a matter of dispute—that a limit of £500 or £415 seems about right.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to answer the question that I put. It may be convenient to answer it at this moment. Does the income-tax payment that is envisaged in the consultative document vary with the totality of the income or is this a fixed amount proposed under the scheme?
Lord ORAM: I was proposing to try to answer the many questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and perhaps I can do that by means of a sort of package deal. There has been some speculation about how the sorts of profit sharing schemes contained in the consultative document would relate to incomes policy. The essential feature of sucessive incomes policies has been the restraint of the growth of earnings. No attempt has ever been made to restrict money income from the selling of capital assets, and it seems unlikely that such an attempt would be made in the foreseeable future. The schemes put forward in the consultative document are all schemes for the acquisition of capital by workers and are prevented from being turned into devices to avoid any current incomes policy by the "locking-in" period of five years. As regards existing profit sharing schemes, provided the scheme was in force before the beginning of the present pay policy it is considered to be allowable outside the guidelines. For schemes which have been introduced since then it depends on the details: any cash pay-out, as distinct from capital

205
acquisition, would have to be set against the guidelines currently in force.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, queried a point made in the consultative document about profit sharing being distinct from industrial democracy. Perhaps "distinct" is too strong a word because there are obvious links; but noble Lords will be aware that the Government plan to publish a White Paper on industrial democracy, and their profit-sharing proposals in no way preempt the discussions on industrial democracy which are still proceeding with the TUC and the CBI. As I have said, the Government intend to put forward proposals on industrial democracy as soon as the discussions are complete.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having given me notice of one point that he raised; namely, concerning the restrictions which would reduce the value of shares by 30 per cent. under Method I. The extent to which any particular restrictions would reduce the value would be a question of fact, and the actual restrictions to be attached to shares would be for determination in a particular scheme. One restriction, which is a necessary part of the scheme envisaged under Method I, is the restriction on disposal within five years of acquisition. Another restriction might be a limitation on the right to receive dividends. It is that kind of restriction that we have in mind, but the facts would have to be determined case by case.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, then went on to raise two or three other points, including the question of shares needing to be held for five years. If the shares could be disposed of forthwith, we should have the situation that giving tax relief for shares allocated to employees would be tantamount to the payment of wages without tax; it is to avoid that situation that we are suggesting the five-year restriction.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, also raised the point about companies operating the PAYE scheme in relation to these proposals. It is not thought that there would be a heavy burden on companies, and it was thought better to do it that way than to have an additional burden placed on the Inland Revenue, because they are pretty burdened at the moment, as is well known. But I recognise that the
206
noble Lord has raised a point which needs to be given further thought, as is the case with many other points that have been raised today. I have already dealt with the point about the upper limit of £500.
I should like to reply to one other point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, concerning unquoted companies. It is for companies themselves, of whatever kind, to decide whether to introduce profit-sharing schemes, and there is no reason in principle why tax relief for profit sharing should not apply to the unquoted sector—I see that the noble Lord nods approval at this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was very interrogative: I do not blame him for that, and I hope he will not blame me if this afternoon I cannot answer all his points, but I will do my best. He made a most helpful point in reply to certain other speakers when he said that he assumed the Government were not opposed to cash bonuses, as had perhaps been implied by other speakers, provided that the bonus is subject to tax. The schemes in the consultative document apply to shareholdings and it is in relation to those schemes that tax incentives are proposed, and so it is not a matter of opposition to cash bonuses as such but rather making sure that tax incentives apply only to the kind of scheme that we have in mind. Perhaps I should make an additional point concerning any cash pay-out from profit sharing schemes: as I said before, those schemes introduced since the beginning of the present pay policy must be within the incomes policy guidelines.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked about the rate at which the tax would be charged. That would be according to the individual's own tax position and the rate would vary in accordance with the person's income from this and other sources. The noble Lord then asked rather rapidly for information on interesting but perhaps intricate points. I will just indicate the position in outline and, if necessary, write to him with further details. First, it is envisaged that the amounts expended by a company on profit sharing would be deductible in measuring its profits in much the same way as amounts expended

207
on wages. With regard to the second point, newly-issued shares could be used if the company so wished. As regards whether a body of trustees could act in several schemes, and the tricky point about multi-national companies, these are certainly points which would need consideration and I will undertake to see that they are considered.
I hope that in one way or another I have answered the specific questions put to me, though perhaps not all of them. However, I will check through the record and write to any noble Lord who may feel I have passed him by. We have been examining in this debate a particular proposal as an incentive for economic growth and I think that many of the speakers indicated that was their approach.
May I now ask that we step back for a moment and look not at the particular proposals but at the whole economic scene in a wilder panaorama. Let us confess—all of us, whether we sit on these Benches, on the Liberal Benches, on the Conservative Benches or on those where the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, sits—that whatever our political philosophy, if we look at the economic system in which we are involved we all see problems for which we do not have a complete answer. I believe that that is true, whatever we may say at the hustings, in Ilford or elsewhere.
Surely, the most ardent advocate of nationalisation must recognise that there are great unsolved problems in the State sector of industry. Surely, the most naive advocate of private enterprise must have doubts in his or her heart, from time to time. What we should all be seeking to do is to establish a third sector of the economy, which is socially responsible—indeed, I would say socially-owned—but not cast in the mould of the Morrisonian nationalisation sector. It is within this third sector of the economy that, clearly, my own co-operative philosophy very well fits. I suggest, too, that it is within such a third sector of the economy that these profit-sharing schemes that we have been discussing also fit. I think that there must be forthcoming other contributions to this debate, the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Darling among them. There must be other experiments in this whole area of what I have called the socially responsible and socially-owned sector.
208
I suggest that it is not only the philosophy of Chairman Mao which can proclaim "Let a thousand blossoms bloom." Dare I suggest that it can be part of the Liberal philosophy, too? It is certainly basic to my own social democratic way of thought. Whether it can be embraced on the Conservative Benches, I am not too sure: that is for them to judge. But in this garden with its thousand blossoms, the flower which we have been admiring today is labelled "profit sharing". Time alone will tell whether it is to be a glorious rose or a modest violet. But we recognise that, for many, it is a worthy flower, and your Lordships have agreed that in the consultative document we have a valuable help and guide to any company that wants to set about cultivating this particular flower of profit sharing. In conclusion, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and I reiterate my assurance that all points of view will be most helpful to the Government in reaching their conclusions as to the best way to proceed.
5.24 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all those who have contributed to the debate, which I do most sincerely, and also to thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for answering our questions in his usual courteous manner. I was interested in his final remarks about welcoming the possibility of a land of a thousand blooms. It certainly would be a change from Governments of a thousand bloomers. I should like to feel that profit sharing could help a little towards the avoidance of bloomers in the future.
I quite appreciate the noble Lord's preference for co-operatives. We favour the development of them as part of the sector, as he said. I see nothing which in any way inhibits co-operatives, side by side with enlightened capitalism, in applying profit sharing for the benefit not only of the employees and the people working there but of the country as a whole. And I think that a third sector could be developed along the lines which the noble Lord suggested. I say to him that I think there will be a lot more argument on the question of the upper limit. It may be that there should be an upper limit, but I suspect that if the marginal tax rates remain anywhere near what they are now,

209
this will not give us the incentives right through the business that we need. While there may be a case for some upper limit, I believe that it is a matter about which there will be argument and discussion, and I think that that is right.
I must apologise, on her behalf, for the absence of my noble friend Lady Seear, who had to go to a very important trust meeting. But I welcome the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that nothing is sacrosanct, and that discussion will take place on this consultative document. I understand that contributions, comments, amendments and suggestions will be welcomed by the Treasury up to 23rd March. I only hope that the noble Lord will feel, as I think he has already implied, that this is our contribution from your Lordships' House. I also hope that your Lordships will feel that we have devoted a Liberal day to some good effect. Since the proposals have been received, in principle at least, with widespread approval in your Lordships' House, I ask the House to agree to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE LIBRARY: WORKING GROUP REPORT
5.26 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Working Group on the Library and the subsequent changes that have taken place. The noble Lord said: My Lords, two years ago the House of Lords Library celebrated 150 years of its existence. While, since 1826, the Library has had its ups and downs, never in its great history has it undergone such major changes as we are witnessing today. True, there were changes when the new Library came into being in 1854, and when it acquired various collections, such as those presented to us by Lady Truro. I must declare an interest, in that I am a Member of the Library Committee and I must confess that, until very recently, I had been very wary indeed about the need to alter the Library in any way.
When I came to your Lordships' House 10 years ago, I remember being very impressed by the almost halcyon atmosphere of the Library. Here was a place
210
where one could relax in a comfortable armchair and work in a peaceful atmosphere. Whenever one wanted a book or to seek out some special information, one had only to ask the Chief Librarian or his assistant. Either would do his best to answer one's inquiry and produce an answer from whatever source was available, and always did so with great courtesy and, apparently, little trouble. The clerical staff, too, were most helpful and kindly photographed whatever material one wanted. One thought that the quality of the speeches in your Lordships' House was absolutely perfect, and there was no reason at all to change.
In 1975, I was invited, with some other Peers, to serve on the Library Committee and was told not to worry at all, that there was not very much to do, that the Committee would meet only once a year or so and that the meeting would not last for very long. Soon after joining the Committee, one became aware of the fact that changes were in the air. My noble friend who is to reply asked for our approval of the setting up of a working party to review the House of Lords Library. One thought "Oh, dear!", but since then a lot of water has flowed under the bridge, and it is here that I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Eccles on his stealth, zeal and tenacity in introducing the many alterations and improvements that have taken place.
One is delighted to see that other noble Lords will be speaking, including distinguished and hard-working Members like the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, a former Chairman of Cornmittees. But, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who is most welcome, I am very disappointed that other noble Lords have not seen fit to intervene. After all, to all of us who attend regularly, the Library is an extremely important place. It is our laboratory, if you like, while the Chamber is our workshop, so we should very much take an interest in it.
I should like now to run through some of the recommendations that have already been acted upon or are in the process of being acted upon. I shall not go into great detail, as I am sure that my noble friend Lord Eccles will do so when he replies. But let us look at some of the

211
pluses. One of the main attributes has been the service given to the European Committee. The services offered have been greater than those offered by the other place. Another is the increase in the research staff.
I know that some of your Lordships have taken advantage of the services given by the Library Clerk. When the proposal was made to engage more highly qualified staff I felt, quite wrongly, that they would have very little to do, would be bored doing nothing and that it would be a complete waste of manpower. I take that back and say what an excellent job the Library Clerk is doing, and I would support the recommendation that the staff be increased. Only last week I had need of some research which would have been completely beyond me. Not only did she produce some excellent notes but she brought out the definitive work on the subject, published in 1902 which had been in the Victoria Tower and had not seen the light of day for years.
Following this personal service is the advent of a new machine and others are to come. The Queen's Room is beginning to look like a space city. We have all taken full advantage of the photocopying machine. This has been long overdue, but, unless I am mistaken, the other aids that we have, and those which are yet to come, have yet to come into their own. It is at this point that I think your Lordships need a little instruction in order to gain the maximum advantage. I know I do, and I should like to ask my noble friend if it could be arranged for us to have a seminar and if we could be instructed in the virtues of BLAISE—the British Library's Automated Information Service—and so on. This is recommended in paragraph 20 of the report where it suggests that the services of the Library should be much better known.
The only other improvement which I should like to mention is the importance of conservation and of the need for a new site for the bindery. Clearly, when resources are available, steps to deal with the backlog of books to be rebound and refurbished should be speeded up. The only real sadness was the removal of the showcases owing to lack of space. In 1851, the Clerk of the Parliaments' Committee recommended that the death
212
warrant of Charles I be placed in the Library. Now it has been relegated to the Somerset Room. Later came the Act of Union with Scotland and other documents of prime historical importance. I appreciate the argument for placing showcases on the line of route, but they can only be there if maximum security is afforded. I should like my noble friend to comment on the present position regarding them.
Finally in what may be an extremely short speech in introducing this Motion, I should like to say that I hope your Lordships will make your views on these changes much better known so that those of us on the Committee and my noble friend have a much clearer idea of what should happen. I should also like the suggestion book to be more used. It is a book which is hardly ever used, and I am guilty together with others. I should like regard to be paid to the new Library Bulletin. Here, I should also like to congratulate the Librarian on the very hard work he has undertaken—always with a smile, may I say—in the short time since he has taken over, and to thank the staff for the very hard work they are doing. This Library has a very much greater future than ever before. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Working. Group on the Library and the subsequent changes that have taken place. (Lord Teviot.)
5.34 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing forward the Report of the Working Party on the Lords Library. I think it is something that we ought to discuss and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the chairman of the Working Party and the chairman of the Library Committee. I do not think your Lordships quite appreciate what a job was given to him. I will not go through the terms of reference, but what they really meant was to ask the chairman of the Library Committee and such other members of the Working Party as were appointed to take a good look at the Library and decide what to do with it. As we went on examining the job it became more and more difficult; we were faced with an immense number of problems.

213
I do not think we could have produced these 33 recommendations—I would question whether some of them will achieve what we want to achieve, but I shall come to that in a moment—if we had not been guided by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We were fortunate in having as chairman of the Working Party the chairman of the British Library. This is a fact which your Lordships should take into consideration. As I said, I should like to criticise some of the recommendations. At one point I was stimulated by the chairman of the Working Party to put in a minority report. I refused to do so because I would have split the recommendation.
I think the recommendations are not sufficient. They are all right for the time being, they deal with immediate problems, and this is the important thing the Working Party had to do. The development of the Library and Library services still poses immense problems for the future. The most important problem of all is that of space. Again I pay tribute to the chairman of the Working Party for the way in which he tramped up and down the corridors trying to find walls on which to pin more bookcases, and the fact that the books are being spread around is good. At least we are beginning to know where they are.
I think your Lordships will be surprised when I explain that, as pointed out in paragraph 12, the Library possesses about 74,000 volumes, of which 22,000 are in the four rooms of the main suite that we think of as making up the Library; 24,000 in corridors, 13,000 in the basement and 15,000 elsewhere—in the Victoria Tower among other places—and difficult to get at. There was also the further difficulty about which books were in which place because the catalogue had not been kept up to date. It is still not up to date. As I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will explain, the new arrangements for cataloguing with the help of computer intakes will help us to get over that problem but we are still faced with the appalling problem of where to put the books.
Within these Parliamentary buildings there is a limit to corridors on which to hang bookshelves, a limit to the space you can take, and unless both Houses of Parliament face up to the problem of space I do not think we can make much progress with either the reorganisation of the
214
Library or anything else. This Palace of Westminster was not built to accommodate the kind of services that we must put into it. The Commons are desperately short of Committee Rooms. I do not want to develop this point at any great length, but I think that the Commons, in trying to solve their problem, have given us a bit of a solution to the problems we face in this House.
A large part of the Commons services are on the other side of Westminster Bridge Road in what I gather (because they do not want to call it New Scotland Yard) they call the Norman Shaw Building—we know what the building is. They have Committee Rooms there. Also, part of the Commons Library information service, which is important to both Houses, is now located over there. They have the problem of double indexing.
I know very well that again I am going to be controversial, but I am afraid that I cannot help it. In the discussions about how to make best use of Parliamentary space I do not believe your Lordships can say that the Lords have got what they want, that they are going to stick to it and adopt a dog in the manger attitude, that there is nothing that they are going to give up to the Commons and that there is nothing they are going to move out of the Palace of Westminster. I do not believe that we can solve the problems of the Library by taking that kind of attitude. I think it is wrong.
There are very guarded recommendations, but at least they are there. For instance, there is the recommendation that a joint staff working party should be set up by the two Libraries to make sure that they provide a proper information service to both Houses. The time has come when we must have joint working of both Houses in order that both Houses make the best use of the available accommodation. Because the action taken by the Commons in moving over so much work to the other side of Westminster Bridge Road has made the Palace of Westminster elastic, the precincts of the Palace of Westminster now stretch to the other side of Westminster Bridge Road and there is no reason why they should not stretch further, perhaps to the other side of Parliament Square.

215
I do not wish to develop this point except to say this. We are not dealing with one Library. There are four libraries here which have to be organised in some way. There is a reference in the report to one or two members of the Committee who suggested that we should amalgamate the Lords' Library with the Commons Library, so may I make clear what I meant by that.
First, there is a club library consisting of current books which your Lordships want to read in the comfort of their comfortable chairs in the Library—and perhaps to be slightly somnolent over them. Nobody wants to interfere with that club library. I hope that the arrangements we are proposing will increase the number of current books and periodicals which your Lordships may wish to read in that kind of atmosphere. I am all in favour of that; I believe it should be developed.
There is also an information service for our use in this Chamber and in Committees. As we tried to point out in the report that was produced on the computerisation of the information services, we can have only one, not two information services in Parliament, in particular if we go over to computerisation, as quite obviously we must. We cannot have two possibly conflicting services; they have to be complementary. There can be only one service which must be developed jointly. The proposals contained in this report recommend the joint development of a Parliamentary information service to serve both Houses.
The second library consists of books which we found in the Library but which doubt very much whether any of your Lordships would ever want to read. They are valuable books. I remember that during the course of our discussions in the Working Group we received a comment from a member of staff—not the Library staff—that he wanted to refer to one of John Ruskin's books and that he knew very well there was a set of Ruskin's works in the Library. Those works were found. They have been here for about 75 years with the pages uncut. Also in the Library are the French classics which were collected and placed there by Sir Edmund Gosse. Nobody ever gets hold of them, and because they are in
216
French I doubt whether any noble Lord really wants to read them. Also upstairs are books in Latin about the history of Canterbury. I do not believe that any noble Lord will make a claim to be an avid reader of those books.
Noble Lords should not forget that we are up against the problem of space. There are a great many books here that noble Lords do not want to read but which other libraries could possibly make use of. I believe that we should give them away to the appropriate libraries on the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—who I am sure, as chairman of the British Library, can find libraries which will make use of them—but on one condition: that they must go not to lending libraries but to reference libraries. A further condition would be that if any noble Lord wished to borrow any of these books—and I think there are hundreds of books of this kind which would be of value to other libraries—it must be provided quickly and brought here for him. If this does not happen, these books w ill go on mouldering away, some of them in the basement. There are references in the report to the fact that the bindings of many of these books are in a terrible state, and we shall have to spend a great deal of money upon trying to deal with that problem.
Finally, there is the law library. I know very well that what I am going to say will get me into a great deal of trouble. I do not know whether your Lordships appreciate that the library of the final Appeal Court of the United Kingdom is lodged on shelves that go along a little corridor that runs at right angles to the Upper Committee corridor. So far as I can discover and I shall be corrected about this if I am wrong—there is no arrangement for the books to be consulted there; they have to be taken away for consultation. I do not know whether this is efficient, but it is certainly undignified.
I come back to the point I made at the beginning: that although the precincts could be made elastic by transferring some of the work from here to other buildings which were then placed within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, this building itself is not elastic. Therefore it is questionable whether the space which is now taken up by the law library and

217
by the Committee Rooms which are used for Appeal Court purposes should be located within this legislative building.
I shall not develop that point further. I know very well that I shall bring upon myself considerable criticism and opposition. However, I do not believe that the Law Lords can be excused and exempted from the problems that we face in trying to use the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster for the best legislative purposes. Given the shortage of space, I question whether the Appeal Court should be located within this part of the Palace of Westminster. I do not want it to be located far away. I shall not suggest, as I suggested during the Working Party proceedings, where I think the Appeal Court could be beautifully located, only a stone's throw away, with far more space than it has now, with a library in a proper condition and housed in rooms big enough to accommodate it; but these are matters which I believe must be considered
I must apologise to your Lordships for speaking for so long. However, as I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will appreciate, it was far better that I should voice my criticisms of the report that we are considering in, I hope, a constructive way, rather than that I should have taken the advice he gave to me when we were having some of these arguments; namely, that I should put in a minority report. My Lords, I finish as I started by saying that this is a very good report. It is largely due to Lord Eccles that it is a good report, and I support the recommendations contained in it.
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of the two noble Lords who have just spoken in commendation of this report of the Working Group. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, was perhaps not wholehearted, but he did at the end say that he thought it was a very good report. The future of the Library services is obviously a matter for the House as a whole to decide: it is not a matter for the Government, although I am delighted, as I am sure other noble Lords are, to see two Ministers on the Front Bench to take note of what we say. But, because it is a matter for the House, I hope the proposals in the report will
218
receive the support of noble Lords on the Back Benches in all quarters of the House, and I am glad to see on the list of speakers that there are Back-Benchers speaking from all three political Parties.
At the same time, I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that more noble Lords of the Back Benches have not expressed their opinions. This is, after all, the first time in 150 years that important changes have been suggested in the Library, and changes that have been recommended by a body that gave the problems of the Library a most careful study. I hope that noble Lords on the Back Benches who are not present, or who do not intend to speak, will take advantage of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that they might communicate their views to members of the Library Committee.
The modernising of the Library and its services will be a most useful contribution to the efficiency of the House, and the proposals of the Working Group seem to me exactly what is needed to meet present-day requirements. We are all deeply indebted to the noble Lords, the chairman and members, who gave so much time and thought to the work of the Working Group. I think we are also indebted—and I can say this more easily because although I use the Library a great deal I am not a member of the Library Committee—to the chairman and members of the Library Committee, to the Librarian and his staff, for the very good beginning they have already made in putting into effect the main recommendations in the report. I was simply astonished to find how much had already been done in the past year to prepare for a better information service and to acquire more books and other material of topical interest.
However, I think we should look as far as we can into the future, and I should like to say something about two subjects. The first is an improved information service, and the second is the space that will be required for it and for the other facilities offered by the Library. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Darling, regarded the question of space as the most important problem of all, and he may be right, although I do not think I share his view.
I put the information service as a more important problem because I think it

219
could do even more for the efficiency of the House. The report says, rightly, I think:
"A much better information service ought to be available to all Peers, and if it were it would be increasingly used".
I regard this as the most important recommendation. I should like to see an information service in this House comparable in quality to the information service in the House of Commons. Of course, we must use theirs. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, very rightly pointed out the necessity for a partnership so far as possible with another place, but at the same time we shall always be the last in the queue; we must, therefore, have an information service of our own. And this service should provide not only briefing and background material for noble Lords who ask for it on a particular subject but similar material prepared in advance of debates and available to any noble Lord who may wish to speak on a Bill, on a Motion or on a Question. This, I think, is something entirely novel, but I do believe it could be of immense advantage to the Members of your Lordships' House.
As demand will increase when this new service is known to exist—this improving service, perhaps I should say—we shall need more staff for the Library. The enormous disparity between the Lords and Commons Library staff—anyone who looks at the figures will agree with me—is an indication of the extent to which we are still under-staffed. Another requirement for a better information service, besides staff, will be the full use of computer services as and when they become available. I believe good progress is being made with our own catalogue, so that it will be completed within the three years envisaged by the report, and can then, of course, be computerised. But we shall also need to use external computer services, commercial as well as public. We are not a Government Department—I think we sometimes make the mistake of supposing that we are—in our administrative capacities. I fail to see why we should be obliged to apply to the central computer agency whenever we want to use an external commercial service. The increased cost of doing this on our own would be trifling if we were thus allowed to link up with any external
220
commercial service that, in the view of the Library Committee, could be useful to the House.
The expansion of the Library, when it has become an up-to-date information service and will require a larger staff, will also require much more space than we now have. Of course, we should begin by making use of the five rooms in the Library suite. The only one of these rooms that is not fully used at the moment is the Salisbury Room, which many of us will remember as Committee Room C. At five o'clock tonight, half an hour before this debate began, the Salisbury Room was empty and in darkness, whereas there was hardly an empty chair in any of the other rooms of the Library. This is not an isolated example of the neglect of the Salisbury Room. I believe the reason of this neglect is the difficulty of access. It is cut off from the other rooms by the absence of a door from the Queen's Room into the passage leading to the Salisbury Room. Many of us realised in 1975 that this door would be essential to make Committee Room C, as it then was, really used and recognised as part of the Library. Its construction is now suggested in the report, and I very much hope the work will be authorised in the the very near future so that it could be undertaken in the Summer Recess.
However, where is the Library to look for the additional space it will need for all to make use of its improved services? I can see only one answer to this question in the near future, and it is hinted at in paragraph 14 of the report. The Lord Chancellor's Office has now become a small Government Department, but it is still largely accommodated in this building. I would hope that as time passes more of its staff will be hived off, without, of course, in any way detracting from the efficient and effective service that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor requires. In this way the needs of an expanding House—and, of course, our numbers are increasing every year, unlike those of another place—could be given the priority they should have over the needs of a Government Department. I will conclude my remarks by making an appeal.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, before the noble Earl comes to his conclusion, may I ask him whether the Committee have considered, or any members of the

221
Committee have considered, proposals that have been made here and there, now and again, about House of Lords reform? There are some proposals which, if acceptable—note the term—would mean some reduction in the number of Peers in the House; obviously this might affect the Law Lords, and might even affect the noble Prelates; you cannot tell. Ought not the possibility of House of Lords reform be taken into account?
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, because I am not a member of the Library Committee. However, I can safely leave the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to answer the question.
I should like to conclude by making an appeal to the Government—which I am sure will be noted by the Government Ministers on the Front Bench—to support the small increase in public expenditure that will be necessary if the efficiency of the House is to benefit to the fullest possible extent from the improvement in the Library service recommended by the report. That is surely not an unreasonable request at a moment when constraints on public spending are so much less than they were even a year ago.
6.1 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, both regretted the small number of speakers taking part in this debate, but I think that I can take some comfort from that fact. People are usually much more ready to come forward with their complaints than with their expressions of satisfaction. I should have thought that the small number of speakers is an indication that there is widespread satisfaction with the Library services.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the Truro Collection—that magnificent collection of law books given in memory of Lord Chancellor Truro by his widow after his death in 1855. It occurs to me that now that that collection is being moved from the Truro Room to a corridor upstairs, there may be some danger that the link with the name of Lord Truro will be lost unless special care is taken to preserve the association.
222
I think that the new corridor upstairs at present is known as the East-West Link Corridor, which may be a very accurate description. However, "The Truro Corridor" would certainly trip more easily off the tongue. If that suggestion were adopted let the corridor be boldly sign-posted "The Truro Corridor". In addition, or alternatively, let the new glass-fronted shelving which is to contain the collection be boldly inscribed "The Truro Collection". In that way we shall continue to respect the wishes of Lord Truro's widow when she made us this magnificent gift.
6.4 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I rise rather embarrassed by all the kind remarks which your Lordships have made. The tribute really goes to the working party as a whole: it met many times and discussed everything, I think, as carefully as your Lordships would wish and we produced between us a report which evidently commands a large measure of satisfaction. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Teviot for introducing the subject in such an able speech. His own great knowledge of genealogy and heraldry makes him a good library man and he has always helped us very much on the Library Committee.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that one should not be disappointed that there are only a few speakers. When I was for many years in the other place and a General Election came round, as the sitting Member defending my seat I was always delighted when nobody turned up at the meetings and there was no heckling and no questions because I knew perfectly well that I was going to get in again! That experience is, perhaps, valuable to us here tonight.
Before I turn to the main points, I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. Christopher Dobson, our Librarian, who has now retired, and to wish him well, surrounded by the books in his own library, which he has chosen with great discrimination. His kindness, patience and great knowledge of the history of Parliament were very much appreciated by many of us.
The impetus behind setting up this working party was the frequently expressed desire that the books, journals, information and services in your Lordships'

223
Library should be made as effective as the library services available in another place. I always thought that there was more in that demand than just a sense of unjustified inferiority because, in both Houses and outside, anxiety is felt about the growing power of Ministers over and against Back-Benchers of all parties. We know that the gap has widened rapidly between the information available to the Executive and the information available to Parliament as a whole. If Parliament does not have adequate information, its sovereignty is easily transferred to Whitehall or to bodies not elected by the people. My noble friend, Lord O'Hagan, wrote an admirable article in The Times this morning in which he said that one way to deal with this problem was by more Select Committees. I quite agree, but a Select Committee is no good if it does not have adequate information with which to do its work of inquiring into the actions of the Executive.
The other place has had greater resources than we have ever had to cope with this information problem and we cannot ever expect to match the size of its library staff. Even if the money was forthcoming, as several noble Lords have said, we would not have the room to accommodate staff on a scale equal to that of the other place. The wonder is that your Lordships have enjoyed such a good service, rendered by so small a staff, working with such a modest collection of material relating to current affairs.
The working party was faced, as the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, said, with a large number of difficulties in proposing any significant improvements, because not only is space very short in our part of the Palace, but the pressure on the space that we have has increased enormously in recent years following the appointment of several hundred Life Peers. However, the picture is not all gloomy. We found that it was physically possible, and agreeable to the Lords of Appeal, to transfer large quantities of legal records and books from the main rooms of the Library to the corridors upstairs adjacent to the Court of Appeal. Among the books which we decided to transfer was the Truro Collection, to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has referred. I quite agree with him that
224
we ought to perpetuate the name of such a splendid gift and I have no doubt that the Librarian will come up with some ingenious suggestion—perhaps the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—to ensure that that is done.
The movement of the books provides us with a good deal of space for greater acquisitions on current topics. We always had in mind that if, after all the legal books had gone upstairs, there was still not enough space in the main Library rooms, we could consider moving some of those books to which the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, referred, which are splendid in themselves and look very nice on the shelves, but which are not very often consulted. I must tell him that they are sometimes consulted. Even I look at the French books occasionally.
Of course, the trouble is where to put the extra staff. We cannot accommodate staff on shelves. Therefore, we had to select one of the rooms in the main Library in order to concentrate there the information clerks and assistants, without whom the improved inquiry service could not be brought about. I shall return to the nature of the change in the Queen's Room in a moment.
But we faced another severe handicap which actually had a considerable effect upon our recommendations. There has never been a comprehensive catalogue of all the material in your Lordships' Library. For example, the legal books have never been catalogued with the other books; they have been kept quite separate. But two or three years ago the Library Committee made a start and when we came to look at the situation in the working party we realised that the time taken to compile this catalogue in modern form, but with the existing methods, was quite intolerable. If you do not have a good working catalogue, you really cannot have good information services. It is the background for these.
Given these daunting handicaps—and they were daunting—it was natural that the suggestion should be made that the best and quickest way in which Peers could enjoy equal facilities with another place would be to amalgamate the two Parliamentary Libraries. That was on the assumption that the other place would agree and then your Lordships would have access to all the facilities for inquiry and

225
research now enjoyed 200 yards down the corridor. Whether the other place would have looked favourably on such a suggestion, we do not know. Perhaps those of us who served there for some years may be permitted to doubt it. But, in fact, we never put the suggestion to their Committee because the majority of the working party were firmly in favour of retaining your Lordships' Library as a separate organisation.
I should like to give the reasons. I imagine that in the 19th century most noble Lords had adequate private libraries of their own. Anyway, your Lordships' Library began, not as a general library in support of our legislative functions, but as a law library in support of the Court of Appeal. That has always been a prime function of our Library. The happy result is that we possess collections of legal records and books far wider than those of the other place, and we must not forget that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor lives and works in the Palace and that he requires books for carrying out his Office. On the other hand, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that now that the Lord Chancellor's Office has become a small Department of State and now that a good deal of it is already out-housed, there seems to be a case for containing the expansion of the Lord Chancellor's use of the space in the Palace. However, that is not for me to comment upon, except to say that I do not think that there are any other rooms which might, sooner or later, be available for the Library of your Lordships' House.
I am not at all in favour of moving the Law Lords and the Court of Appeal out of this House. I say this simply as a Member of the House, but I think we benefit enormously by having the advice of the Law Lords during all our Committee stages and the general business of the House. It appears to me to be part of the British Constitution that the Supreme Court of the land should be composed of Peers, and that is one of the reasons why this House is distinct from another place and needs a separate Library to serve its Members.
Obviously, any working library comes to reflect the functions and practice of the institution which it serves. Your Lordships' House is not a duplicate of the
226
House of Commons, but a separate Chamber of the legislature, having a style, a composition, powers and functions different from those of the other place. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will agree that our Library does and should continue to reflect these differences. Perhaps I could give one small example—we have no Smoking Room; we use our Library for relaxation as well as for working in. When we are there, and awake, we want to know what is happening in the Chamber and to have available information about our current and future business and much other historical and literary material. We want the chairs to be plentiful, comfortable and covered in red leather, and the atmosphere to be congenial. All that is very different from the greeen and dramatic atmosphere along the corridor.
Although the majority of our working party were firmly against amalgamation with the Commons Library, we were all wholly in favour of the closest possible co-operation between the two. One of the best things to come out of our report is the machinery that we have set up for this co-operation. It is working very well. In addition, last week we had a joint meeting on computers—chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough—with the other place, where we agreed to share the experience of all the computer services that might be installed in either Library.
If complete amalgamation was not desirable—and we did not have enough space to bring our information services up to the level of those of the Commons—what were we going to do? Very fortunately, the development of computerised information services is just reaching the stage when we can be really confident that these devices will give us a service adequate to our needs, with far fewer staff and at much cheaper cost than would be the case if we emulated their organisation and their methods.
Very shortly (I think in a week's time) we shall be linked with the British Library Data Base and, among other things, this will enable us to be one of the first—I think the first—libraries in the United Kingdom to produce, and month by month to keep up-to-date, a comprehensive catalogue of all the material that we possess. This operation will cut down the time needed to get the new catalogue to

227
something between two and three years. It will take a little time to learn how to use these instruments. But once we know how, things will move fast, and it will be much cheaper than if we had to take on the number of cataloguers who would otherwise be required.
The main change in the suite of Library rooms on the principal floor is the conversion of the Queen's Room to an inquiry room, and there the reference books will be collected, the information clerks will have their desks and telephones and most of the new machines will be installed. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that has meant that the historic documents have had to be moved to the Salisbury Room, but this is only temporary because we hope to find a secure position for them on the line of route. The Salisbury Room is a little cul de sac and far fewer members of the public who are interested in these documents now get to see them. That is a pity, but I think that, if we talk this over with the Lord Great Chamberlain and Black Rod, it is possible that we shall be able to solve what is really only a security problem, though an important one.
The Librarian is to be congratulated on the speed with which the changes are being made. He took to computerised information services like the proverbial duck to water. It was very gratifying to see his skill and enthusiasm. But it will take a little time before all the equipment is in operation and the staff are trained to use it to the full, and before your Lordships are familiar with the new services at your disposal. It was an excellent idea that we should have some seminars, or teach-ins, as to how to use these machines. They are very simple but a little frightening when you first start to use them. When you find out what they will tell you about yourself, you become very respectful towards the automation and telecommunications industry.
I hope that the changes in the main rooms meet with general approval. We cannot satisfy everybody. For instance, I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Maelor. He regrets that he cannot smoke in the Truro Room. I am no longer a smoker so I cannot share his discomfort, but I understand it. I can only say that we asked a good many noble Lords, and the great majority were in favour of
228
making the Truro Room a non-smoking room. The Derby Room is certainly improved by taking away the clerk's desk and by adding quite a large number of additional working places, and that is a smoking room. The Brougham Room is improved by having the journals and newspapers all together, and that also is a smoking room. The Salisbury Room is not a smoking room. I know that it is often empty because I use it a great deal just because it is often empty. I do not know whether I want to encourage other people to use it or not.
The Library Committee are anxious to serve the House. That is what we are there for. We wish that noble Lords would not be backward in telling us what they want. When we know what noble Lords want, then we shall do our best to supply it. The Librarian and his staff would be glad to have suggestions of any kind for any aspect of the Library. I am sorry to have kept your Lordships so long. We have a fine Library. It has had a great tradition, but after 156 years it is time that we should try to bring it more or less into the world in which we now live.
6.24 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, there is virtually nothing left for me to say except, Thank you. This short debate has been most worthwhile, and I concede to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that Members must be satisfied and that is the reason why there have been so few speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, gave the debate some colour by voicing his differences. I cannot say that I altogether agree with him about the removal of books to other libraries. It is an idea, but whether the extra footage gained would be worth all the upheaval is something we must think about. We have all benefited from Lord Listowel's interesting speech. Finally, my noble friend's speech was one of the most interesting that one has listened to for a long time. For a long time to come if anybody wants to know what has happened to the Library, or anything about the Library, he should read his speech. I commend this Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past six o'clock.