Sitting of 18 January 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of William Watson Small, Esquire, Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, 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
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the work of the Scottish Development Agency in creating employment opportunities in Scotland.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): Before I answer, perhaps I may be permitted—as is appropriate on this first Scottish Question time—to say how much all of us on both sides of the House very much regret the passing of Willie Small, who has been our friend and colleague for many years. His considerable industrial experience in the West of Scotland has been of great value to Scottish Ministers. The commonsense advice that he gave us both publicly and privately will be sorely missed. He was a man of great sincerity and integrity and he had a very finely tuned sense of humour. His witty interventions in the House often brought hon. Members and Ministers down to earth. I join with you, Mr. Speaker, in expressing our sincere condolences to Mrs. Small and her family at this time of bereavement.
    424
    The answer to the hon. Member's Question is "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister of State aware of a letter which I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland in which I drew attention to the investment by the Scottish Development Agency in the firm Highlands Metals Limited, of Elgin? Is he aware that many people in Hereford feel strongly that public money should not he used to create jobs which will lead to job losses in Hereford? Does he agree that the industry in which the investment was made was oversubscribed? May we have an assurance that the Minister will stop further development of this type? Will he ensure that no further nonsensical investments of this kind occur?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Member was kind enough to write to me about this matter. The SDA is not directly managed by me, nor would I wish to be. It exercises its own commercial judgment. I know that it carries out certain studies and makes projections in the market. It is right that it should be free to do this work if it believes that there is a market. I understand that, particularly in oil-related industry, there is a need for business of this kind. It is rather surprising that a Conservative Member should express a fear of competition.
    Mr. Monro rose—
    Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order. I am not at all happy with the Minister's answer. I give notice that I shall seek to raise the question on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has effectively cut out any further supplementaries to his Question.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with steps being taken to reduce the level of the Scottish prison population.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): As indicated in the Queen's Speech, my right hon. Friend is contemplating legislation on criminal matters in Scotland. It is hoped to include in the legislation measures aimed at reducing the prison population.
    Mr. Rifkind: On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I wish to express agreement with the Minister's comments about the passing of Willie Small. I am sure that the whole House regrets his passing.
    Is the Minister aware that at present more than half of the prisoners who are admitted to Scottish prisons are being admitted for non-payment of fines? Does he agree that this is clearly inhibiting the prison service from doing its proper job of dealing with those convicted of more serious offences? What steps do the Government intend to take to improve the procedure for the attachment of earnings for those who have fines imposed upon them so that the necessity of sending them to prison is avoided?
    Mr. Ewing: There are various ways of using figures. On any day of the week no more than 4 per cent. of the prison population is there because of non-payment of fines. Such prisoners seldom spend more than one day in prison. Those who do spend more than one day in prison are very few indeed. That is not to say that we do not recognise that there is a problem. It would be wise for the House to await the publication of the legislative proposals to which I referred earlier.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: On behalf of myself and my colleagues, may I express our regret at the passing of Willie Small? We shall miss his friendly personality in the House.
    In the absence of any statement on the Social Work (Scotland) Act document about provision, supervision and aftercare, will the Minister make some comment? These matters are important, in view of the high prison population in Scotland.
    Mr. Ewing: It is fair to say that the numbers of social workers employed in the Scottish prison service have increased. I do not want to give the impression that the prison population is increasing. It is falling, although by small numbers. The average daily population is smaller than it has been for some years. We are therefore not altogether unsuccessful. The legislative proposals that we publish will be designed to achieve even greater success.
    Mr. Carmichael: I welcome the possibility of new legislation on prison reform. However, will my hon. Friend pay
    426
    attention to the question of the numbers who go to prison for non-payment of fines? The number involved may appear small, but when the all-party group met prison officers it was told that one of the most irritating parts of their job was the long process of introducing persons into prison, recording all the details and taking all the other necessary steps, only to find, when the process was completed, that the fine had been paid and the work had been wasted.
    Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend has made a substantial point. There is no difference in terms of what the prison officer has to do on admissions to prison, whether the offence is of non-payment of a fine or one in respect of where the person concerned has to serve a sentence. We recognise this fact and it is being considered in our proposals for legislation.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall ask hon. Members to put briefer questions, so that we may have briefer replies and in that way make much better progress.

    Hunterston (Reactor Closure)
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent closedown of an advanced gas-cooled reactor at Hunterston and what are the consequences for the Scottish electricity generation programme.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 15th December. The South of Scotland Electricity Board does not expect to encounter any difficulty, as a result of the incident at Hunterston, in meeting the demand for electricity.
    Mr. Wilson: In that event, will the Minister of State indicate whether the Government intend to Dress forward with the Craigroyston pumped storage project before the use of the Torness site? If the Government intend to use the Torness site, will there be a fresh public inquiry, because the previous public inquiry related to the SGHW reactor?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has not as yet put forward specific proposals to me or my

    427
    Department on the Craigroyston project. I know that it is discussing the matter with many of the local people concerned and that it is listening to their views. On Torness, until the Government have decided on the type of reactor to be built it would be precipitate to make any announcement on the question of a planning inquiry.
    Dr. Bray: Are the reports correct that, in spite of the availability of electricity from other sources, those other sources are more expensive, and that the accident at Hunterston will therefore result in a substantial increase in the price of electricity in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKenzie: Electricity will have to be supplied from more expensive sources, but since we have not yet had a full and final report from the electricity board, because it has not completed its inquiry, and we do not know how long the station will be closed, it would not be right to make any judgments about the effect on tariffs.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that we share his sadness and that of the House on the passing of William Small? He was among the kindest and most conscientious of our colleagues. He had a superb record of service to both Glasgow and the trade union movement.
    When does the Minister expect the problems of Hunterston to be resolved? Secondly, will he comment on the apparent difficulty of the SNP in supporting the extension of nuclear power in Scotland while holding rallies and handing out pamphlets opposing the dumping of nuclear waste anywhere in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am sorry, but I cannot tell the hon. Member when we shall have a report. I can assure him, however, that the electricity board is conducting a thorough inquiry and will want as much publicity as possible for it. On the second point, concerning the attitude of the SNP, I am sure the hon. Member will agree that we are all sometimes somewhat confused by that party's attitude not only to this problem but to many others. That attitude seems to depend on which day of the week the speech is made and who happens to make it.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it premature to ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that what
    428
    occurred at Hunterston will not be regarded as a black mark when crucial decisions are taken upon the advanced gas-cooled reactor system?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I have discussed this with the chairman of the electricity board and he has assured me that this will in no way prejudice further discussion of the matter.

    Employment
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the latest results of each of the special employment measures introduced to combat unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: About 53,000 people in Scotland are currently benefiting from the special employment measures. I am placing the detailed breakdown of the figures in the Official Report.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's bold and imaginative measures have been warmly welcomed in Scotland, as they have decisively reduced unemployment? Is it possible, however, to step up those provisions, especially in areas of high unemployment, such as Coatbridge and Airdrie?
    Mr. MacKenzie: We are deeply conscious of the problems of my hon. Friend's constituency and of other industrial constituencies in all parts of Scotland. He will recall that it was not so many weeks ago that we announced new measures, which we think will be of considerable value. I am thinking particularly of the youth opportunities programme, which comes into being on 1st April this year and will provide 230,000 places for young people throughout the United Kingdom. We also propose to use the special temporary employment programme, which will give opportunities to 25,000 adults.
    Mr. Monro: Does the Minister think that there might be ways of improving co-ordination between the large number of bodies involved in bringing jobs to Scotland? Is he satisfied that the present procedures are adequate, and will he consider looking at this matter in detail?
    Mr. MacKenzie: For many years, particularly before I became a Minister, I was concerned about the number of people and agencies involved in job creation and inward investment. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) will recall that interest from his experience in the Scottish Office. We now have a Scottish Economic Planning Department which works very closely with the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and we have reached a fairly satisfactory state which avoids the proliferation of organisations involved in these matters.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister agree that the so-called bold and imaginative plans that the Government are implementing are so effective that Scottish unemployment is running against the United Kingdom trend and is continuing to rise? Already this week there have been announcements of closures in places such as Clydebank, which will add to the jobless total. Can the Minister see his way to reintroducing the regional employment premium, the withdrawal of which has been estimated to have cost Scotland 20,000 jobs so far?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Lady should acknowledge that about 53,000 people in Scotland are already benefiting from these measures. They are of considerable help to many young people. As to whether the measures are the right ones, I can tell the House that they are under constant review. We decided not to continue the REP, but we introduced other measures, such as the youth opportunities scheme and the temporary employment subsidy, and provided more money for the Scottish Development Agency. There have been selective schemes to help industries such as foundries and machine tools, from which we in Scotland have benefited to a great extent.
    Mr. Sillars: Does my right hon. Friend expect Scottish unemployment to be reduced substantially over the next six months?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman would not be foolish enough to think that I would be prepared to make guesstimates of that kind.
    Mr. Younger: We welcome the measures which are helping unemployed young people, but is the Minister aware that
    430
    most of those young people are still, in effect, unemployed in terms of having long-term worthwhile jobs with career prospects? Most of the 53,000 people that he has mentioned should be added to the unemployment total if we are to get a true picture of the failure of the Government on unemployment.
    Mr. MacKenzie: I do not think that one can add the 53,000 to the total unemployed. We are taking action in a very difficult time of world recession to help young people to gain job experience, and that is a matter of considerable importance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both said repeatedly that we do not regard these jobs as in any way a substitute for real jobs in the Scottish economy. We have taken measures to hold down inflation, and believe that those, with other measures that we are taking, will provide the real answer.
    Following is the information:

    Employment

      SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT MEASURES
      Detailed figures for the Government's special employment measures in Scotland are as follows:

      Temporary Employment Subsidy

      28,783

      Job Creation Programme

      11,542

      Youth Employment Subsidy

      941

      Job Release Scheme

      1,954

      Work Experience Programme

      4,601

      Community Industry

      886

      Job Introduction Scheme

      4

      Small Firms' Employment Subsidy

      1,038

      In addition, 2,808 people are currently benefiting from the Government's special training measures in Scotland.

    Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider sympathetically the funding of drama provision for Queen Margaret College in Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement as to the criteria he would use to judge such an application in this connection.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): Courses in drama have been provided at Queen Margaret College since 1972–73. The college has proposed an extension to provide a drama teaching wing; a decision on this project will have to wait until an assessment has been made of the suitability of the surplus accommodation

    431
    which will become available at Dunfermline College of Education.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, as far as it went, but is he aware that £40,000 has been spent by the college, with the approval of the Scottish Education Department, to realign a road for the building of the drama teaching wing extension? Bearing in mind that this is the recognised centre of drama in the East of Scotland, will he give the college advice on what it should do in this connection?
    Mr. McElhone: I understand the question about the £40,000. I suggest that the hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He wants us to save 10 colleges of education, with a falling school population. At the same time we have got to consider diversification and use of very expensive alternative accommodation. Discussions are taking place and a discussion with the SED is taking place at Dunfermline tomorrow.

    Work Force
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the increase in the work force in Scotland that is anticipated in the next 15 years.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Labour force projections for Scotland up to 1991 are at present being calculated and will be published as soon as they are available.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister of State realise that that is a most extraordinary reply in view of the reply given by the Secretary of State for Employment in c. 256 of Hansard on 13th December 1977, in which he was apparently able to calculate the United Kingdom figure? Does this mean that the Government's projections are to be on a United Kingdom basis and that they have no idea what the position is in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKenzie: We have made projections on a United Kingdom basis until the 1981 period, but we do not have figures for 1991 in Scotland. We are preparing them, and they will be published as soon as possible.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that at Portlethen, near Aberdeen, and at Montrose in my constituency there
    432
    have been losses of jobs in recent weeks of over 60 in each case, directly as a result of agriculture policies followed by the present Government? Is he aware that these policies are now having an effect on employment in processing industries for agriculture? If the Government get these policies right, particularly the devaluation of the green pound, that will help future employment in Scotland.
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am conscious of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has, particularly in industry. However, I am bound to say that I am not quite so conscious of the problems that he has mentioned in agriculture. We shall do what we can to help on the industry side.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most recent projection for the rise in the work force in Scotland up to 1986 is about 150,000? Does he not, therefore, take the point that there is a great deal to be done to stimulate investment in manufacturing industry and other jobs in Scotland? Does he further accept that the solution to the unemployment problem in Scotland is a Socialist one, and that if we leave it to the capitalist economy we shall be in greater danger?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I think that it has to be borne in mind that because of the rise in the birth rate in 1960 many more people have come on to the labour market than there have been for some years, plus the fact that there are a number of women now coming on to the labour market. The measures which the Government have taken, particularly in the setting up of the Scottish Development Agency, the National Enterprise Board, and the Industry Act 1975, are the sort of measures likely to create jobs in the United Kingdom and particularly in Scotland.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: When will the Secretary of State and the Minister be able to give us some indication of the Government's plans for steel, an industry in which Scotland is facing the greatest crisis in years? This is in an industry in which we have tried the Socialist policy of nationalisation for some time. What is the outlook for steel? Will the Minister look at the October 1974 election manifesto on which the Labour Party was returned to power? Will he indicate

    433
    whether the temporary employment subsidy is seriously under threat because of the recent discussions with the EEC?
    Mr. MacKenzie: We will make our findings known as soon as possible on the question of steel.
    On the second point raised by the hon. Member, I am taken aback by what he said. When the Conservative Party was in power it was very anxious to close a great number of steelworks, and it was left to the Labour Party in 1974 to ask my colleague, Lord Beswick, to go through all the proposals and ensure that we did not have the dreadful closures that the Conservative Opposition envisaged at that time. The protection of those jobs has been of great value to the people whom I represent.

    Tertiary Education Council
    Mr. Alexander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his proposals for a council for tertiary education in Scotland.
    Mr. McElhone: I refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Pollok (Mr. White) yesterday.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the reply to which he has just referred? Does he agree that there is no need to wait for devolution to set up this council, as the proposal has widespread support in Scotland?
    Is he aware that we hope to submit our comments on this scheme? Meanwhile, will he agree to drop this awful word "tertiary" and try to find something simpler and more straightforward, such as "higher", so that the people can understand and realise what the proposals are all about?
    Mr. McElhone: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome to the proposed council. I shall certainly consider his point about the word "tertiary". It is understood by most people in education. I hope that all hon. Members will submit views on the whole question of this council.
    Mrs. Bain: There is broad general agreement in Scotland that this council should be established, and the proposal has been welcomed by various education
    434
    bodies in the post-school sector. Does the Minister accept that a crucial education matter, which must be dealt with quickly, is the problem of further education lecturers who still have not had their pay anomalies straiightened out?
    Mr. McElhone: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister indicate whether the Government will be giving support to the Bill which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), in view of the support that this Bill has received from all sides of the House and from all education bodies in Scotland?
    Mr. William Ross: Wait and see.
    Mr. McElhone: We should wait and see how the council is set up. I am always grateful for help and advice from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I think that most hon. Members would agree that to set up an investigation into further or higher education at the same time as setting up a council would be a duplication of effort and a great waste of time. In my opinion, looking at the history of education, every time we have a problem there is a cry for a council investigation. If I accepted all the cries for investigations, there would no education at all in Scotland.

    Scottish TUC
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the STUC.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has agreed to meet the STUC again but no date has yet been arranged.
    Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is now about four months since he had discussions with the STUC about the Scottish Timber Product situation at Cowie, in my constituency, and that there is increasing concern among the work force and others about the long delay in this matter? If it is the case that no suitable buyer comes in with a firm offer for the company, will the Minister ask the Scottish Development Agency to consider taking over complete ownership of the company

    435
    under the terms of Section 2 of the Scottish Development Agency Act?
    Mr. MacKenzie: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am very conscious of the delay and of his concern and that of the shop stewards, whom I met only on Friday of last week with my hon. Friend. Negotiations are taking place at present and I would not wish to say anything which would in any way jeopardise the prospects for those negotiations, which I hope will come to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister tell the STUC that the Labour Government last night disgracefully voted against one of the things dearest to the heart of the STUC—namely, that the SDA should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly? Does he agree that the Government's vote against devolving the SDA to the Scottish Assembly will seriously hamper the SDA in its work?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say last night. I was slightly puzzled because he seems to be completely misrepresenting the view of the STUC.
    Mr. Buchan: When my right hon. Friend meets the STUC, would it not be useful to have a general discussion on the whole question of the continual misrepresentations and lies that are uttered in this House about the attitude of the STUC to this matter? This is just the most recent example. There have been several. I think that it should be stopped.
    Mr. MacKenzie: I think that the STUC, which I meet frequently, made a fair assessment of the attitude of the SNP to industrial matters. That was brought to a head when we had the public tearing-up of telegrams on the whole question of the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Would it not help if the Minister suggested to the STUC that it should reconvene the one-day conferences on Scottish unemployment which it used to hold some years ago under the Conservative Government when the numbers of unemployed were fewer than half the present figure?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The STUC meets frequently. It is both publicly and privately candid in its attitude and puts for
    436
    ward its views in a spirit of friendship, which I appreciate. I do not think that the STUC draws any distinction between Conservative and Labour Administrations.

    Royal High School, Edinburgh
    Mr Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in converting the Royal High School in Edinburgh for the proposed Scottish Assembly; and what is the value of the work still to be completed.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The work described in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) on 7th April 1977 is expected to be completed by the spring. About £500,000 has still to be spent on this work.
    Mr. Knox: How does the cost of the work already completed compare with the estimates?
    Mr. Ewing: The work already completed has £500,000 to be spent on it. The additional work to be done can best be explained by pointing out that a balance of £1,250,000 is still available between the £2 million already announced and the £3·25 million declared in the explanatory and financial memorandum.
    Mr. Reid: If the Government are providing a largely "get-you-in" service until the Assembly can decide whether it will be a Committee or Chamber-based legislature, what is the earliest date by which Westminster's share of the work can be completed?
    Mr. Ewing: I should make it clear that the only service that I am interested in providing to the SNP is a "get-you-out", not a "get-you-in", service.
    We are confident that the premises will be ready for taking over by the Assembly when the people of Scotland have had their say on the devolution proposals.
    Mr. Dalyell: If the service that my hon. Friend is interested in providing is "get-them-out", why on earth does he spend his time supporting devolution?
    Mr. Ewing: In view of your appeal for short answers, Mr. Speaker, I shall not become involved in that matter.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Have the Government considered alternative uses for the

    437
    building in the event of the people of Scotland saying "No"?
    Mr. Ewing: All possibilities are continually under consideration.

    Fishing Vessels (Construction)
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new fishing vessels are now being built in Scottish yards.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Twenty-nine fishing vessels are currently being built with assistance from public funds. Also being built are, I understand, one small vessel for home owners without Exchequer aid, one for export and two speculatively.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the Minister agree that there is grave doubt about the use to which these new boats can be put unless we achieve renegotiation of the Common Market fisheries policy? Is there any information from Brussels that he can give us?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The only information that I have from Brussels is that, as the House may have noticed, my right hon. Friend is not here. The Under-Secretary of State was asked to go to Brussels last night so that my right hon. Friend could be here today to answer these questions. Unhappily, the weather conditions are such that he is still stranded somewhere between Brussels and London. I know that he would wish me, on his behalf, to apologise to the House for his absence.
    On the general issue about the fishing industry, I think that it would be more helpful to wait until my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have completed their negotiations and we have a fulsome statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate that the Minister is aware of the deep concern about the future of the fishing boat building industry and the fishing industry in general. Is he aware of the extremely depressing news out of Brussels not only yesterday but today? Is he further aware that, so long as the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture stand up for the preference of the British fishing industry, particularly the 50-mile zone, he will have the full support of both sides of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating another Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious problem for small boat builders in Scotland, since they require continuity of work if they are to remain in business? Is he further aware that there are indications that the amount of loan funds available for the purchase and building of new fishing boats this year has been cut? Will he review the matter if he finds that some yards are running into difficulties?
    Mr. MacKenzie: We are conscious of the problems of small boat builders throughout the whole country. For these reasons, the Government have given valuable assistance to them in recent times. Indeed, that was indicated to me only last week when I went to the Boat Show.
    The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary referred to a matter which will be reviewed by my right hon. Friend.
    Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there seems to be an opportunity for building fishing boats for the new fishing port opening on the western coast of the Isle of Lewis? The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who represents that area, is not present, but I am sure that he will not mind my asking whether those opportunities will be available for inshore fishing boat builders from Scotland rather than European fishing boat builders.
    Mr. MacKenzie: That is one reason why the SDA took the initiative in that direction. We want to help Scottish fishermen and Scottish small boat builders whenever possible.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware that Scottish purse seiners and fishing boats are supplying 12 Soviet bloc factory ships in the port of Falmouth with 600 tons of mackerel a day? Will he assure the Cornish people that these boats will not continue to come to Cornwall and rape and kill the industry there as they have their own?
    Mr. MacKenzie: That is an interesting question, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that it has nothing to do with the Question that I am answering now. Perhaps he will put it down to my right hon.

    439
    Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

    Hill Farmers
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that hill and upland farmers have received a fair financial return during 1977; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: As indicated in the annual review White Paper, published last week, average net incomes on hill sheep and upland rearing farms in Scotland are estimated to have gone up by 43 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively in 1976–77. Further increases are forecast for 1977–78.
    Mr. Monro: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the staggering increase in the costs of production of beef on hill and upland farms far outweighs any profit on sheep? Is he further aware of the grave damage done to farming generally in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom by the Government's failure to devalue the green pound?
    Mr. Ewing: Many interests have to be balanced before a decision can be taken on the devaluation of the green pound. It is worthy of note that the Government have devalued the green pound on numerous occasions, and will no doubt do so again, but only in the interests of the nation as a whole.
    Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the difficulties faced by farmers stem directly from our membership of the Common Market? Instead of listening to the Tories and the SNP, who are calling for a huge devaluation of the green pound, which would have a massive inflationary effect on food prices, would it not be better to scrap completely the common agricultural policy and revert to a system of deficiency payments which would ensure a fair price for both the farmer and the housewife?
    Mr. Ewing: In my usual fair and generous manner, the best that I can say to the farmers is that they seem to have some slight misunderstanding of the effect of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Grimond: I should like to associate the Liberal Party with the tributes that have been paid to our colleague who died so tragically this morning.
    440
    In addition to the need to devalue the green pound, have the Government any plans to increase the bill livestock compensatory allowances? This has been a poor year for cattle sales in Orkney, and this seems to be the only way in which farmers might get a fair price.
    Mr. Ewing: The whole economic position of the hill and upland sector is being examined in the annual review of one agriculture industry. The results of that review should not be anticipated. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman will be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister agree about the importance of sheep farming in maintaining hill and upland farm viability? What estimates have been made of the effect on agriculture in Scotland of the French and Irish sheepmeat deal? What steps will be taken to expand Scottish sheepmeat trade with EEC countries?
    Mr. Ewing: I accept the importance of sheep farming in maintaining the viability of these mixed units.
    I will consider the other specific matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, and write to him about it.
    Mr. Buchan: Further to the point raised in the first supplementary question, may I ask whether it is not the case that there is a general problem facing hill and upland areas, much of it derived from high feedstuff prices, which in turn arise directly from our unprincipled entry into the Common Market undertaken by the Tories? Does my hon. Friend not agree that, rather than going for mass pressure and mass capitulation to this unprincipled demand for the complete devaluation of the green pound, it would be much more sensible to give a direct injection of capital and increase the hill calf subsidy? Will my hon. Friend give urgent attention to another point that has been raised in this exchange, namely, the French-Irish deal on sheepmeat, which is coming close to breaking the spirit if not the leter of the Rome Declaration?
    Mr. Ewing: I have given a specific undertaking to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) that I will look in detail at the points he has made. I recognise the economic difficulties being suffered by hill and upland farmers. Their position is being considered in the

    441
    review of the agriculture industry, but I must ask for the indulgence of the House when I say that I cannot anticipate the outcome of that review.
    Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that, due to soaring costs of all kinds, there are many Scottish farmers who will be expecting a net reduction in their income in the coming year? Will he bear in mind that while the rest of the population is busy squabbling about whether they will get a 10 per cent. increase this is not the case for the farmers? Should not the farmers at least be dealt with on the same basis?
    Mr. Ewing: That supplementary question does not lead me to the view that many farmers will suffer a net reduction in their income in the coming year. The forecast that I gave to the House was that farmers will have an increase in income this year, although some farmers in various sectors might have some difficulties. It is this aspect which is being examined.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The prospects for the industry depend to a considerable extent on the outcome of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy which are still in progress in Brussels.
    Mr. Sproat: Does not the Minister agree that the latest EEC proposals remain totally unacceptable? One does not know whether to treat them as a joke or as an insult. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the news coming out of Brussels today is leading to fears in the industry that there will be a sell-out on limits and quotas as well as on conservation? Does he not agree that there can be no substitute for a 50-mile exclusively controlled limit and for fair quotas backed by strict licences?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I very much resent the suggestion by the hon. Member that there has been some sort of sell-out. The hon. Gentleman and all who are interested in the fishing industry would be well advised to wait until the negotiations have been completed and my right hon. Friends the
    442
    Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have reported these matters to the House. I know the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has listened sympathetically to the views put to him about a 50-mile limit. I know that both my right hon. Friends are pursuing all these policies with considerable vigour in Brussels.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable satisfaction throughout Scotland, as elsewhere, about the vigorous stand which both my right hon. Friends are taking in the fisheries negotiations? Is he further aware that this feeling of satisfaction is particularly marked since people are conscious of the weak negotiating position which this country had as a result of the terms of entry into the EEC approved by the previous Conservative Government? Will he undertake to see that messages are sent to my right hon. Friends to the effect that they can tell the Commission during the present negotiations that they cannot accept any deal on fishing unless it is first approved by this House?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the way in which my right hon. Friends are approaching this difficult problem. I can assure him that the message he has given will be passed on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has done some hard work, which has been much appreciated by hon. Members interested in this subject.
    Mr. Watt: May I add my congratulations to both right hon. Gentlemen on their tremendously firm stand in Brussels? Does the Minister recognise the difficult situation which has arisen vis-à-vis our fishermen and Norwegian fishermen? Is he aware that in the absence of any agreement in Brussels there is no reciprocal agreement between ourselves and Norway? Will he take steps to negotiate an interim and reciprocal agreement, if necessary?
    Mr. MacKenzie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, these questions do not all concern matters with which I would normally deal. I can assure him that all the comments which have been made will be passed to my right hon. Friend.

    443
    Everyone recognises the expertise that he has acquired since becoming Secretary of State.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: May I say that we appreciate the extreme pressure under which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland are operating? May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that as long as his right hon. Friends maintain a tough stand in the face of unreasonable claims by our European partners they will have the full support of the House? If they weaken, the situation will be different.
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know the stand which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland takes. I have seen him operating during negotiations on other matters. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that Scotland's views on these matters will be fairly, squarely and vigorously put to those in Brussels.

    Emergency Medical Services Hospitals
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what way it is intended to replace emergency medical services hospitals still operating in Scotland.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The current National Health Service major capital building programme for Scotland provides for the eventual replacement of six of the seven hospitals which were originally built as wartime emergency medical services hospitals and are still in use.
    Mr. Galbraith: Will the Minister say a word about the priority with which these hospitals will be built? Will he say whether the replacements will be large hospitals or in the nature of cottage hospitals? Has he any idea of the upper limit? Can he say which is the most expensive?
    Mr. Ewing: It would take too long to go into the detail of the six hospitals. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about them if he would like me to do so. A general point that I can make is that Raigmore is in band A; Peel, Bangour General and Bridge of Earn are in band B; and Ballochmyle, which the hon. Gentleman may know very well, is in
    444
    band C of the major building programme which was announced on 2nd May. The plans are being prepared at present.
    Mr. David Steel: Since one of those six hospitals serves my constituency, may I ask whether the Minister is in a position to tell the House whether he has yet received the representations from the Border Area Health Board and the Border Regional Council? Is he aware that both bodies make it clear that public opinion has been demonstrated to be clearly on the side of the new hospital, that the limited objections which have been received have in part been met and that the rest must be balanced against the weight of public opinion, which is in favour of pressing ahead quickly with the new building?
    Mr. Ewing: My Department is very much aware of the need to have the district general hospital built on the location that has been selected. The right hon. Gentleman has been very active in this matter. It is true to say that the Border General District Hospital will replace Peel, which was one of the wartime emergency hospitals. The plans are now well advanced.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: While many of these old hospitals did excellent work, may I ask my hon. Friend to keep in mind the fact that the rebuilding of hospitals must be rationalised in respect of catchment areas, so that the most up-to-date equipment can be supplied?
    Mr. Ewing: That is one of the prime factors which we have in mind. Another is the fact that we are trying to shift the emphasis in the Health Service from the acute side of medicine—without running that down—to the long stay side. All these factors have been considered in this programme.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Since the cost of running a new hospital inevitably seems to be greater than the cost of running an old hospital, may I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that, as well as providing the capital cost of the hospitals, the Government will ensure that the relevant area health board is provided with the running costs?
    Mr. Ewing: The problem is not to do with running costs, which are met from

    445
    revenue, but rather with the commissioning costs of a new hospital. We have had one or two instances where the commissioning costs have not been able to be met by the various area health boards. This is one of the matters we have under consideration.

    Lorry Drivers (Hours of Work)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the road haulage industry about the effect on Scottish transport costs of the EEC regulations on drivers' hours; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has kept in close touch with developments on this matter through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is well aware of the special problems that the regulations pose for the more remote parts of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend has assured those Scottish transport bodies, including the Scottish Transport Group, which have written to him of his concern and of his efforts to obtain the best possible terms for a staged implementation.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the 450-km limit for a daily journey is causing serious problems in Scottish transport and will have the result of increasing costs substantially? Is he aware of the special problems which this limit creates since the unions are unwilling to have the tachographs installed? Does he see any way out of the problem of the 450-km limit, which has to apply as a result of our membership of the Community?
    Mr. MacKenzie: It is right to say that some concessions have been made on the 450-km limit which have been valuable to Scottish interests. We are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for having negotiated them. It is not easy to quantify the costs at this moment. All the points that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind. From time to time we come upon tricky problems following our entry into the EEC. The hon. Member is not, perhaps, as enthusiastic about our entry as are some of his colleagues. We have to make these regulations work, and we shall do so.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will do me the favour of studying Hansard when it comes out tomorrow and seeing how long the supplementary questions and answers have been. That accounts for the fact that we have reached fewer Questions today than we have reached for at least the last two months.

    A75
    Mr. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what improvements he intends to put in hand on the A75 trunk road in 1978.
    Mr. McElhone: Improvement schemes at Shennanton and Drumflower Bridge are planned to start in 1978.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman take another look at Glenluce and see whether he can at least begin the process of preparing a scheme for a bypass for that much suffering village?
    Mr. McElhone: I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to my noble Friend who deals with day-to-day problems of roads in Scotland.
    Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the rapid increase in the Irish container traffic, the situation on this road is deteriorating rapidly? Will he give as much priority to this road as he does to the roads for the North-East for oil? Will he also look at the ring road around Dumfries?
    Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am awaiting the results of a study carried out by the Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council. This road will be progressed year by year. We are spending a considerable sum of money on improving it.

    Education (European Community Directorate)
    Mr. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Assembly will have direct involvement in educational decision-making within the European Community following the creation in the EEC of the new Directorate General XII for education.
    Mr. McElhone: It is the United Kingdom that is a member State of the Community and it would be inappropriate

    447
    for any part of the United Kingdom to have separate representation. My Department has participated fully in the work of the EEC Education Committee since its beginning in 1974.
    Mr. Reid: Is this not another case where, once the Assembly is set up, Edinburgh will have to talk directly to Brussels, with the London link withering away? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps, after the Assembly is established, to ensure that papers on matters both devolved and within the competence of the EEC are sent directly to the appropriate Scottish body without having to go through an English Minister first?
    Mr. McElhone: We shall no doubt discuss this matter tonight, when we debate education on the Scotland Bill. I repeat that it is the United Kingdom that is the body representing us in Erussels.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: No.
    Mr. McElhone: If the hon. Lady wants to talk about a Scottish presence, I remind her that I myself represented the United Kingdom last June in Strasbourg when we had the conference of European Education Ministers.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that representation of this kind by the Edinburgh Assembly would be unacceptable to our European partners?
    Mr. McElhone: I must agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is it not clear that the absence of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State from the Government Front Bench today indicates that all of Scotland's special interests can be represented in Europe under the present arrangements that the Government have?
    Mr. McElhone: I agree.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Mr. Rifkindasked the Lord Advocate what are the present responsibilities which he has allocated to the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have made no formal alloca
  448
  tion of responsibilities to the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The Solicitor-General assists me generally in the discharge of my functions.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon and learned Gentleman consider that he will continue to need the assistance of a second Scottish Law Officer in the event of the Government's devolution proposals being implemented?
  The Lord Advocate: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the effect of the Scotland Bill would be that the two Scottish Law Officers would remain United Kingdom Law Officers, Westminster-based. There is no proposal to change that.

  WARRANT SALES
  Mr. Dempseyasked the Lord Advocate what representations he has received about the practice notes recently made by sheriffs-principal, laying down that a creditor must apply for a warrant sale within six months of a poinding.
  The Lord Advocate: I have received no such representations.
  Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that solicitors have represented to me that this six-months ruling should be made flexible for these debts to be recovered and some humiliating warrant sales avoided? Will he give consideration to this view?
  The Lord Advocate: The matter is for the sheriffs-principal, who have issued the practice notes, but I will take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should take him to task slightly in that in his Question he rather implies that a creditor must apply for a warrant sale within six months of a poinding. The practice notes are carefully worded and provide that a poinding shall be effective for six months from the date of execution, but that if an application for an extension is made to the sheriff within that period he may extend the period beyond six months but in no case to more than 12 months.
  Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate how many representations he has received about changing the law on warrant sales.
  The Lord Advocate: I have had correspondence with two hon. Members and the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I have also received letters from two members of the public.
  Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the public humiliation and degradation that warrant sales cause to many ordinary working people and their families when their furniture and personal belongings are hauled into the street and sold for a mere pittance? Pending the Law Commission's inquiry, will my right hon. and learned Friend consult his fellow Ministers about the possibility of calling an immediate moratorium on the use of warrant sales by public bodies such as the gas and electricity boards?
  The Lord Advocate: I take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend. I know that warrant sales cause a lot of distress. I think that the proper way to investigate this area is in terms of the inquiry of the Law Commission. I remind my hon. Friend that when a similar point was put to me on 30th November, I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Fife. Central (Mr. Hamilton) to the effect that if it could be shown that systematic abuses of the law are taking place I should consider what action can be taken in co-operation with other Ministers.

  GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT (STAFF)
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate what plans he has to improve working conditions for staff at the Glasgow Sheriff Court.
  The Lord Advocate: The only staff for whom I am responsible at Glasgow Sheriff Court are those in the Procurator Fiscal Service. I have arranged that most of them will move out of the sheriff courthouse to new and improved accommodation.
  Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these premises will be considerably far away from the sheriff court? Would it not be infinitely better if arrangements could be made so that the court and the staff for it were in one building? Will he also
  450
  pay an urgent visit to the court, where I am sure that he will be appalled by the staff conditions and the facilities for the general public?
  The Lord Advocate: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the staff for whom I am responsible are those in the Procurator Fiscal Service. In that connection, I propose to pay an early visit to Glasgow. But I must remind the hon. Gentleman also that the problems which have led to overcrowding in the sheriff court building will be eased to some extent because it is hoped that two further courts will come into existence on 6th March. The hon. Gentleman referred to the distance of the procurator fiscal's office from the sheriff court. Distance has proved not to be any disadvantage for other sheriff courts where already these moves have taken place. I further remind the hon. Gentleman that legal practitioners for the defence are not based in the building. Indeed, there is an argument that neither side in litigation should be based in the building where the court is based.
  Mr. Buchan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek an assurance from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that if the necessary expenditure to improve the conditions for the staff at the court is allowed he will not be the first to join in an outcry about increased public expenditure?
  The Lord Advocate: I think that it would be reasonable to ask the hon. Gentleman for that assurance.

  PROCURATORS FISCAL
  Mr. MacCormickasked the Lord Advocate what number of part-time procurators fiscal at present serve in Scotland; and if he is satisfied with their remuneration and conditions of service.
  The Lord Advocate: There is only one part-time procurator fiscal, and he is located at Oban. I am reasonably satisfied with his remuneration and conditions of service.
  Mr. MacCormick: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, particularly because of the change in the system of district courts, the work load of the part-time procurators fiscal has significantly increased? In view of the

  451
  present remuneration, would it not have been fair and proper to make the necessary changes to remuneration and conditions of service?
  The Lord Advocate: Factors of that kind are taken into account because the remuneration of a part-time fiscal is related to a suitable point in the full-time procurator fiscal scale. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is not unique to part-time procurators fiscal. This increase in business has taken place throughout the Procurator Fiscal Service.

SOMALIA
Mr. Ameryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Somali Government's request to Her Majesty's Government for arms, and his Department's refusal to accede to this.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): No reply has been given to the Somali Government's approach, which we received on Monday. We will consider the request carefully in consultation with our allies. We are at present not supplying arms to either Somalia or Ethiopia. The conflict in the Horn is complex in its history and damaging in its effect. We have worked actively for a negotiated settlement and believe the conflict should be settled within an African context and without outside interferernce. We have supported OAU mediation efforts. The British Government would be prepared to support an approach to the Security Council if this seemed likely to help work out a basis for a settlement.
Mr. Amery: While welcoming the Foreign Secretary's statement that no reply has yet been sent—I was, therefore, perhaps wrong in speaking of a request, which was based on Press reports this morning—may I ask whether he agrees that the conflict and the problems, great though they are, are largely incidental and that there is another essential matter? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the build-up of Ethiopian arms, with massive supplies of Soviet arms and with Cuban and Soviet military personnel, constitute by themselves a threat to the area and a threat to peace in the area? Unless steps are taken to correct the
452
imbalance which this constitutes there is a real danger that we shall be faced with another Angola situation under which Ethiopia and the whole of the Horn of Africa will become a province of Soviet imperialism. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this would be a matter of very grave concern to the oil consumers in the West and in Japan, to the oil producers in the Gulf and to countries such as the Sudan, Egypt, Israel and Kenya and that it would dramatically affect their development?
Dr. Owen: I agree that this is a very complex issue. I also agree that the build-up in recent weeks of arms and men inside Ethiopia from outside the African continent could well turn what has been a very complex and damaging territorial dispute in Africa into an East-West issue. I do not believe that it is in the interests of anyone, let alone the Soviet Union and the West, for this dispute to become an East-West issue, but as that build-up proceeds, so it will inevitably become one.
On a number of occasions I have urged the Soviet Union and other countries to leave this issue to the OAU and to let it remain a dispute between Ethiopa and Somalia. I believe that the territorial integrity of countries must be respected. The way to abolish boundaries is by peaceful negotiation and not by armed aggression. What is now needed in this complex problem is mediation and the willingness between Ethiopia and Somalia to negotiate a settlement.
Mr. James Johnson: As one who has visited the Ogaden since the fighting began, may I say that I support my right hon. Friend's position in this complex situation at the moment? Will he tell the House what contingency planning he has in mind in the event of Mengistu and his Marxist régime building up aggression with the aid of 2,000 or 3,000 Cuban and Soviet advisers and massive numbers of MIGs and tanks flown from Aden? In the event of those forces getting to the Somali border and proceeding on to cut a land corridor to the Indian Ocean, what is our position then? Is any Anglo-American axis action open to us?
Dr. Owen: Just as I have made my position clear to the Somalis about the Ogaden, so this afternoon I shall be seeing the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ethiopia. I shall be making it quite clear

453
to him that were the Ethiopian forces to constitute any force from outside the continent to include Somalia territories, that would be a development of the utmost seriousness which all of us in the West would be bound to view with grave concern. I shall leave him under no illusions about the dangers of that sort of adventurism.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: While I agree about the complexities of the situation, surely the Somalis are just as good a customer for British arms as the Salvador Republic? Surely, in this moment of crisis for these people, this is the time when it will be in our interests to sell them arms?
Dr. Owen: As the House knows, we have not hitherto been supplying arms to Somalia since they ceased to have their arms supplied by the Soviet Union. The reason was that we felt that where there was a territorial dispute, and where there was a question about armed aggression, we should stand by the principle embodied in the OAU statement that this sort of territorial dispute should be solved peacefully. But there are reasons why we take the position that we have taken. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are now faced with a different request in changing circumstances, but the cause of the dispute is still something of which the West should take account.
Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support on this side of the House for the principles embodied in the remarks that he made a few moments ago? Bearing in mind, as we on this side do, that in the quite recent past hospitals in Eritrea have been destroyed ruthlessly by bombing raids mounted by British manufactured bombers supplied by a previous British Administration, does not this underline the Secretary of State's point that the accumulation of arms in these countries makes inevitable the destruction of human lives and property and does nothing constructive to the settlement of international disputes?
Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a further complexity in the problem is the Eritrean dispute, apart from the Ogaden dispute. There are many other countries about which we have great concern, not least the concern of Kenya.
454
We have to take into account the feeling of the countries in the area. Although an East-West issue may become involved in this—I regret that it is—we must not lose sight of the fact that this is also a regional and African problem which is best solved by the normal mediation of the OAU.
Sir Bernard Braine: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, despite his sensible and moderate remarks this afternoon, many of us find it difficult to stomach the indifference of not only this country but the whole of the West to the sufferings of the people of Ethiopa and Eritrea at the hands of the Ethiopean military régime? If it be the case that it may well be right not to sell arms to Somalia for the reasons hinted at, why do not the Government go to the United Nations and charge the military régime with the crimes that it has been committing against the Ethiopean people? Why do we stand indifferently on the sidelines?
Dr. Owen: I have not stood indifferently on the sidelines. I share a great many of the sentiments which the hon. Gentleman has expressed about some of the things that have been happening inside Ethiopa. No one would wish to come to this Dispatch Box and defend some of the practices going on in that country. I shall leave the Foreign Minister in no uncertain doubt about my views on that issue as well when I see him this afternoon.
Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend consider his response carefully? Does he not agree that the Somalis deserve our support because over the last century the Ethiopians have indulged in territorial aggrandisement at the expense of others. Is it not also the case that our Arab friends—this is not an unimportant point—are sympathetic to the Somalis, and that the Somalis have recently and sensibly turned against the Soviets?
Dr. Owen: I find myself agreeing with much of that. It is in our interests and a beneficial development that the Somalians should have turned to their traditional area of friendship—the West. We welcome that. In no way do we wish to build up antagonism with Somalia. I saw the Somali Vice-President in November and I made it clear to him that we

455
would continue to give aid to his country, and that we would even be prepared to increase aid. In that way we were demonstrating our wish to have friendship with the people and Goverenment of Somalia. However, I pointed out that this did not mean we could underwrite it by supplying arms to support the action taken in Ogaden.
Mr. Thorpe: Could the Foreign Secretary clarify the suggestion that Russian naval vessels have been bombarding Massawa? Does this not add a new and dangerous element to the situation? Although one accepts that the OAU States are the principal parties involved, would it not be sensible for the Government to refer the matter to the United Nations under Chapter 7 as a threat to peace, and call for an arms embargo?
Dr. Owen: I am prepared to consider going to the Security Council, but there is no point in going unless there is general background support for such an initiative. We have kept this matter under review for the past few months. I have read the reports of shelling by Soviet naval vessels, but I have no evidence to confirm or deny these reports.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House what he meant in his original reply when he said he did not intend to let this become an issue between East and West? Surely the threat of Soviet imperialism in Africa generally, and the particular threat to British shipping and oil supplies, are there for all to see. It sounds as if the Foreign Secretary is serving notice on the Soviet Union that he will not do anything at all and that the Soviets will have a free hand.
Dr. Owen: I did not say that, nor did I intend that meaning. I said that I regretted that this had become an issue between East and West and that we should not allow the dispute to become totally focused on East-West factors to the exclusion of other problems. I am aware that the dispute is being used by forces outside the African continent in a damaging way. I have spoken of the dangers of supplying arms in sophisticated quantities in these circumstances, and it is ironic that both Ethiopia and Somalia have been supplied with Soviet arms. It is dangerous to introduce advisers or
456
troops from outside. This form of adventurism has, in the past, served to increase the instability of the African continent, and I deplore this.
Mr. Newens: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary has agreed that there is an increasing danger of the struggle being in the interests of outside Powers, will he not agree that it would be completely immoral for Britain to agree to supply arms? This would only fuel the conflict in which desperately poor people on both sides would kill one another on an accelerated scale in no interests that could, in any remotely conceivable way, be their own. Would it not be totally immoral for us to supply arms in these circumstances?
Dr. Owen: We have tried to apply principles to our past decisions on the supply of arms, and we have kept these principles in mind in studying these requests. We must take account of the changed geo-political circumstances. There is no doubt that the central point here is not the supply of arms but the need to bring the parties in the dispute to the negotiating table and to resolve the problem. The history of some of these border problems in Ogaden in Eritrea goes back a very long time, and it is difficult to see the way clear to any negotiated settlement. However, some way must be found.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the four hon. Members who have been constantly rising to their feet since the beginning of the statement.
Mr. Blaker: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Western Powers should make it quite clear to the Russians that, as in Angola, their conduct is inconsistent with detente? The Soviets cannot expect to enjoy good political relations with and economic benefits from the West if they continue to behave in this manner.
Dr. Owen: Yes, we have the ability to make this clear to the Soviet Union. We have not purely and simply supported our friends. We have made it clear to the Somalis that the way to solve the dispute is not by fighting on Ethiopian territory. This makes a stronger case for our saying that we resent outside intrusion and would take very seriously any Russian threat to Somalian territory. We

457
have made it clear that we believe that the dispute can be resolved only through mediation. I also made this clear to Mr. Gromyko when I visited Moscow and we had discussions about the Horn of Africa.
Mr. Hooley: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be the height of folly for us to pour arms into the Horn of Africa and recreate a Vietnam situation? Will he raise the matter with the Security Council with a view to encouraging top-level diplomatic meetings between the United States and the Soviet Union in order to bring down the temperature in the situation?
Dr. Owen: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. If there is the necessary and immediate consensus among OAU members it would be possible to go to the Security Council, and this would seem to be a logical step.
Mr. Higgins: As one who has recently visited Kenya, I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary appreciates the grave concern felt in that country about the possibility of the British Government providing arms. Will he take this into account, given the fact that Kenya is the keystone in opposing Communism in Africa?
Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Many hon. Members in this House have friendship with Kenya. I realise that if we supplied arms this would cause grave concern to the Kenyans. There is an outstanding territorial claim by Somalia to Kenyan territory. In recent public statements the Somalis tried to reassure the Kenyans about this because they are so involved. In any decision that we made to supply arms feelings would run very strongly against us. I believe that the Kenyans want good relations with both Ethiopia and Somalia, and they want to see the dispute resolved peacefully.
Mr. Rifkind: Will the Foreign Secretary agree that Soviet and Cuban imperialism are now the only sources of external threat to the independence and integrity of African States? In order to avoid another fiasco like Angola, will he ensure that these matters are raised in the Security Council before and not after the battle is over?
Dr. Owen: I am in favour of using the United Nations. But if one goes outside the OAU it only makes it more difficult for the OAU to mediate. If OAU mediation can succeed, I support it. I have backed developments during the past few months, and important attempts have been made to resolve the dispute, though none of them has been successful. If the African countries support going to the Security Council, that would be much better. Some African countries, such as Nigeria, have played an important part in trying to bring about mediation.
Mr. John Davies: We Conservatives welcome the clear statement that the Foreign Secretary made that there is a risk of total disagreement and difference between East and West on this serious issue. We welcome his saying that because we have in mind something that the Foreign Secretary said when he was in Moscow, which surprised us. He said that he welcomed the identity of interests between Britain and the Soviet Union in Southern Africa. Therefore, we were pleased to hear his realistic view of the situation this afternoon.
The generality of experience is that the Western response to these threats has been tardy and too little. Does the Foreign Secretary think, as we do, that to rely too long on the conciliation of the OAU may prove entirely illusory? Will he agree that the problem is that it appears that the Americans have not deferred their reply to the arms request? Is it his understanding that the Americans have said that they would not supply arms? In that event the Russians are bound to feel that they have a free hand.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will make every effort, along with his friends in Washington, to see that the Soviet Union is left in no doubt that every possible step will be taken to ensure that Soviet domination in the Horn of Africa is not increased, with all the immense dangers to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred.
Dr. Owen: I do not know whether the Americans have replied. I have no information on that, but I know that we are discussing the matter with them and I would be surprised if they have given a

459
definitive reply on the démarche in Mogadishu.
In regard to what I did or did not say in the Soviet Union—and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman raised that matter—it must be taken in context because it was considerably quoted out of context. I was paying tribute to the fact that only a few weeks earlier the Soviet Union had accepted the Security Council's resolution on Rhodesia. That is very different from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the matter.
I made it clear when in Moscow that I thought that the Horn of Africa was a potentially serious area of conflict and that I would strongly criticise any attempt to involve outside Powers or to make it into an East-West issue. At that time I said that I hoped the Soviet Union would not follow that course. The Russians know that we have not been uncritical of some of the actions taken by the Somalis in regard to Ogaden. We believe that the way to deal with this matter is through negotiation. The Soviet Union is under no illusion that if it wishes to create in the Horn of Africa some new-found form of imperialism, it will be resisted. Equally, we must resist the temptation of seeing this complex issue solely in terms of East-West politics.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (Mr. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) raised a matter of privilege concerning a caption on the back page of The Guardian which, he claimed, implied a reflection on the impartiality of Mr. Speaker.
I should inform the House that within two hours of the complaint having been made I received a letter from Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian, giving me an assurance that no such reflection was intended and expressing regret that the caption may have been miscon
460
strued. I shall see that a copy of the complete text of the letter is recorded in the Journal.
In view of this, I am sure that the House will not wish to take action which might lead to the matter being pursued further. I am, however, deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because the impartiality of Mr. Speaker is of the utmost importance to this House. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".]
If the hon. Gentleman will now indicate to me that he no longer requires a ruling, I think that we might profitably consider the matter as closed.
Mr. Anthony Grant: In view of the apology that you have so promptly received, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it is wise to accept your advice and leave the matter there.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to say a few words on this matter.
The whole House will be delighted that this matter has been disposed of with common sense and without more ado. But there were interventions yesterday when the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) raised the matter—interventions suggesting that the freedom of the Press was involved in this issue. We all pay the highest regard to the freedom of the Press as a principle of the greatest importance, but equally important is the impartiality of the Chair. Although the Press is entitled to comment how it likes on our doings here and on your rulings, the one thing the Press may not comment on is your impartiality. It is inevitable that when such a matter is raised in the Press it damages the standing of the House and undermines the respect in which it is held.
I suggest that what you have said, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely correct. We cannot carry on the business of the House unless we have complete confidence in the impartiality of Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will agree.

PICKETING (REGISTRATION AND CONTROL)
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give the Home Secretary power to restrict picketing to a limited number of persons, authorised and identified by the trade unions concerned; and to organise separately those who wish to demonstrate in support; and for connected purposes.
This Bill simply seeks to enact the desires of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whose words I have just quoted in the Long Title, and who said on 23rd June when answering Questions:
"I hope…that legitimate pickets, properly identified, can be allowed to operate. Those who wish to demonstrate in support of the workers who have been dismissed at this factory should be separately organised and clearly distinguished from the pickets. That would make the job of the police very much easier in trying to sort out this dispute."
The right hon. Gentleman said a little later:
"I therefore believe that it is necessary to separate legitimate and authorised pickets from those who latch on to it. That seems to me the best way of doing it."
He continued:
"I have suggested…to limit the number of pickets in this matter, that they should agree who they should be, that they should be easily identified and that others should stay away or demonstrate in a different way."—[Official Report, 23rd June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 1735–37.]
As I simply seek to enact those views expressed by the Prime Minister, this Bill is both short and non-controversial. I propose a short Bill to give effect to the suggestion that those who wish to picket should inform the police as to the names of the limited number of representatives who will form the picket lines. It may be that 10 or 12 representatives at each factory entrance or plant would be sufficient. Some believe that it could be based on a percentage of the work force. That would be a good point to be raised in the Committee stage of the Bill, which we shall shortly reach. I leave to the verdict of that Committee which way is chosen. A further clause will seek to implement the Prime Minister's desires, requiring the legitimate pickets to wear arm bands so that they may be identified.
The whole House agreed with the Prime Minister that the ugly scenes at the
462
Grunwick laboratories in the summer revolted the nation. The violent mobs were something from which he rightly wished to dissociate himself politically. I hope that he is not thinking of running away from his laudable intentions now that the dispute is off the boil.
I believe that this is a non-controversial matter because we have the Prime Minister on record as being in favour of these provisions. We know that the police would welcome a move of this sort, because it would enable them to organise demonstrations separately from picketing and would allow the police to keep a better control of public order, which it is its duty to do.
Both the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Defence should welcome this measure It would have saved them having to go to Grunwick to do penance with the pickets in order to sustain their credibility in the eyes of the unions. It would have avoided their having to come out of their Elysian clouds in order to regain the common touch. I am sure that they did not enjoy the afternoon down there. and it would leave them free not to go on another occasion because they would be classed among those who latch on to these things.
I wish also to refer in this context to the activities of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). I sent her a note to say that I intended to refer to her in this matter. She had an unfortunate experience at Grunwick. Had this Bill then been enacted, it would have saved that hon. Lady the inconvenience of a trip to the police station.
Mr. Tom Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should point out that the case to which the hon. Gentleman so frivolously and unfairly refers is sub judice. I think that you should warn him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If that is the case. I know that the case will not be mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ridley: I would immediately withdraw those remarks if the case were sub judice. It is obviously a grave matter if it is being dealt with in the courts. I say to the hon. Lady only "It will never get better if you pick-it".

463
I call in aid for my Bill a speech made by Lord Birkenhead in the House on 30th March 1906 on the Trades Disputes Bill of that year. He said:
"We are asked to permit 100 men to go round to the house of a man who wishes to exercise the common law right in this country to sell his labour where and when he chooses, and to 'advise' him or 'peacefully persuade' him not to work. If 'peaceful persuasion' is the real object, why are a hundred men required to do it? I know of no one who is more peaceful than the member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), and I am sure that no man can be more persuasive….
If I were a man who was wishful to dispose of my labour as I chose, although the member for Merthyr might not persuade me to break a contract, still, if the hon. Member came with fifty other peaceful persuaders to the house where I and my wife live, I fear I should be much more likely to yield to persuasion than if the hon. Gentleman came by himself. We are told that another object of these well-attended deputations is that information may be given. Is it more convenient that information should be given by fifty men, than by one man? Even in this House it is recognised that, as a general principle, it is more convenient that one Member should address the House at one time."
That sems to be the kernel of the matter. Picketing is for peaceful persuasion. We must allow peaceful persuasion and the giving of information, but not permit the obvious motive of intimidation to supplant that of peaceful persuasion. Lord Birkenhead said:
"Every honest man knows why trade unions insist on the right to a strong numerical picket. It is because they rely for their objects neither on peacefulness nor persuasion. Those whom they picket cannot be peacefully persuaded. They understand with great precision their own objects, and their own interests, and they are not in the least likely to be persuaded by the representatives of trade unions, with different objects and different interests. But, though arguments may never persuade them, numbers may easily intimidate them. And it is just because argument has failed, and intimidation has succeded, that the Labour Party insists upon its right to a picket unlimited in respect of numbers."
That is why mass picketing is not needed. If the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that mass picketing is not desirable in the interests of public order, I am sure that the whole House will want to pass this little Bill. If, by chance, the Prime Minister should not find himself able to be in my Lobby if there is a vote—and it may be that, as the Bill is so agreed, there will not be a vote—he will be guilty of using words to try to associate himself with a particular objective when
464
he thinks that it is popular for him to do so and chickening out when the time comes to implement those proposals by putting them in the form of legislation as I propose. If there is anyone who is prone to "latch on to it", it will be the Prime Minister if he does not vote with me.
4.4 p.m.
Mr. George Park: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has put forward a bubble and squeak case in endeavouring to get leave to present his Bill. I call it a bubble and squeak case because it is a rehash of arguments that have been put forward and rejected by the House before.
I am not suggesting that provisions which have remained substantially the same for more than 70 years are not due for review, but in his reference to Keir Hardie the hon. Gentleman should recall that the only change of note occurred in 1971 when the protection from picketing of a person in his home was removed.
I am trying to treat a serious subject in a serious way—in contrast to the way in which the hon. Gentleman approached it. I am sure that he is aware that the Secretary of State for Employment has stated his intention to the House of conducting negotiations with the parties primarily concerned to see whether he can arrive at some amendments or alterations to the law which will command general support. He is in the process of doing that.
The proposed reforms are open to a number of serious objections.
Mr. Ridley: Tell that to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Park: They are one-sided. They take no account of the difficulties faced by pickets and they do not deal with the question of communication with occupants of vehicles trying to get into premises that are being picketed. Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's concern for the police, he should recognise that his proposals would make their job more difficult by restricting their discretion in dealing with delicate situations. Nor do the proposals deal with new methods adopted by special police groups for dealing with mass picketing which, on occasions, have amounted to provocation.

465
The hon. Gentleman knows that several attempts have been made recently to reform the law, with no success. The Conservatives conducted a review during their last Administration and concluded that they could not put forward anything that would command general support. The hon. Gentleman's Bill may be an indication of a new and tougher line by the Conservative Party towards the trade union movement.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the original Employment Protection Bill there was a clause designed to clarify the law, but this did not find favour with the Opposition or with several of my hon. Friends. I also remind him, however, that there was a perfectly reasonable amendment dealing with the number of pickets and that he voted against it. There are no easy solutions.
The motion shows that the proposed Bill would be lopsided. It seeks only to restrict the activities of pickets, thereby hobbling the trade union movement, and it could, at the same time, have the effect of tying the hands of the Secretary of State in his consultations which are proceeding.
I submit that the Bill would be likely to exacerbate rather than to help resolve the problems which exist. For all these reasons, I suggest that leave to introduce the Bill should be refused.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 181.

Division No. 64]

AYES

[4.07 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Fell, Anthony

Lloyd, Ian

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fisher, Sir Nigel

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Arnold Tom

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

McCrindle, Robert

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Macfarlane, Neil

Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

Forman, Nigel

MacGregor, John

Baker, Kenneth

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Banks, Robert

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Bell, Ronald

Fry, Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Marten, Neil

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Mates, Michael

Benyon, W.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Mather, Carol

Berry, Hon Anthony

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Maude, Angus

Biffen, John

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Mawby, Ray

Biggs-Davison, John

Goodhart, Philip

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Blaker, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Mayhew, Patrick

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodlad, Alastair

Meyer, sir Anthony

Bottomley, Peter

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Brittan, Leon

Gray, Hamish

Molyneaux, James

Brooke, Peter

Grieve, Percy

Monro, Hector

Brotherton, Michael

Griffiths, Eldon

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Buck, Antony

Grist, Ian

Morgan, Geraint

Budgen, Nick

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Bulmer, Esmond

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Burden, F. A.

Hawkins, Paul

Neave, Airey

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hayhoe, Barney

Neubert, Michael

Carlisle, Mark

Higgins, Terence L.

Newton, Tony

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Holland, Philip

Nott, John

Channon, Paul

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Page, John (Harrow West)

Churchill, W. S.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Parkinson, Cecil

Clegg, Walter

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Cope, John

James, David

Penhaligon, David

Cormack, Patrick

Jessel, Toby

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Costain, A. P.

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Pink, R. Bonner

Critchley, Julian

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Crouch, David

Jopling, Michael

Prior, Rt Hon James

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Kershaw, Anthony

Raison, Timothy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kimball, Marcus

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Drayson, Burnaby

Knight, Mrs Jill

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lamont, Norman

Rhodes James, R.

Dykes, Hugh

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lawrence, Ivan

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lawson, Nigel

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Eyre, Reginald

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Farr, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Stanley, John

Wall, Patrick

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Walters, Dennis

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Warren, Kenneth

Scott, Nicholas

Stokes, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wells, John

Shepherd, Colin

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Silvester, Fred

Tebbit, Norman

Wiggin, Jerry

Sims, Roger

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Younger, Hon George

Spence, John

Trotter, Neville

Sproat, Iain

Vaughan, Dr Gerald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Stainton, Keith

Wakeham, John

Mr. Nicholas Ridley and

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Mr. Ian Gow.

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Anderson, Donald

Golding, John

Pardoe, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Graham, Ted

Park, George

Armstrong, Ernest

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Parry, Robert

Ashley, Jack

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Pavitt, Laurie

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Hardy. Peter

Radice, Giles

Atkinson, Norman

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Reid, George

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Richardson, Miss Jo

Bates, Alf

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hooley, Frank

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Bidwell, Sydney

Huckfield, Les

Roderick, Caerwyn

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Hunter, Adam

Rooker, J. W.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Irving. Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Sever, John

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Bradley, Tom

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Sillars, James

Buchan, Norman

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Silverman, Julius

Buchanan, Richard

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Skinner, Dennis

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Judd, Frank

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Kaufman, Gerald

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Campbell, Ian

Kerr, Russell

Snape, Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Kinnock, Neil

Spearing, Nigel

Cant, R. B.

Lamborn, Harry

Spriggs, Leslie

Carmichael, Neil

Lamond, James

Stallard, A. W.

Castle, Rt Hop Barbara

Lee, John

Steel, Rt Hon David

Clemitson, Ivor

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Strang, Gavin

Cohen, Stanley

Lipton, Marcus

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Con an, Bernard

Litterick, Tom

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Corbett, Robin

McCartney, Hugh

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Cowans, Harry

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

McElhone, Frank

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Tierney, Sydney

Dalyell, Tam

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Tinn, James

Davidson. Arthur

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Torney, Tom

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

McNamara, Kevin

Urwin, T. W.

Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

Madden, Max

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Deakins. Eric

Magee, Bryan

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Watkins, David

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Watkinson, John

Dempsey, James

Maynard, Miss Joan

Weetch, Ken

Dormand, J. D.

Meacher, Michael

Weitzman, David

Edge, Geoff

Mendelson, John

White, James (Pollok)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Mikardo, Ian

Whitlock, William

English, Michael

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Wigley, Dafydd

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Mitchell, Austin

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Faulds, Andrew

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Woodall, Alec

Flannery, Martin

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Woof, Robert

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Newens, Stanley

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Noble, Mike

Young, David (Bolton E)

Forrester, John

Ogden, Eric

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

O'Halloran, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Orbach, Maurice

Mr. Eddie Loyden and

Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Mr. Stan Thorne.

George, Bruce

Ovenden, John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
Mr. Ridley: The Prime Minister and myself, Sir.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

PICKETING (REGISTRATION AND CONTROL)
  PICKETING (REGISTRATION AND CONTROL)
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley accordingly presented a Bill to give the Home Secretary power to restrict picketing to a limited number of persons, authorised and identified by the trade unions concerned; and to organise separately those who wish to demonstrate in support; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21st April and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND BILL
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 17th January]
  [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

  SCOTLAND BILL
    Schedule 10

      MATTERS WITHIN LEGISLATIVE COMPE TENCE OF ASSEMBLY, AND WITHIN POWERS OF SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE.
      4.21 p.m.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, Amendment No. 467, in page 48, line 4, at end insert—

      MATTERS WITHIN LEGISLATIVE COMPE TENCE OF ASSEMBLY, AND WITHIN POWERS OF SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE.

        GROUP 1C (Energy)
        Electricity. Coal. Gas. Oil exploration, development, production, transportation, depletion, safety and health. Research.'.
        When the Government fought the General Election of 1974, there was advertising in the Press and there were references on television to the fact that a Scottish Assembly would mean a powerhouse Scotland. The object of the amendment is that energy industries operating in Scotland should come within the oversight of the Scottish Assembly and particularly, we hope, within the oversight of a Committee of the Assembly that will look at the energy sources and the energy industries in some detail.
        The background to the amendment can best be explained by my quoting paragraphs 5 and 6 of a memorandum that has been produced by the Scottish Consumer Council, in Glasgow, dated December 1977. Paragraph 5, which is headed "Nationalised Industries", runs as follows:
        "We note that central control of nationalised industries, an essential part of the United Kingdom economy, rests with the United Kingdom Government under the Bill although the services provided by these industries are of critical importance to the Scottish consumer. Some direct and formal influence on the operation of the nationalised industries in Scotland is called for. The White Paper stated that 'there should be informal contact … on matters of joint interest' and that industries 'should include in their reports information on recent developments and future plans for Scotland'."
        The Scottish Consumer Council goes on to say,
        "informal contacts are not enough. The Scottish consumer has a right to be consulted about future plans, not merely informed. We recommended in April 1976 that there should be an Assembly Committee specifically responsible for keeping under review the work of the nationalised fuel industries in Scotland."
        The Council mentions that that is no longer possible under the Bill. It points out that Assembly Committees will be allowed to consider only devolved subjects and, therefore, that they may not be able to take more than a passing interest in the energy industries of Scotland.
        The Council makes a recommendation that the energy industries or the nationalised industries in general should be a formal responsibility of the Scottish Assembly.
        Further, in paragraph 6, the Scottish Consumer Council recommends
        "that appointments to the Scottish consultative and consumer councils of nationalised industries should be made by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Scottish Executive."
        I think that that very fairly sets out the general proposition that nationalised industries in Scotland are extremely important. They are a sizeable part of the industrial and service activity within Scotland. I suggest that it is reasonable, as a general proposition, that the Scottish Assembly, which is to be directly elected and set up to consider matters of concern to the people of Scotland and things that will affect their daily lives, should be able to consider the energy industries.
        Prior to this debate, some hon. Members have thought that the main object of my exposition relates to the oil industry. Certainly that is a part of my proposition. However, I think that it would be wrong to isolate the oil industry from the other energy industries which operate in Scotland.
        The first of those other energy industries is electricity. The Government have recently decided to confirm that when the energy industry is reorganised, it will be reorganised in England and Wales and that the existing structure in Scotland will not be affected. Indeed, the existing structure of the electricity industry in Scotland is that there are two electricity boards, one serving the greater mass of the population in Central and Southern Scotland—the South of Scotland Elec-
        472
        tricity Board—and one serving the northern parts of the country, including my own constituency in Dundee and including the City of Aberdeen.
        Both of these boards are separate by composition, but they exchange their membership and their chairmen. For a number of years now, they have been engaged in planning the electricity demand and facilities within Scotland. Indeed, there is quite a strong financial link, too, between the two bodies, although they are administratively separate. The common cord that they share is that they both come within the responsibility not of the Secretary of State for Energy but of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
        How or why this has grown up is probably due to the formation of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, with its special social and industrial priorities written into the foundation statute, and because it is very natural and reasonable that this should occur.
        Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not much simpler than that? Both of these boards were in existence before there was a separate Department of Energy.
        Mr. Wilson: Indeed, that may well be so, but, if I recollect aright, there was a Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the electricity industry has had a rather fascinating background, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, in the way in which the municipal undertakings and others were gradually brought within the grid system.
        This is a fascinating subject in itself, but I would be straying a little far into the historical background, and away from the amendment, if I did other than confirm and corroborate the fact that the electricity industry has been run in Scotland on a distinctive basis, under the influence and supervision of a Scottish Minister. It is reasonable, therefore, that charge of the two boards should pass to the Scottish Assembly.
        At Scottish Question Time this afternoon, there was an interesting exchange about the electricity industry, the possibility of future power stations and how the failure of the advanced gas-cooled reactor for Hunterston might affect the future intentions of the electricity boards.

        473
        However, that, across the Floor of the House of Commons at Question Time, is not a sufficient way of taking care of industries which have thousands of employees and spend millions of pounds. It would be worthwhile, in parliamentary terms, for there to be some continuing supervision of those industries and the right to take evidence and to see that they operate within acceptable guidelines of public policy.
        It could be argued that there was an occasion about 18 months ago, in connection with a small Bill which provided for subsidies for the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in order for it to meet the costs of the supply of cheap electricity to the Invergordon smelter, when there was an opportunity to discuss the industry in greater detail.
        Of course, that Invergordon programme, which affected the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and its consumers, was very closely tied to the AGR station at Hunterston, which had taken a long time to appear. But at that stage there was a £60 million deficit to be allowed for and there was the opportunity for the provision of further public finance to support the political decision which had been taken years ago to establish the smelter. Let us not go into the arguments—we did that during the passage of the Bill—but there is a great deal of money at stake.
        4.30 p.m.
        Mr. Jim Craigen: rose—
        Mr. Norman Buchan: rose—
        Mr. Wilson: I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).
        Mr. Craigen: Will the hon. Gentleman remind me whether the SNP supported that measure when it was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee?
        Mr. Wilson: That is so. We did not oppose the Bill. I may be able to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) wanted to raise when I say that I put down an amendment questioning the borrowing powers of the Bill, to allow a debate to
        474
        take place. The amendment did not go to a vote but was withdrawn.
        Mr. Buchan: May I refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory? Did not he move an amendment to cut back the amount of money that would be going for these developments that he apparently welcomes so much?'
        Mr. Wilson: As I said, I put down an amendment to allow a debate. As the hon. Gentleman should know with his parliamentary experience, that is how one can achieve the object of debating the broad background of the subject of a Bill. It was a very good debate, and I found the hon. Gentleman's contribution interesting, even if I did not agree with all of it. I should be delighted to continue that debate at some time in the future, but I think that I should now deal with the proposal for the electricity industry.
        There is a site at Torness with planning permission for the establishment of an SGHW reactor. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board—although we heard from the Minister of State this afternoon that it has produced no proposals to him—is engaged in environmental consultations with the folk in the district about the possibility of a pumped storage station at Craigroyston.
        The whole question of reactor choice and the cost of electricity should be under parliamentary scrutiny. Perhaps it should not be detailed scrutiny, as these are nationalised industries, but certainly if Westminster has found it necessary to establish a Committee to look into the nationalised industries—the extent of the Committee's powers is a slightly sensitive subject at present—it is desirable that there should be time to do the same for the important electricity industry in Scotland. That can be only through the Scottish Assembly because, whether we agree with the Bill or not, we all recognise that time for that sort of scrutiny is not available here.
        Another part of the Scottish industry that could be devolved to the Assembly is the coal industry, through the National Coal Board. That industry supplies a substantial part of its output—about 75 per cent., I think—to the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Therefore, the electricity industry and the coal industry

        475
        are inextricably bound together. The markets are the same.
        It is true that for a while the Scottish coal industry had a very bad time, but other hon. Members have pointed out to me that some parts of the industry in England also suffered in the 1960s. We should not take the pessimistic view that was prevalent for a long time. In preparation for this debate I recently looked over some of the Press statements from the Department of Energy. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has taken a strong interest in the industry and is probably the only surviving Energy Minister from the beginning of this Parliament, said in a speech to the Scottish area summer school of the National Coal Board and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot-firers on 6th May 1977 that the reserves which had been found which were better than the existing reserves, which were easier to work, were quite substantial. He said:
        "One of the most promising finds has been the 50 million tons of economically recoverable reserves at Musselburgh … there is enough coal there to keep a 2-million-ton-a-year pit going well into the next century. A further 1,000 million tons of technically workable coal have been proven in new Scottish fields, adding to the very substantial reserves already known. In all, Scotland has about a quarter of the United Kingdom's workable coal."
        The Minister also said that some development work had been taking place. Only this week we had word that the National Coal Board intends to go ahead with the Castlehill development.
        Since the hon. Gentleman made that speech about 120 million tons of coal have been discovered in the South Lanark area. Therefore, we should not be too defeatist about the future of the Scottish coal industry, particularly if we look at the listed pithead price table in the EEC Commission's document General Coal Market Situation 1975 and Forecasts for 1976, which shows that in four types of coal taken over nine EEC areas Scotland's competitiveness was exceeded in "long flame nuts 1" by only South Wales and North Yorkshire; in "long flame nuts 5" by only North Yorkshire; in coking coal by only North Yorkshire; and in coke by only Belgium and North Yorkshire.
        Therefore, we see that in a European context the Scottish coal industry has a
        476
        part to play. It is a pity that when entry into the EEC was negotiated and renegotiated no attempt was made, apparently, to provide for markets for coal within the EEC. It is a pity not only for Scotland but for England, because these are markets that I am sure both the NCB and the NUM would be glad to have.
        The coal industry, being highly labour-intensive, employs many people in Scotland. Because of that, and because it is inextricably bound up with the electricity industry, it should go to the Assembly, so that when the Assembly considers the Scottish energy industry it will be able to consider these two aspects and decide what may be the best policy for Scotland and monitor what the Scottish Executive has been thinking.
        The third area that could be devolved to the Assembly under the energy classification is gas. We still have a Scottish gas organisation. At least, that is the body of which I make regular payments, although it is part of the British Gas Corporation. Until about six years ago there was a separate Scottish Gas Board. I am not suggesting that the old Scottish Gas Board was among the most efficient of the nationalised industries.
        For a while during my previous occupation as a solicitor the board was frequently in trouble in the sheriff's court because of its accounting procedure and its bills to consumers. I often used to say on public platforms that one of the reasons I wished we could have self-government was to do something about the Board. However, the Government of the day decided to do something about it and converted it into a region of the British Gas Corporation. In so far as it was easy to amalgamate it with the Corporation, there would be little difficulty in disengagement. All the main services are still at Granton, Edinburgh.
        It is proper that at this stage I should dispel the myth that is heard from time to time that Scotland depends on English gas. The plain truth is that supplies of gas from the English gas fields have only recently been coming to Scotland. It is about two years ago now that the conversion process took place in Dundee, and I recollect that extremely well because I was overwhelmed with a great number of constituency problems at the time the conversion process took place. But we must not forget that there could be up

        477
        to five gas lines taking gas from the fields off the north coast of Scotland down to England.
        Mr. Buchan: Is not the hon. Gentleman's position simply that, when England alone was offering gas, the Scottish National Party was very willing to scream that the gas was not coming quickly to Scotland, but that, now that we have gas and oil, the hon. Gentleman says that we want to keep it from the United Kingdom? What a dishonourable position he places us Scots in.
        Mr. Wilson: The only dishonourable position is the attitude of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. The gas was supplied at a price. It had to be paid for. It took a long time for the gas mains to reach Scotland, and we had to pay for town gas at a higher price during the time that the gas fields served the English Midlands and worked their way up through to Scotland. There were reasons for it, of course. But the point is that there will be very substantial supplies of gas available, and there is no reason why—talking in terms of a devolved situation here and not the independent situation that I would prefer to see—the Scottish gas board and the British Gas Corporation should not be able to reach agreement. I am sure that they will.
        Mr. Nick Budgen: The hon. Gentleman talks about price. I hope that he will deal with the price, because that is central to the argument about oil. I hope that he will say whether an independent Scotland would want to have a minimum selling price for oil, or whether he would want the remainder of the United Kingdom to play an important part in the OPEC proceedings, which are a very effective cartel for holding up the price.
        Mr. Wilson: I can deal with that. When the various Bills came before Parliament—the Oil Taxation Bill and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill—I did not depart from the philosophy which the Government and the official Opposition adopted. There is a world price for oil, and a secondary proposition, which was not necessarily canvassed at that time, is that if a country wishes to affect its internal distribution of costs, it relates it to the duties on refined
        478
        spirit—that is to say, if it wishes to reduce the price of petrol. The Americans do that. They have an internal price structure which causes all sorts of distortions. It is very complicated.
        Mr. Neil Macfarlane: It is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes it sound.
        Mr. Wilson: I was not suggesting that the American system was simple. It is not. But there is a world price for oil in economic terms and, if a country wishes to interfere with the price of energy, it can do it by virtue of taxation. It has been pointed out already that a large part of the economic price which is now being charged for North Sea oil—Scottish oil, as I prefer to call it—is going to the Government in the form of taxation. About 70 per cent. of the net value will be going to the Exchequer in taxation.
        I am suggesting in relation to gas that there was a Scottish gas board. The gas board in Scotland deals with many thousands of consumers. The Scottish consumers' council has suggested that it would be desirable and advantageous that the Assembly should have not just consultation with the energy industry but actual oversight of it, bearing in mind the convention about the independence or quasi-independent position which nationalised industries occupy.
        The fourth factor is, of course, oil. Here is a matter of very great concern to Scotland. In this amendment, we are now talking about the administration of the policies involved in exploration, development, transport, safety and health, depletion and the like. These are matters which affect many areas, especially on the east coast of Scotland, and it would be very important were these powers to be transferred to the Assembly.
        The Secretary of State has a number of councils set up to advise him on the problems which may occur because of the greater exploration and development. These take in some of the devolved functions of planning, housing, schools, and industrial development to the extent that industrial development is devolved.
        4.45 p.m.
        Shortly after the second General Election in 1974, I recall that we dealt with the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill. It was proposed that

        479
        there should be two yards set up at Hunterston and Portavady, and public money was spent. The Government relied upon estimates supplied by the oil industry, but many people, including SNP Members, pointed out that those estimates seemed to be inflated and that the estimates for platforms at that level, based on the number of platforms existing in Scotland, would not come to pass. That matter had to be taken up by the Public Accounts Committee only recently. But I think that it would be desirable were there to be an adequate supervision of the background of oil in Scotland. It is a matter of real interest and concern, especially this question of the depletion rate.
        Mr. Craigen: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer by profession. Would he care to comment on the difficulties that he foresees in getting an internationally agreed median line between Scotland and England as against the present accepted median line, which has largely come about as a result of administrative convenience and jurisdiction? This would be quite crucial to any accountability over the devolving or the separation of energy policy as between Scotland and England.
        Mr. Wilson: I have always accepted that the median line which is stipulated in the Statutory Instrument is an adequate indication of the position. If there is any doubt about it, it can always go to arbitration. We have completed two sets of arbitrations recently. One related to the reserves in the Frigg gas field, shared between Norway and the United Kingdom. The other related to the sub-division of the areas in the English Channel. There is no difficulty about that. Even if one assumes that the first supposition is incorrect and that the 55·50N line is not applicable, there are only two very tiny fields of negligible production involved. Frankly, if we were talking in terms of an independent Scotland, the real value of the oil—
        Mr. Buchan: What about Shetland?
        Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is concerned about Shetland, he need only study the decision about the Channel Islands and the Isles of Scilly. He will see that these matters are very complicated. But I am sure
        480
        that the hon. Member will find a suitable answer that will solve that problem.
        Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) calmly points out that if there are any disputes between England and Scotland over the median line they can go to arbitration. Does he accept that if his party came to power the thousands of intricate and inter-woven aspects between Scotland and England would also have to go to arbitration? There is not one aspect of the intercourse between England and Scotland that would not have to go to arbitration. Does he not think that that would be the signal for a law-lawyer's bonanza for years to come?
        Mr. Wilson: I was planning to refer to the lawyers' bonanza when we deal with the question of scrutiny. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I was asked a simple question about the median line. I have attempted to reply but whether hon. Members accept that reply is another matter.
        Mr. Craigen: I was not being awkward. When I prepared the report for the Western European Union just over a year ago the Foreign Office did not seem to recognise the median line between Scotland and England. The international adjudication to which reference has been made clearly will take time. We saw this in the dispute between the United Kingdom and France over the Channel Islands. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) would thrust Scotland headlong into uncertainty for a long time.
        Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has made two mistakes. First, the question of the median line between Scotland and England is de minimis. We are talking about 73,000 barrels a day which is a minuscule amount. Secondly, today's debate is about the oversight of energy policy which should go to the devolved Assembly. I am willing to develop this theme in relation to an independent, self-governing Scotland. I should be delighted to do that because it is bread and meat to me. However, under the Scotland Bill we must consider the Scottish Assembly.

        481
        I am attempting to indicate that there are certain aspects of nationalised industries and of matters that affect planning, housing and schools which are of concern to the people of Scotland and to consumers. They should be devolved, in addition to those other matters which the Government believe should be devolved.
        I turn to the question of research. I have not said that nuclear research should be completely devolved. I take the view that nuclear research and energy research generally should be done on a European basis or on a wider, world basis. The costs of research are becoming so astronomical that this must be done on a wide basis. Although the contribution made by the Atomic Energy Authority and other bodies have been first class in technical terms, unfortunately this has not produced a product that is capable of being exported commercially. The last nuclear reactor to be exported from the United Kingdom was in 1959. Nevertheless, there is an interest in this matter and the Assembly should have some say in it.
        I recently inspected the Lurgi process at Westfield, Fife, where I saw the British Gas Corporation in conjunction with the Energy Research and Development Administration testing American coals to see how best they could be gasified. We have an interest in renewable forms of energy because there are certain job possibilities involved in it.
        These subjects should go to the Assembly. It is essential that decisions taken in these industries are monitored in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the electricity industry but we have little opportunity to keep in touch with what the electricity chiefs are doing. We have little opportunity of investigating them or taking evidence as part of the process of open government. The Scottish Consumers Association has said that control over these industries should go to the Assembly. This is the opportunity to add them to the Bill.
        The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I intervene briefly, but there are one or two points about the amendment to which I should like to draw the attention of
        482
        the Committee. The way in which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) moved the amendment was intriguing. I was surprised by the quiet and apparently reasonable way in which he tried to slip his arguments past the Committee. He tried to hide the fact that this is a separatist amendment. Some of his hon. Friends have not been so disarming in their approach. They have been frank and said that their proposals would involve an extension of devolution into areas which the Government have regarded as being essential to retain as one undivided responsibility in order to preserve the economic unity of the United Kingdom.
        One or two things have been in the SNP propaganda for some time which should be corrected. My hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies will have noted that the proposition that the Assembly should take over responsibility for oil, gas and electricity was put in a quiet way, unlike the manner in which the proposition has been promoted in the constituencies on hoardings and on the platforms. They will have noted that the SNP is running a bogus campaign on Scottish resources. It is making a blatant appeal to the electorate to divide these resources from the United Kingdom.
        Those hon. Members who served on the Committee of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill will remember the discussion on the so-called median line. There is no median line between Scotland and England. There is a line made under an order of the Continental Shelf Act but this is purely a jurisdictional line to indicate where the jurisdiction of Scottish courts stops and the jurisdiction of English courts begins. Its purpose is to deal with legal disputes. For example, when someone has an accident on a platform, the line decides to which court that person goes. There is no median line. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) performed a service to the Committee by pointing that out. He was absolutely right and the hon. Member for Dundee, East was wrong.
        The heart of the hon. Member's case was disguised by his use of words such as "scrutiny", "control" and "consumer interest" but the purpose of the amendment is to transfer legislative and executive responsibility for these matters

        483
        to the Assembly. Frankly that would be a separatist step.
        The United Kingdom is fortunate in its energy resources. By 1980 it will be self-sufficient in all forms of energy. We are already producing half the oil that we consume. By 1980 we shall be producing the equivalent of the amount of oil that we consume. We are already benefiting from the balance of payments advantages of that, and through the wise steps taken by the Government under the Oil Taxation Act and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act, with the setting up of the British National Oil Corporation, they have secured for the public interest a large share of the profits which will derive from these industries.
        The industries are flourishing. There is the oil industry in particular. It would be tragic to try to divide up our energy resources or to have competing energy policies within the United Kingdom. We have such marvellous energy resources of oil, gas and coal. Coal will be the enduring asset of this country. It will be available to us 300 years from now, when oil and gas are completely depleted.
        There is also the nuclear power industry, in which units from Scotland play an important part. It makes a great deal of sense to keep together on energy policy and to maximise for the United Kingdom the advantages of our assets.
        Mr. John Robertson: Does the Minister agree that the electricity side is already an administratively devolved matter?
        5.0 p.m.
        Mr. Smith: No. Electricity is a decentralised matter. In Scotland the industry is under the administrative control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is the only aspect of any energy industry which is. There is a big difference between decentralising and devolving the legislative and executive responsibilities. We propose that electricity would remain decentralised under the control of the Secretary of State, but that it would be a matter for which the British Government and the United Kingdom Parliament remained responsible. It would seem to us foolish to put aside one section of an energy industry and treat it separately from the other parts of that industry.
        484
        The hon. Member for Dundee, East seemed to imply that there was some unfairness in the fact that natural gas distribution reached Scotland a little later than some other parts of the United Kingdom. There is a simple geographic explanation for that. All of the offshore gas which enters this country comes from the southern basin gasfields off the Norfolk coast, and 95 per cent. of all the gas used in the United Kingdom, and 90 per cent. of the gas used in Scotland, comes from the southern basin gasfields. There is no difference in the price charged when it is landed, although there are variations in tariffs throughout the United Kingdom. That is to do with other considerations than the basic price which is secured by monopoly purchasing by the British Gas Corporation under powers provided by a previous Conservative Government.
        The United Kingdom's gas resources are tremendously important. Gas will come in from the northern North Sea. Imaginative steps are being taken to maximise the amount of gas which can be recovered from that area and landed on the Scottish mainland and in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). But it would make sense to treat northern North Sea gas the same as we have treated southern basin gas, which is to regard it as an asset for the whole of the United Kingdom.
        I know of no one active in the coal industry in Scotland—and I represent a mining constituency—on the management side and emphatically not on the trade union side who wishes to see the responsibilities of the National Coal Board for the mining industry divided in any way. The president of the Scottish area of the NUM issued a scathing attack on the lack of interest of the SNP in the Scottish coal mining industry over its difficult years. The Government have done a great deal to secure the future of that industry in Scotland and I pay tribute to the activities of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has worked extremely hard to protect the interests of the mining industry in both Scotland and the United Kingdom. I can think of the coal-burn scheme, which gives tremendous support to the Scottish mining industry.

        485
        It would make no sense to be beguiled by the talk of the hon. Member for Dundee, East of "oversight" and "scrutiny". The amendment proposes a separatist policy towards the energy industries of the United Kingdom as between Scotland and England. That could not be done practically, and there is no economic sense in doing it. Part of the heart and structure of our proposals is that matters which affect the Scottish people directly should come within the sphere of the Scottish Assembly, but that we shall not devolve matters which impinge upon the economic unity of the United Kingdom. That is one of the most important objectives that we can sustain.
        The amendment is phased in beguiling terms. I must point out to the hon. Members who have not experienced the amazing differences between the way in which propaganda on this subject is presented in the House of Commons, where it is subject to criticism and refutation, and the way in which it is crudely exploited in Scotland on the hoardings, that it would be dangerous for the Committee to accept the amendment. I warn the Committee about the way in which the amendment was presented and I invite it to reject it wholeheartedly as being totally inconsistent with devolution and the unity of the United Kingdom.
        Mr. J. Grimond: I do not want to raise again the question of the ownership of North Sea oil and gas; the subject has been constantly debated. If, however, we were to go in for the academic exercise of drawing lines in the North Sea it would be as well to bear in mind that that is a highly complicated business and that at the end of the day my constituency might come off rather well. There are real and immediate problems associated with oil.
        The Minister of State touched on the question of gas and the desirability of giving it the same treatment all over Britain. I hope, however, that my constituency will gain some advantages from the gas taken off at Flotta and Sullom Voe for the generation of electricity there. That would seem a reasonable hope for Orkney and Shetland. The idea has been discussed with the local authorities and I hope that it will come about.
        486
        It is clear that oil is not a devolved subject. It remains the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament, and that covers
        "exploration, development, production. transportation"
        as mentioned in the amendment. There are, however, related activities consequent on the landing of oil. As the Minister knows, the handling of these has aroused some concern in at least one of my local authorities and among some of my constituents. In outline they are afraid that although oil in general remains the responsibility of the United Kingdom, some aspects of planning concerned with the landing and handling of oil at the terminal might come under the Scottish Assembly. They fear that some of the activities of Flotta and Sullom Voe might come within that sphere. Sullom Voe will be a very large area of activity, and all sorts of things might go on there.
        Oil has involved Shetland in harbour works and in the setting up of harbour authorities, airstrips, and so on. The same, to a lesser degree, will be true of Flotta, in Orkney. Oil is by no means an unmixed blessing. It lays great demands upon the smaller authorities. It creates high wages for some people and high costs for everyone, and it creates problems of various sorts. I some times wonder whether, in the unlikely event of Scotland becoming independent, and if Scotland kept hold of all the oil that is claimed, the Scottish currency would become so strong that the rest of Scotland's exporting industries would be in some difficulty.
        My local authorities, in conjunction with both Conservative and Labour Governments, have made a fairly good attempt at solving the difficulties that oil brings. I speak of the arrangements made for dealing with local Bills and the arrangements that the oil companies have made which have been carried through with considerable effort by many people. Those arrangements are fairly satisfactory and they enable us to meet the problems associated with oil as well as can be reasonably expected for the foreseeable future.
        We do not want those arrangements upset, which is why we would oppose any interference—if that is the right word—by the Assembly in oil matters. I am adopting not an anti-Edinburgh attitude

        487
        but an attitude based upon the fact that after great difficulty we have secured these arrangements and that to have them all thrown into the melting pot once more would be disastrous. A lot of this has been done over half of the country. As the Minister said, we shall gain enormously from this great asset—oil—if it is rightly used.
        There is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to step in on planning matters if the interests of the United Kingdom demand it. Therefore, if it appeared that interests throughout the United Kingdom demanded his intervention in planning matters concerned with the development of oil—I am glad to see that the Minister agrees—he could take action.
        It is difficult to forecast the future. There are all sorts of estimates of forecasts. No one knows whether the oil will last for 20 or 50 years. No one knows what amount of oil will be obtained or what new fields will be discovered. No one knows what new pipelines will be laid. No one knows where petro-chemical industries will start up. The whole matter is in a state of flux.
        In Orkney and Shetland matters are now on a fairly reasonable keel. If it were apparent that the Assembly, going outwith its powers, were interfering with future planning matters, the Secretary of State could intervene.
        There are many activities which do not strictly fall within the ambit of the handling of oil. There are, for instance, roads and airstrips to be built. There is to be a big airstrip at Scatsta in the Shetlands. That will impose financial and managerial burdens on local authorities. We cannot make a special exception of roads and such like, but I hope that the Government have those matters very much in mind. There are also important fringe matters concerned with oil production.
        We should make sure that any arrangements to assist in dealing with dislocation caused to industry by oil production—the need for new roads, dislocation of land use, and so forth—are met to some extent from oil revenues. We are anxious that such funds should be safeguarded.
        The Minister referred to the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act. I served on the Committee. We had discussions on problems connected with landfall, the
        488
        carrying of oil over land, and so forth. All those matters may become acute.
        Oil is not a devolved subject. I see that I have the Minister's agreement. The ultimate decisions on planning, if the United Kingdom is involved should remain at Westminster.
        Finally, the arrangements, some of which are very complicated, made by local authorities should not be affected by devolution and should be protected by the powers reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
        Mr. Buchan: As chairman of the Scottish Labour Group, I should like to say how many of us miss the presence of my late hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small). He has enlivened our proceedings, been a good friend to many, and was honoured and respected by all. There are few men of whom it can be said "He had no enemies", but that was abundantly true of Willie Small. If lie were here, he would probably describe the speech by the hon. Member for Dundee. East (Mr. Wilson) as a "Panglossian fantasy".
        It is, indeed, a Panglossian fantasy, to assume that we shall have the best of all possible worlds. The problem with the thesis continually put forward by the SNP is that it always assumes potentially good results and does not look at the reaction and the counter-effects.
        The SNP does not say that if we devolve powers from the centre of decision making to Edinburgh, the powers at the centre of decision making will be lessened. Therefore, it sounds reasonable to say that more power should be given to the Scottish people to deal with coal for example. In practice, less power would be given to the Scottish people to deal with coal, for all the reasons that Scottish coalminers know, but which perhaps the laymen of Scotland do not know.
        We cannot always retain full powers at the heart of decision making when we have devolved some of those powers elsewhere. I am sure that Willie Small would have seen this dream world of the SNP as a typical Panglossian fantasy.
        I want to take up the reasonable tone of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. I find that the irrationality of the proposals is always in direct ratio to the

        489
        reasonableness of the approach. The hon. Gentleman knows that the amendment is dishonest. It is dishonest in its formulation and in the apparent reasonableness with which he presented it.
        5.15 p.m.
        It is not a question of having more consumer influence on industries in Scotland. There are ways and means by which the consumer interests of Scotland can be brought to bear in any of the areas mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—electricity, gas and coal. The hon. Gentleman knows that there will be consultation on this matter, as on many others, between the Assembly and the House of Commons if devolution takes place.
        The hon. Gentleman seeks to extend into this sphere in the same way as the amendments to which it was linked, on financial powers, including currency, sought to give economic power to Scotland. But economic power in Scotland alone means no economic power for us where decision making is done in the United Kingdom. That is the fallacy of the argument.
        The truth is that in such a highly integrated economy—integrated not only north and south of the border, but with whole sectors of industry dependent one upon the other—this amendment, if successful, would remove from us the power to do that which we would seek to do in our own areas.
        There is another great fallacy. Willie Small would have referred to the theological cargo cult. The cargo cult swept through the South Sea islands. There was the dream that in a few years or tomorrow, a mysterious boat would come from the clouds or from the seas, carrying cargo. People stopped work, ceased to till the land, and waited for the cargo to arrive. The SNP, too, suffer from a cargo cult phenomenon.
        Dr. M. S. Miller: "A cargo kilt".
        Mr. Buchan: A cargo kilt. The SNP believes that, with the coming of the oil, all problems will be solved. But not all problems will be solved.
        I remember how the forthcoming publication of a book called "1980" was hailed in advance until that collection of
        490
        essays was published. There has been very little support for that book since from the SNP because that book, written largely by sympathisers, blew a hole in their economic pretensions, particularly the solution coming from oil.
        At one time the SNP said that oil would create a strong currency in Scotland. At another time, in different circles, it said that it would prefer parity with England. On the whole, the SNP argues that it will give a strong pound. The hon. Gentleman and other SNP Members have said that the Scottish pound would be worth £1·50 compared with the English pound. At the same time, they have argued for devaluation of the green pound. That would make it more difficult for our livestock producers to sell in England and Wales and prevent export, and it would hammer the consumer. The SNP is the only party in history to have succeeded in clobbering both the consumer and the farmer at the same time.
        The disarming approach of the hon. Member for Dundee, East has been referred to before. When he saw the problem arising in Committee a year and a half ago, he tried to prevent himself from running into the trap. I say to him quite firmly that he was tabling an amendment not to discuss but to attack the expenditure of the electricity boards. The amendment was specifically to reduce the amount of moneys available.
        I should like to recall the time at which the hon. Gentleman did that. This is why I know that it was an attacking, not a probing, amendment. We were fighting to get extra expenditure and to persuade the Government to bring forward the order for the Drax B power station.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Scotland produces about 11½ per cent. of the generating capacity of the United Kingdom? My amendment related to the Scottish situation and was in no way connected with Drax B. I should be interested to know whether, in view of the over-capacity which was then and is now produced in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman wants to go ahead with another power station in Scotland?
        Mr. Buchan: I am never sure whether the SNP is terribly cunning or incredibly stupid.
        Mr. Iain Sproat: Both.
        Mr. Buchan: Both. At that time, the hon. Member for Dundee, East was seeking to attack expenditure by the electricity industry when there was a campaign in full swing to persuade the Government to spend more money on the heavy electrical engineering industry and to bring forward the decision on Drax B. We were concerned at that time with the need not only of a power station at Drax but of securing 5,000 jobs for the Babcock and Wilcox factory in Scotland. That is why I am not sure whether members of the SNP are terribly cunning or incredibly stupid. I suggest that was a stupid thing to do. But the hon. Gentleman did it in the seclusion of the Committee.
        In Renfrewshire the SNP was pretending—I say "pretending" because the two policies were contradictory—to lead a campaign, which included a petition, in favour of Drax B. At the same time, the hon. Member for Dundee, East was moving an amendment in Committee to cut back on expenditure in the industry.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if I had forced the amendment to a vote and it had been carried and the expenditure available to the electricity boards had been cut, it would have had no effect on Drax B, which was within another electricity generating area?
        Mr. Buchan: The first point brings out the cunning and stupidity again. Fortunately, the rest of the members of the Committee were not stupid. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was sufficiently cunning to withdraw the amendment after I had drawn this matter to his attention.
        I turn now to another aspect. What kind of position would I, the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and the workers involved in Drax B be in if, at the same time as we were campaigning for expenditure to assist us to save our industry in Scotland, the hon. Member for Dundee, East was seeking to cut back on Scottish expenditure? How could we say "Spend more in England and Wales and we will cut back and economise in Scotland" when the beneficiary was to be Scotland? It was a disgraceful, even an immoral,
        492
        situation, and the hon. Gentleman should face it.
        I should like to draw yet another lesson from Drax B.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is daft.
        Mr. Buchan: I think the hon. Member for Dundee, East said that I was daft. However, I am used to the odd low-key hysteria that we get from the SNP.
        As I said, I should like to draw yet another lesson from Drax B. This is a fundamental lesson. I do not refer to the immorality of the behaviour of the SNP. There is a more profound lesson to be drawn from Drax B.
        The Babcock and Wilcox factory in Scotland is one of the only two factories in the United Kingdom which make boilers for power stations. In the event of the SNP succeeding and there being an independent and separate Scotland, any Scottish Minister—especially if it were the hon. Member for Dundee, East —would have to ensure that an order from a nationalised industry went to a Scottish factory. Therefore, the order for boilers would go to Backcock and Wilcox. However, by the same token, given a separate and independent England, any English Minister would have to ensure that an order for boilers for an English power station went to the English factory. The only difference would be that the English factory would fulfill demands from a population 10 times larger than that of Scotland. Therefore, Scotland's potential would be reduced to one-tenth of its present potential.
        In such circumstances, Babcock and Wilcox could not possibly survive, because basically it has a single customer. We know that the company makes exports, but basically it has a single customer—the nationalised Central Electricity Generating Board.
        Therefore, what the SNP is seeking in its demand for independence is, among other things, the destruction of factories such as Babcock and Wilcox. SNP supporters fail to understand that, by having economic separation and removing Scotland's influence from the centre of basic decision-making, they are harming Scotland.
        Yesterday it was argued that the SNP policy on oil and economic matters was

        493
        too good. It was suggested that the Scots were being selfish in wanting all the oil revenue. But that view was contradicted by others who said that the SNP policy was bad and that Scotland would suffer. There is no dichotomy. The process of action and reaction is the same. To the extent that the Scots—not the Scots; the SNP—demand that all oil resources should be for Scotland, a reaction is set up which prevents the full benefits coming to Scotland. In other words, after 15 or perhaps 20 years of the benefits from oil, Scotland will find that it no longer has the benefit of membership of the United Kingdom.
        The SNP cannot have it both ways. For example, English gas comes to Scotland. The SNP has complained about its cost. However, I should point out that the cost in Scotland is the same as in England, despite the cost of getting it to Scotland. Now that Scottish gas is coming in the SNP says that it is Scotland's gas. Scotland cannot expect the benefits to continue to flow when that apparent advantage disappears. This is a matter of morality and of intelligence. I hope that the nationalists will face that situation.
        Another example is coal. Oil is not merely a finite resource but a severely limited finite resource. After 10 or 15 years the rundown will begin, whatever happens. However, we know that coal will last for hundreds of years. It is true that there have been finds in Scotland. It is also true that coal production in Scotland is more expensive than in England or in Wales. The National Coal Board has quite rightly borne the additional cost of the Scottish coalmining industry. That is no disgrace to the men involved. It is a geographical and economic factor. It is right that the United Kingdom should bear the additional cost of coal production in Scotland compared with production in England. Not one English miner has demanded the bringing in of all the coal resources of England for England only and the cutting off of Scotland. As a Scot I find it shameful, when the position is reversed in relation to oil, that that demand should be made. It is stupid as well as immoral when the demand is made in respect of coal.
        494
        5.30 p.m.
        My third point concerns Shetland. It may be true, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, that this Bill is an academic exercise. We are not, however, involved in an academic exercise when seeking to understand the motivation and behaviour of the SNP. Shetland has the bulk of the oil deposits. The people there have said that they do not want to hog this oil. Unlike the SNP, they do not claim the oil as theirs. On the contrary, they say that the oil revenues should be used in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom as of right. I wish that we could get the same degree of generosity from the SNP.
        The SNP said that it would give as much autonomy to the Shetland Isles as they wished to have. That was its policy. However, when oil was discovered, the SNP changed its tune. Sometimes it is a rather nasty one. It did not change its tune in Orkney and Shetland. The SNP candidate in Orkney and Shetland never referred to "Scottish oil" but referred to "North Sea oil." The tune is being changed in the rest of Scotland.
        Despite the background of an SNP conference decision and the firm commitment to try to bribe the Shetland people by an offer of full autonomy, what did the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) have to say? He said that it was doubtful whether Shetland would get any of the oil and that it would certainly not get the bulk of it because international law would prevent that. The islands having been offered full autonomy, oil is discovered. The SNP then says that it will go to international law, if necessary, to deprive the islands of those resources. Even British imperialism at its worst never agreed to give an area full autonomy and then proceeded to take away its resources. We hear talk of Unionist imperialism—this is Unionist imperialism with a vengeance.
        I reject these amendments and the motivation behind them. I do not know what the conclusion of these debates will be. I hope that one result will be that we shall be able to confront the SNP with its own dishonesty, and, perhaps, encourage it to use the same reasonableness north of the border as it does in this

        495
        House, so that occasionally we may hear the SNP speaking with one voice instead of with seven.
        All parties have internal disagreements. When I speak in public against public expenditure cuts, I say "This is my view." When I speak in my constituency I do not say that the Labour Government are opposed to public expenditure cuts. I say "My Government are wrong." I disagree openly. What the SNP does is to go from area to area and say "This is SNP policy" according to the needs of the area. We had a prime example during the last election, concerning the proposed oil development at West Dunbartonshire. The SNP candidate there campaigned against the development on the grounds that the SNP was opposed to it. At the same time, across the river in my area, the SNP took half-page advertisements in the Greenock Telegraph which stated that the SNP was in favour of the development. These people shame Scotland with its great hard-headed tradition of democratic intellect.
        Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I hope that we can make speedy progress with this debate, which has followed the pattern of some of our other economic debates. There are many other subjects relating to devolved matters which we ought to discuss. I welcome the early intervention of the Minister. The arguments on this amendment are fairly fundamental and straightforward. Having listened to the speech of the Minister and that by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I want to underline one or two points.
        It is right that there should be a debate on energy matters, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for giving us this opportunity. The issue has only been touched on in other economic debates. When we talk of energy we are talking about natural resources, a factor which brings a new dimension to our debates. Oil is a non-renewable resource. This is true of all our energy sources which are based on fossil fuels. This factor shapes my attitude towards the amendment. Resources such as the land and the sea can be used to regenerate that which we need from them. This is not so with energy resources such as gas, coal and oil. These resources
        496
        are not man-made but rather they are God-placed.
        The fact that such resources are God-placed serves to underline the great interdependence that there is in handling such energy resources. Although we are moving into a period of self-sufficiency in energy, this will be for only a finite period. We kid ourselves if we think that, because of this so-called bonanza in oil—on which so much of the SNP philosophy is based—we need not look ahead beyond this period of self-sufficiency. We must realise that as part of Europe, and, within Europe, as part of the world, we are dealing with a non-renewable resource. This is what makes interdependence so important.
        Interdependence is equally important when it comes to nuclear energy. This point was illustrated by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, who spoke of the nuclear generator manufacturing industry. In a totally independent Scotland it would be impossible to support such an industry. We would have to co-operate with other countries, just as Great Britain has to co-operate. Indeed it is questionable whether Great Britain herself is large enough in this context. We may be able to contribute and add to the technology, but we cannot do it on our own. To suggest that we could do so makes no sense in the modern world.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will accept that I indicated that nuclear technology ought to be done on a much wider basis than at present. I believe that the Cabinet is now considering the importation of American technology as part of the next stage of the nuclear programme in the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the situation, but I return to the question why we should divide what we have already when such full co-operation is needed in the technology. When we consider our resources of non-renewable fuels, it is clear that Scotland in 20 or 30 years' time may have to look to oil coming from other parts of the United Kingdom. Despite the starry picture painted of our coal resources, it is also likely that Scotland will become dependent on coal from, say, Yorkshire. I am particularly conscious

        497
        of this aspect of the energy argument because under my farm passes a very large pipeline through which is pumped all the gas coming from England to Scotland. The whole situation demonstrates how integrated we are in this country.
        Norway is often called in aid as a country which seems to have made a particular success, or is supposed to have done, of the development of its oil resources. It may be that in some respects it has done better than we have. For example, I think that the Norwegians may have been more aware of some of the depletion problems and have taken quicker action. But I have talked to many people in the oil industry and I find that anyone who thinks that the development of oil in Norway has been a rose-covered path is quite wrong.
        The Norwegians have had to face problems of the environment, of the depletion rate, of revenue, and the rest, just as we have. It has been no easy time for Norway. The mere fact of Norway's being a small nation on its own has not made any easier the solution of the great problems of oil development. It has certainly not made it any easier than in other countries. The Norwegians may have tackled the problems in a different way, but it has not been any easier or better for them.
        Dr. M. S. Miller: The Scottish National Party is always making a big thing about comparisons with Norway and how wonderful it would be if we were like Norway. The SNP lauds the fact that Norway separated from Sweden about 70 years ago, and claims it as the epitome of success. But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if Norway had remained with Sweden its standard of living would be higher? The Swedish standard of living is higher than that of Norway.
        Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That example well demonstrates that a small nation on its own could well be better off in a different situation and that it does not necessarily do best when it is on its own. It illustrates my point that being on one's own does not necessarily mean that one solves all one's oil problems, for example. For that reason alone, the amendment is unsound.
        498
        5.45 p.m.
        Given that energy should remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament, and given the interdependence that we have in relation to energy resources in the United Kingdom, following the establishment of the Assembly there will be more time for those representing Scotland in this House to deal with such matters. That is one of the reasons why I support devolution.
        Members from Scotland have taken up a disproportionate amount of time in dealing with matters which are now to be devolved. I myself have been so busy dealing with them that I have often, regretfully, not been able to participate in discussion and action on wider issues in Parliament. We shall have much more opportunity to deal with matters that are being retained, such as energy. We shall have more time to bring a Scottish voice and influence into retained matters in this Parliament, such as energy resources and use.
        Dr. M. S. Miller: If I had no other reason but to pay tribute to Willie Small, I would enter this debate. I am sure that the whole House of Commons will miss our late colleague, with his gems of classical and medical wisdom, and his puckish kind of Glasgow humour. I feel that the House is less of a mixture now that Willie Small has gone. I would like to record my appreciation of someone who was a kind and good man, a man who said no evil about anyone and about whom no evil was spoken.
        We have a whole list of items in this group of amendments, all of them on matters in respect of which there is already a considerable degree of control in Scotland itself. That fact leads me to believe that the reason for putting forward the amendments has nothing to do with the desire to give more power or authority to the Scottish people through the Assembly, but rather to insist and to put the imprimatur of the SNP on its blueprint in the House of Commons for the separation of Scotland from England.
        The whole argument of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is for separation. Comment has been made about the moderate way in which he approached the subject. Moderate though

        499
        the speech may have been in tone, its content was certainly anything but moderate.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: That is right.
        Dr. Miller: The remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East bit deeply into the flesh of the SNP's desire for Scotland—complete separation. I apologise to my English colleagues for the shameless greed and selfishness of the Scottish nationalists in respect of anything that is going in the United Kingdom.
        It is all right for English workers and English business men to develop their skills for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole and for Scotland in particular, but if Scotland is in the position possibly to reciprocate, the answer is "No. This belongs to us and no one else will get anything of it."
        I am also astonished at the effrontery and the arrogant assumption of superiority on the part of the SNP. As a Scot I certainly would not claim that the Scottish people are superior to any other nation in the world. Yet, according to the Scottish nationalists, every Scottish person seems to be a superhuman individual. If we do not win the World Cup, it will perhaps be because the wicked English have clobbered or nobbled us before we get on to the field. I suspect that the selection committee has been got at, because the Scottish team finds itself in a group which might enable it to go further than perhaps it deserves.
        Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish captain, Mr. Bruce Rioch, when appearing on television, speaks with a Midlands accent?
        Dr. Miller: So does my hon. Friend.
        Mr. Dalyell: Wrong.
        Dr. Miller: My hon. Friend speaks with an English accent.
        Mr. Crawford: Not only Bruce Rioch speaks with an English accent; so does the national treasurer of the SNP, who happens to be English.
        The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. All this is very enjoyable, but we are talking about Amendment No. 467.
        Dr. Miller: I am sorry, Mr. Godman Irvine. I was on the wrong track for a moment.
        What I am trying to point out is the way in which SNP representatives here are, in effect, saying to the Scottish people "Let us take over and we shall solve every one of the problems that you have. There is no question about that."
        The hon. Member for Dundee, East made a petty and niggling kind of objection to the fact that it took a couple of years for North Sea gas to reach his constituency. It was as if all one had to do was wave a magic wand and all the benefits of modern technology would be somehow transplanted immediately to the place where the hon. Gentleman wanted them. I am constantly annoyed at the assumptions that SNP Members make about the way in which the Scottish people will benefit from independence because of their alleged superiority over everyone else.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) discussed the electricity position and indicated quite clearly that for some time to come—perhaps for all time—Scotland will be more dependent upon English coal than on Scottish coal. Certainly from an economic point of view that is the situation, because of the very great difficulty of Scottish pits. I believe that "18-inch seams" is the description that is used. There are more 18-inch seams in Scottish pits than anywhere in England. The difficulty of producing coal in Scotland is enormous. But as my hon. Friend pointed out, there is no objection from the English miner, arguing that the price of coal should be equalised throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
        Oil is another question. We have already a great degree of control in Scotland. The British National Oil Corporation is situated in Scotland. As for research, the National Engineering Laboratory—which also plays its part in oil problems—is situated in East Kilbride. It plays an important role as part of the British heritage in research.
        What about the oil itself? It is interesting that the hon. Member for Dundee, East calmly assumes that the rest of the world will jump to the side of Scotland if a median line is drawn

        501
        and say "That is fine. There is no problem. This is yours and that belongs to England." But the book "Scotland 1980", referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West, is conveniently forgotten by the SNP. Although, as the Minister of State indicated, there is as yet no recognised marine median line, the book postulated that it could be done. One question is whether the coastline of the country is concave or convex. A line could be drawn which would go from Berwick to somewhere on the English coast in the Humber region. Another line could follow the border between Scotland and England from the Solway to Berwick and continue into the North Sea. We would have a number of oilfields on either side of that line. An important point emerges here.
        The SNP has indicated in the past that it would give independence to the Shetlands. That is something which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West also points out. If we assume that the SNP is democratic, as it says, the interesting thing is that Scotland would be left with five oilfields out of the total number of oilfields that exist at present. Five oilfields would belong to Scotland and the rest would belong both to the Shetlands and to England.
        Of course, the Shetlands would be the richest part of the United Kingdom and would want to go back with England rather than be part of Scotland, as has been indicated on more than one occasion.
        The proposition put by the hon. Member for Dundee, East invites the Committee to agree to a multiplication of work that has already been done and to which enormous amounts of money, time and energy have already been devoted.
        That would do two things. If we agreed to the amendment, we would be asking this country again to discover the wheel. Secondly, we would be producing a recipe for chaos for many years to come.
        Mr. Hamish Gray: At the outset, may I associate myself with the tributes that have already been paid to the late Mr. William Small? He frequently took an interest in energy matters and it is appropriate that we should remember him at this time.
        502
        6 p.m.
        When I first read this amendment I felt that it was, to some extent, sinister and cynical. Having listened to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), I am convinced that it is wholly impractical as well. I felt that it was sinister because in some respects it is a wrecking amendment. If the Committee accepted it, it would change the whole concept of the Bill.
        With the exception of Members of the Scottish National Party, the first and foremost consideration of everyone in this Committee, irrespective of his or her view of devolution, is the maintenance of the economic viability of the United Kingdom. If we were to devolve the powers that have been suggested by the hon. Member in his amendment we would be contributing, as the Minister of State said, to a step towards separation. There is no doubt that this is what the SNP wants.
        I do not think that the SNP wants to see the Scottish Assembly work successfully. In fact, the more unsuccessful it is the better the nationalists will like it. They would use its failure as a stamping ground for their demands for total separation. Then their claim that they see the Assembly as a step towards separation would be fulfilled. That is why it is imperative, in creating a Scottish Assembly, that the Committee should get its duties absolutely right. To go along with this amendment would be a great mistake.
        I feel that the amendment is cynical because it is very doubtful that a measure such as that suggested by the hon. Member would benefit Scotland in the long term. It was interesting that he called in aid in his argument the position of the Scottish consumer. He put forward very few arguments to give any indication of how the Scottish consumer would be likely to benefit if the amendment were accepted.
        We are not being presented with the creation of a special fund from which money could be voted for energy projects. We are not even being presented with a fund from oil revenues which would be at the disposal of the Assembly to spend on projects as it thought fit, not necessarily related to oil. We were given an outline of how practically the entire

        503
        energy industry should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly.
        I come now to the position of coal, gas, oil and electricity, and in considering electricity we cannot avoid mentioning nuclear power to which I will refer later. The Minister, in what I regard as the best hatchet job I have heard him perform for a long time, wholly demolished the case of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. There is already a considerable amount of decentralisation, as opposed to devolution, in electricity. The North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board and the South of Scotland Hydro Electric Board represent massive examples of decentralisation. These two bodies are not even subject to the reorganisation of the electricity industry which will take place shortly.
        It is interesting that the hon. Member for Dundee, East should have cited the cost of the Bill related to the increased borrowing powers of the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. This project was certainly not deprived of discussion time in the House. We debated it in Committee upstairs and then again on the Floor of the House at the request of one of my hon. Friends. The debate on a Thursday afternoon resulted in a large number of Scottish Members staying on here.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did cite that as a debate that we had on the electricity industry.
        Mr. Gray: I accept that the hon. Member mentioned it. However, I thought that he was trying to argue the case for this being given over to the Scottish Assembly, but he has not made that point.
        When we talk of electricity we cannot avoid the question of nuclear power. Once again the hon. Member produced a perfectly reasonable argument, to some extent against his own amendment, when he said that enormous sums of money were involved in the development of nuclear energy, and these were almost reaching the stage where countries could not approach such ventures on their own. The case of Torus and European participation in this project, is an example of this. This leads me to the belief that we should be trying to unite and have much greater resources for these purposes.
        504
        The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) made a harsh attack on the hon. Member and his party, as he has done in the past. I would not go along with that entirely. I have served on Committees with the hon. Member for Dundee, East and, although I am mainly in disagreement with him, I feel that he argues his case with conviction. I disagree entirely with the policies used by his party. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West gave one of the many instance in which the SNP speaks with many tongues.
        As a great supporter of the fast breeder reactor I can give another instance of this. The SNP has cast grave doubts on the future of the fast breeder reactor in many parts of the country, yet its parliamentary candidate in Caithness and Sutherland is demanding that the first commercial fast breeder reactor should be located in that constituency. He is quite right and I agree with him, but it is a peculiar posture for a candidate to take when his own party is casting greatest possible doubts on the future of the project.
        The case of Babcock and Wilcox has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West and the hon. Member for Dundee, East. Of course, this is a typical case where in fact the location of Babcock and Wilcox in Scotland is a dispersal which, requiring work to satisfy its work force, depends to an enormous degree on orders from England and other regions of the United Kingdom. Therefore it seems yet another argument against the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
        On the question of gas, the Gas Act 1972 created the corporate body in the British Gas Corporation. It is only a few months since Scottish gas from the North Sea stopped coming via England. Only now that the Frigg field, a United Kingdom-Norwegian field, is coming on stream have we got coming into Scotland gas which, by any conceivable argument, can be said to be coming from Scottish waters.
        The whole question of Scottish waters has been used by the Scottish National Party and has been totally misrepresented by it. Other speakers today have pointed out the folly of the argument of a median line for Scottish and English waters, because there is no such thing as a

        505
        median line, and we are very much in the dark as to what constitutes Scottish waters, English waters or even Shetland waters. Therefore, considerable doubts have been cast on the estimates of Scottish reserves made by the SNP. This is typical of the attitude of the SNP. It claims that Scotland has 400 years of reserves. How on earth can those reserves be accurately determined when there is no way at this point in time of deciding exactly which waters the Nationalists claim as Scottish?
        Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend might explain the argument about there being 400 years of reserves. At what price and for what level of depletion each year? This is an assertion which has been made in vague terms, but none of us can understand it.
        Mr. Gray: That is a good point and, again, casts doubt on the SNP's forecast. It has not stated what its depletion policy is. It has changed it on a number of occasions. Indeed, during the proceedings on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill the then Minister of Energy and I challenged the SNP representative on a number of occasions. At that time the SNP's depletion policy was about half or less than half of that adopted by the Government, but as we pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that if his policy were followed through he would not create any more jobs but instead would create additional unemployment, overnight the policy was then changed. If that policy has been changed again, I am prepared to be guided by the hon. Gentleman, but there is no doubt that these estimates are vague in the extreme.
        The suggestion of devolving gas powers to the Scottish Assembly would create fantastic disruption. The British Gas Corporation has entered into contracts with all the suppliers. Therefore, it would now be a mammoth task to try to unravel those agreements, and at the end of the day the people of Scotland, for whose benefit the hon. Gentleman presumably moved the amendment, will be no better off. This is a case of trying to devolve merely for the sake of devolving, without any benefit accruing to the consumer in whose interests the hon. Gentleman claims to speak.
        506
        Let me move on to consider the subject of devolving powers in respect of coal operations, which is the most ridiculous suggestion of all. The National Coal Board reports and accounts show in the trading results for mining activities in Scotland that since the year 1973–74 there has been a loss in Scottish pits of no less than £44 million. There are reasons for those losses and we need not go into them in detail, but I believe that there is a poor case for devolving that matter wholly to Scotland when the NCB, which is part of the United Kingdom set-up, has subsidised Scottish pits in the past and when there is a good developing pattern since the losses are getting fewer. In 1973–74 there was a loss of £19·2 million, and it fell in 1976–77 to a loss of only £4·7 million. Therefore, the trend is good. It is wrong to devolve these matters when the Scottish pits have been subsidised to a considerable extent in the past.
        Investment in the coal industry is considerable. The hon. Member for Dundee, East served with me on the Coal Industry Bill and we debated the large sums of money to be invested in the years ahead. There is little doubt that a great deal of work has already been done in Scotland at Musselburgh and Castlehall and that a great deal more work remains to be done, of which Scotland will have its share.
        The hon. Gentleman also referred to an incident in the discussions on the Coal Industry Bill when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) took him up on a point relating to the rundown of manpower. It is rarely that I call in aid words said by the hon. Member for Bolsover, but for once in his life he was right. He pointed out on 24th March in the Standing Committee on the Coal Industry Bill that although the industry had run down manpower in Scotland over a period of time from 50,000 to 28,000 in 1976, the rundown in Derbyshire was very much higher. Therefore, it appears that the fact the SNP frequently tends to say that Scotland is always the ill-treated victim in so many issues must be countered by saying that in that instance the problem in Derby-shire was of more serious proportions.
        6.15 p.m.
        The hon. Member for Dundee, East has argued the case on oil in many

        507
        debates. Up to the present time investment in oil has been on a United Kingdom basis. The only reason this amendment has been moved is that the SNP sees the transfer of powers in respect of oil to the Scottish Assembly as a preliminary step towards total separation. That is what the hon. Centleman and his party want. He presented his amendment in a low key, quite different from the way in which he and his political friends present their case in Scotland. When in Scotland they use their emotive antics at every available opportunity to try to inflict their point of view on the people of Scotland, whether they want to accept it or not.
        The SNP's chairman, Mr. William Wolfe, believes that independence and oil are totally separate, but he forgets that the SNP has based its credibility purely on the oil finds. Before the discovery of oil the SNP at no time had more than one Member in the House. The Welsh nationalists, without a splash of oil, had 300 per cent. more Members than the Scottish nationalists had in similar circumstances. I emphasise that their credibility is based solely on oil. That may account for some of their optimistic forecasts. The seats which they won were won as a result of the oil boom.
        We do not know how the hon. Member for Dundee, East sets out his case on oil. In the Committee on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill he tabled an amendment to create another oil corporation. He wanted to set up a Scottish national oil corporation. However, we did not hear about that today, so perhaps he has changed his view yet again.
        There is also considerable worry about research. The hon. Member wishes to devolve that matter, too. Research will require an enormous amount of money, and it is surely to everybody's benefit that this should be done on a United Kingdom basis, not on a solely Scottish basis. The hon. Gentleman argues in this way because he is dedicated to the break-up of the United Kingdom and the total separation of Scotland.
        Mr. Douglas Crawford: It is all to do with the sovereignty of the nation.
        Mr. Gray: It is not a question of the sovereignty of the nation. That is a dan-
        508
        gerous remark, which the hon. Gentleman makes every now and again. He is one of those peculiar SNP Members—
        Mr. Richard Buchanan: They are all peculiar.
        Mr. Gray: The SNP thinks that a couple of folk singers and some emotive Scottish songs are all that we need to survive in an independent Scotland. It is dangerous when the hon. Gentleman brings emotive arguments into the realistic approach that we hope the Committee will always take on these matters.
        It is essential that we preserve the economic viability of the United Kingdom. Accepting the amendment would be a disastrous step against that objective and I hope that the Committee will reject the proposal.
        Mr. Dennis Canavan: May I start by joining other hon. Members in paying tribute to the late Willie Small? When I first moved to London a few years ago as a new Member, I stayed for a while in the same digs as Willie and I always found his assistance and advice very valuable.
        Willie had a tremendous depth of experience in local government, the trade union movement and parliamentary politics. He was one of those hon. Members who went out of his way to share with others, particularly new Members, the fruits of that experience. While I shall miss his assistance and guidance, I shall miss most of all his comradeship and friendship.
        Turning to the amendment, the House should not be misled by the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The purpose of the amendment is to enable the separatist Scottish State, which the hon. Gentleman and his separatist friends envisage, to get a lion's share of North Sea oil.
        The basis of the amendment is the philosophy of greed. Indeed, the whole philosophy of nationalism is based on greed and selfishness and the idea that the distribution of wealth should depend simply on its geographic location and geological factors and happenings that took place thousands of years ago under the surface of the earth or under the ocean bed.
        I do not know what other hon. Members opposite think about that, but to my

        509
        hon. Friends, that philosophy is alien to everything that our movement stands for. Socialism is based on the philosophy that the distribution of wealth should not depend simply on the place of its discovery, but should be to those who are most in need, whether they are in Strathclyde, Central Scotland, the Highlands, the Lowlands, Tayside, Tyneside, Teeside, Merseyside or anywhere else in the United Kingdom where we see that people are in need.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: When the hon. Gentleman puts that proposition in his chauvinistic fashion as a little Scotlander or little Britisher, is he saying that oil money should be kept in London and not distributed elsewhere? For instance, would he give it to the Italian Government?
        Mr. Canavan: There is a great need to build Socialist links between Britain and other countries. I am not thinking in terms of the Common Market, because I do not see that as a suitable agency for the distribution of wealth in a Socialist manner. In principle, I believe in building Socialist links with other countries and in sharing our energy and other resources with other needy countries. But this amendment would turn the clock back.
        We have to consider the amendment and the Bill in the context of the partnership which Scotland has had with its nearest neighbour for more than 200 years. It is on the history of that partnership that we must make up our minds whether to accept or reject the amendment.
        My hon. Friends and I believe in a Socialist energy policy rather than in leaving energy and the dictation of energy policy to multinational oil companies and the like. That is why we set up the British National Oil Corporation and decided to locate its headquarters, along with those of the offshore supplies office, in Glasgow. There was an understandable welcome for the location of those important energy headquarters in Scotland, but when we discussed the Bill that set up the BNOC, the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who is the SNP spokesman on energy, tried in Committee to smash the Corporation. That was the gratitude
        510
        shown by the SNP for the good sense and generosity of the Government in locating the headquarters of that important new national corporation in Scotland.
        The SNP tried to smash the BNOC into four bits—a Scottish national oil corporation, an English national oil corporation and, believe it or not, a Welsh national oil corporation and a Northern Ireland national oil corporation. Have hon. Members ever heard anything so stupid?
        The nationalists often invite their Plaid Cymru colleagues from Wales to their meetings and, in turn, send fraternal delegates to the Welsh nationalists annual conferences and so on. Yet their concern even for fellow nationalists is so lacking and they are so chauvinistic that they are unwilling to share what they consider to be Scotland's oil even with their colleagues in Wales. That is the depth of parochialism expressed in the SNP energy policy.
        After the SNP tried unsuccessfully to smash up the BNOC, the Bill returned to the Floor of the House for Third Reading. SNP Members then voted against it. They were voting for the interests of the multinational oil companies rather than for the interests of the people of Scotland, including workers in the oil industry and the consumers. That is the measure of the concern of the SNP. Its Members are more concerned with protecting the interests of multinational oil companies than with using energy resources for the good of the community and extending public ownership and control by means of the BNOC.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the reason all the major oil companies signed participation agreements on a "no gain, no loss" basis was that they stood to lose nothing. The whole question of participation and a Socialist energy policy was a charade which the Government had to present because they were unable to negotiate anything realistic.
        Mr. Canavan: I am the first to admit that the powers of the BNOC are not perfect. It is not strong enough. But there would have been virtually no public control or public ownership and certainly no corporation at all if the majority of hon. Members had voted with the SNP Members on the Third Reading of

        511
        the Bill. They voted against the Oil Corporation.
        I said earlier that the thinking behind the amendment was the philosophy of greed and selfishness. It is not even based on good sense and logic. The SNP seems to think that the vast majority of the oil would necessarily be in the Scottish section of the North Sea if we had the misfortune to have a completely separate Scottish State.
        6.30 p.m.
        I do not believe that this proposition stands up. Many people who are unbiased in this matter have done considerable legal research into the drawing up of a median line and it is naïve and simplistic to imagine that it would simply be a line of latitude running from Berwick-upon-Tweed, for example. It would more likely be a line running up towards the North-East from Berwick-upon-Tweed, because that is the direction of the border between Scotland and England at that point. There is also the strong possibility of Orkney and Shetland opting out of a separate Scottish State if that ever came about.
        We need to think, too, of the situation not so long ago, when the first drop of North Sea oil came ashore in England. I can remember the chauvinism of the SNP. It claimed in intemperate language, especially in constituencies north of the border, that the English were stealing Scotland's oil. That is the propaganda that it issued.
        Apart from parochialism and greed, that allegation was not even based on fact. The first oil to be landed came from the Argyll Field. If there ever was a separation of Scotland from England, in all probability the median line that would be drawn would put the Argyll Field, or the major part of it, in English waters. So much for the invalid and nonsensical claim made by the SNP about the English stealing Scotland's oil. It is quite probable that the median line would be such, and if Orkney and Shetland opted out of a separate Scottish State it is likely that Scotland would be left with less than half of the North Sea oil discoveries that are already in existence.
        A similar situation applies to gas. Ministers have said—certainly until the Frigg field started to come on stream—
        512
        that about 95 per cent. of the gas consumed in Scotland comes from what would be the English sector of the North Sea.
        I turn briefly to the coal industry. The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that Scotland contained about a quarter of the United Kingdom's workable coal seams. It depends upon what is meant by workable. A great deal of public investment is required of the National Coal Board to make many of the seams workable. It is a known fact that the average output per man shift in the Scottish coalfields is considerably less than the average output per man shift south of the border. Why is that? It is not because the Scottish miners work any less hard than their counterparts in England and Wales; Indeed, the probability is that they work harder.
        Why is the output per man shift, on average, lower? The reason is the geological structure, the incidence of faults and the narrowness of seams in many of the Scottish pits. This is why people in the National Coal Board and, just as important if not more important, people in the National Union of Mineworkers, would have nothing to do with the stupidity of the amendment. It is clear that the amendment would lead to that which the SNP wants, namely, a completely separate Scottish coal board.
        If a separate Scottish coal board had been set up in 1947, when the industry was nationalised, and if Scotland had been told to go it alone then, the likelihood is that there would now be virtually no coal industry left in Scotland. That is why spokesmen in the NUM such as Mr. Eric Clarke, the newly-appointed Scottish general secretary, and his colleagues, would utterly reject this amendment.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) correctly pointed out the need for an integrated energy strategy combined with an integrated industrial strategy. Drax B provides a good example, involving 5,000 jobs being at stake in the boiler-making industry in Scotland, in Babcock and Wilcox. The jobs' survival depended on an English electricity generating company placing an order. That sums up the importance, in employment terms, of an integrated energy and industrial strategy on a United Kingdom basis.

        513
        The amendment would be against the long-term interests of the people of Scotland as well as the people of England and Wales. That is why I am sure that the Committee will reject it by an overwhelming majority.
        Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I did not intend to intervene in the debate but the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) persuaded me to do so.
        The hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) referred to the hon. Gentleman's speech and his argument about the Drax B power station. It is true that although it is situate in England it will create work in Scotland for many people—Babcock and Wilcox, in the boiler-making industry. It will also be doing something that to my mind is even more important in the longer term; it will keep alive the skills and expertise not only on the shop floor but in the drawing office and design departments and in the management team. If there were a shortage of work, those skills and expertise would be dissipated and probably never recovered. We could therefore lose for ever not only jobs but the capacity of the industry. That seems to be something for which it is worth fighting.
        The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said that we required a United Kingdom policy—I agree with him—to ensure that English orders go to Scottish engineering firms. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the Committee from personal experience that it is not always easy to get even Scottish organisations in the electricity generating industry to place their orders with Scottish firms when English or other firms are making cheaper quotations. That is the sort of conflict which even the Scottish National Party would not wish to see, but which would arise if we did not have an integrated United Kingdom energy policy.
        We have had a good deal of talk about the distribution of wealth and its place of origin. The Committee should remember exactly what North Sea oil does. It provides the United Kingdom with a source of energy that is rather expensive but does not cost us anything in foreign exchange. If the saving in foreign exchange were frittered away and spent unnecessarily, it could make our inflationary situation a great deal worse. It must
        514
        be used for investment for the future, to build up the industries all over the United Kingdom that need new investment against the time when the oil runs out.
        Investment in the production of energy for the future requires large resources. Curiously enough, investment in production of electricity whether it is in nuclear power stations, oil-fired power stations or coal-fired power stations, is not much different, over a period, in terms of the sum required to make the same quantity of electricity. There is not a great difference in investment costs. The difference comes in the research and development costs on the nuclear side.
        I suggest to the Committee that the possibilities of developing British nuclear energy depend very much on Scotland and Wales and England working together. Of course, it may be too big a burden for the whole of the United Kingdom, although I do not believe that it would be. But it would be too much for one part alone.
        If we are to face the twenty-first century with any degree of confidence, we must be ready to accept the possibility that the fossil fuels that we now burn so readily could by then be too precious as raw materials to burn and will be required for other purposes.
        We need a national energy policy not only for ourselves but to provide energy that we can sell to the rest of the world, as is the case now, with fast-breeder reactors. All too often this country has led the field in technological development, and then, for one foolish reason or another, has given up just before success is reached and allowed others to reap the benefit of our expertise. That, perhaps, is one of the reasons why our output is bad and our unemployment high.
        I beg the Committee to reject the amendment, with an eye on the future of our children and theirs, and so that we retain the unity and strength to develop the fast-breeder reactor so as to be able not only to provide ourselves with energy but once more, as a nation, to be able to sell energy to the world and be in a position to continue by our own effort the benefits that God has given us in the North Sea.
        Mr. Dalyell: Had he been with us, Willie Small would probably have been participating in the debate. Ever since

        515
        he was Fred Lee's PPS at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, he had a continuing interest in energy problems, and I pay tribute to a friend.
        Before I ask questions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, perhaps I may draw to the attention of their Lordships, if it is in order, the fact that it looks as though, the guillotine falling at 9 o'clock, it is they and not the House of Commons who will have to discuss all sorts of vital matters in relation to civil aviation, colleges of agriculture, water-ways, forestry and the universities.
        I wish to ask various questions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The first question—perhaps it is my only rhetorical question—is whether, when he listens to the kind of speech that was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), he thinks that here is another example of politicians—it is not only the SNP; it is many other people—who are trying to have it both ways on the issue of nuclear waste. I can only report to the House that the chairman of the SNP—who contests West Lothian—in order, I suspect, to get out of his dilemma, the uncomfortable business of having to explain what to do with nuclear waste, which raises emotions and is awkward for all of us, says that we must rely on wave power and alternative sources energy, particularly wind power.
        Consider the technical facts that we have to face. In order to have the equivalent output of a modern nuclear power station, 1,000 megawatts, how many windmills does one need? The answer is that for aerodynamic reasons one has to have 30,000 windmills. I say to the chairman of the SNP or anyone else that 30,000 windmills take up at least 400 square miles of constantly wind-swept territory.
        Therefore, before thinking that one can easily get out of these difficulties with conservation arguments—because nuclear waste is emotional for conservationists—and before starting to organise marches in Ayrshire or anywhere else, members of SNP should ask themselves what the same conservationists—or, for that matter, the farmers—would say to the idea of 400 square miles of the United Kingdom being taken up by the equivalent of one nuclear power station. That sort of argument does not seem credible.
        516
        I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is temporarily out of his place, because I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State some questions about letters that some of us have received from the Shetland Islands Council. I have received a letter from Mr. John Jamieson. I shall spare the Committee the whole letter and read only the point on page 2 that is directly apposite to our debate. The Council says,
        "Shetland's voice on issues critical to Shetland such as fishing, agriculture, transport, or oil-related development will no longer be clearly heard; future action by the Scottish Assembly may, deliberately or inadvertently, lead to a situation arising whereby the oil development located in Shetland becomes a subject of controversy with Central Government; (such a conflict could have disasterous results for both the United Kingdom and Shetland); the degree of control achieved by Shetland over oil-related developments will be unilaterally weakened by the Scottish Assembly."
        The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and others went on an all-party delegation when we were invited by the Shetland Islands Council. We had understood at one stage that the council's fears were being allayed. It would seem that that is not so, and I think that this is the appropriate amendment for the Minister to comment on that.
        6.45 p.m.
        I return to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. One of the things that he said about electricity was that time was not available in the House of Commons. Like my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I absolutely deny that. First of all, on any kind of the problems that the hon. Member was outlining, dealing with the dissatisfactions of Scottish consumers, it is possible for any Scottish Member of Parliament to go to Cathcart House. In Frank Tomb's time I always found that we were entirely welcome to go there and discuss, most promptly and at a senior level, any of these difficulties.
        In terms of an Assembly, what is it precisely that we are asking. The idea that somehow or other an Assembly should supervise the South of Scotland Electricity Board seems to me to raise real questions about precisely what the function of the Assembly is to be. If the Assembly is to act as a consumers' spokesman against the SSEB, I shall want

        517
        to know more about that, because I am not sure that that is the function of a subordinate Parliament.

        Equally, my hon. Friend the Minister of State was quite right to point out, as was the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), that when we needed legislative time on the issue of Invergordon, it was easily available and forthcoming. The truth of the matter is that whenever a group of Members of Parliament are sufficiently concerned about a serious subject, there are endless ways in which they can raise it fairly promptly. Therefore, that argument does not hold water.
        Take the example of the coal industry. I need only echo my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Of course Eric Clarke and others have been extremely careful to say that, as far as it affects them in the National Union of Mineworkers, they want nothing to do with the kind of idea that is put forward in the amendment.
        The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that an Assembly would be able to do something about the Scottish gas board. Quite what it would be able to do was not clear, but the hon. Member said that it was very attractive, that this was the kind of thing that was being put forward in Scotland, and that would certainly be able to do something about the Scottish gas board. This means that for everyone who has a gas problem—anyone whose gas pipe or cooker is faulty—somehow or other, by some magic wand, the Assembly will do something.
        The truth is nothing of the kind. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dundee, East if he wants to interrupt me. What could be done by 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh or a Scottish Parliament about the Scottish gas board that we, as conscientious Members of Parliament, could not do from Westminster?
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman invites me to intervene, may I ask him this: does he accept that it would be desirable, first, that Scottish Gas should be reconstituted on a Scottish basis?
        Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Why?
        Mr. Wilson: So that it can come under the control of those who represent the consumers in Scotland. The Scottish Consumer Council, which I quoted, recommended that the fuel industries should come under the Assembly's control.
        Mr. Galbraith: Why?
        Mr. Wilson: The council believes that that would be advantageous.
        Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman's response is precisely what I suspected. If I misquote him, he will refute what I say, but I believe that we have elicited the interesting view that Scottish Gas should be run by a consumers' organisation. One cannot run a gas industry in that way.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not say that.
        Mr. Dalyell: I think that the hon. Gentleman did. He can perhaps make clear on another occasion precisely what he means, but the impression is left that somehow or other it would be much better for consumers if we had that kind of Assembly. I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) wishes to intervene.
        Mr. Galbraith: I was only half thinking of asking the hon. Gentleman to give way. I do not know whether he recalls that in 1951 it was decided to split up the Electricity Authority and set up the South of Scotland Electricity Board and have it and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, in answer to the demands of the then Scottish National Party. It was done by the Conservative Government, and it was probably a mistake. I do not think that it has done any good.
        Now the SNP is suggesting that the same thing should be done with regard to gas. In a small country such as Britain it is not sensible to do this. Although electricity has been split up, it has to work as one unit, but it is responsible to two different Ministers.
        Mr. Dalyell: I was right in surmising that the hon. Gentleman was pregnant with a worthwhile intervention. I leave it at that.
        Mr. Galbraith: The delivery may not have been as good as it could have been.
        Mr. Dalyell: I turn to the question of the consumers. Here I want to ask one

        519
        question based on the document that we all have. The Consumer Council says:
        "This Consumer Protection Committee would have responsibility (i) for ensuring that, when desirable, uniform law and enforcement should obtain on both sides of the border".
        That and a number of other matters in the document raise something of a confusion. There should be a Government response in the light of the kind of remarks so often made from the SNP Bench.
        I come to the question of the disagreement that I have with my own Front Bench, which is a fundamental one. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was absolutely right to say that whatever may be said in soft tones in this Chamber, the situation in Scotland is very different. There have been repeated advertisements along the lines that it is "oor" oil, his oil, her oil, their oil. The truth is that without oil in the North Sea we should not be on the tenth day of this melodrama.
        What the amendment reveals is that within days of the Assembly's meeting there would be a demand for the oil revenues. That is as certain as anything could be. The idea of passing the buck for refusing Scotland the oil revenues to three, four, or five wise men, or whatever the number may be, on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, is unrealistic. On 29th November my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
        "The most effective check against the Assembly extending its powers is the use of the Judicial Committee, but I have to counter arguments from the Opposition dealing with a rather academic matter. The vires check would be used if the Assembly sought to extend its powers by, for example, taxing oil revenues. It would then be checked by the Judicial Committee."—[Official Report, 29th November 1977; Vol. 940, c. 354.]
        Some of us might be forgiven for being sceptical about this. I wish my right hon. Friend the Lord President no harm, but it would serve him right if he were consigned at some future date to membership of the Judicial Committee which had to decide whether it was Scottish oil or British oil—whether it was "oor" oil or not. The buck is passed to the Judicial Committee, and I ask my colleagues to imagine the headline on the front page of the Daily Record after it made its decision. The headline might read "Foot, Dilhorne and Denning deny Scots Oor Oil". There would be a piece under
        520
        neath, doubtless by Mr. Stewart McLaughlin, to the effect that "Three English Privy Councillors yesterday denied Scotland oor oil revenues. The Prime Minister of Scotland and his Cabinet will today go into emergency session to discuss what action they should take."
        I see my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) nodding agreement. He and I know that that is not a fanciful scenario. It is exactly what would happen. The sentiments in the amendment are precisely those that would be translated into a clarion call from a section of the Assembly, a section which I suggest would not be limited to SNP Assemblymen.
        Mr. John Smith: Rubbish.
        Mr. Dalyell: I am very aware of the temptations that politicians will face. It would be a brave candidate of any party who said "I think that in no circumstances should the Assembly to which I hope to be elected have the oil revenues". Every candidate will have to make promises. Great expectations have been raised, and in order to fulfil the promises someone will have to say where the money is coming from. The temptation will be to say that it will come from North Sea oil. Therefore, we have a great problem.
        Later tonight, if there is time, we shall come to Schedule 12. Compared with the image of the Judicial Committee in deciding whether it is "oor" oil under the conditions of Schedule 12, Sir John Donaldson would be a figure of political objectivity. This is bringing the High Court into the politics of oil in a big way. Either now or in the debate on Schedule 12, this point must be tackled. The idea that the Judicial Committee should decide the most delicate, controversial, explosive question of the destination of the oil revenue is to drag the High Court into the political maelstrom in a way that should never happen.
        Mr. John Smith: As my hon. Friend is making such a meal of this matter, may I say that what the Judicial Committee will be deciding is whether a measures falls within the vires of the Scotland Act? That is the only question that it will be deciding, and it is perfectly reasonable that it should. It is not involved in international or local politics.

        521
        It is a matter of vires only. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that. I think that everyone else in the Chamber does.
        Mr. Dalyell: That is a very comfortable point of view—
        Mr. John Smith: It is true.
        Mr. Dalyell: It is a very comfortable point of view. I am in some difficulty. I have sent copies of Hansard to seven judges of the High Court who, because of their legal pre-eminence, might be expected to serve on a Judicial Committee—Lords Denning, Diplock, Wilberforce, Edmund-Davies, Gardiner, Salmon and Dilhorne.
        I cannot, of course, reveal the contents of the replies in public, but they were very discreet, and I am not saying that they were all on my side of the argument. All that I say is that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has a problem here, as we all have. It is one matter to inform the Registrar of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on this. It is another matter actually to discuss it with those who will be at the sharp end. If I am told that they may not be on the Judicial Committee, that may be so. The question is how the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is to be formed, because it would be even more controversial to have former Lords President of the Council from any party. Therefore, we are in the very greatest difficulty when discussing the politics of oil.
        My hon. Friend the Minister of State is quite civilly impatient with me on the subject, but I wish that some of the scales would fall from the eyes of my own Front Bench to allow them to see the folly of what will happen in practice as a result of their actions. The speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East really provides a classic argument for why this Bill should be defeated. This debate, albeit a long one, touches the very heart of the matter, which is what will happen should this Assembly ever be established.
        7.0 p.m.
        Mr. John Stokes: I agree very much with a great deal of what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said. I have found, in attending most of these debates on
        522
        whatever clause, schedule or amendment it may have been, that, time and time again we have come back to the essential heart of the Bill and to the threat that the Bill poses to the unity of the United Kingdom.
        I enjoyed the last speech of the Minister of State more than any other that I have heard so far. He rebutted the arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) who, as the Minister said, spoke in a moderate tone and with smooth words. But, of course, the effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be to prepare the way for a formal takeover of North Sea oil by the Scottish National Party before declaring Scotland an independent country. Everyone who is honest with himself must admit that oil has always been the main plank in the policy of the SNP and that the supposed wealth of oil for Scotland is the very nub of its case for independence.
        Throughout these debates, I have been one of the few English Members present. I have been here partly to safeguard the interests of England but, just as important, to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom. In my view, this amendment has rightly been called a wrecking amendment. It will deal a deadly blow to the unity of the United Kingdom.
        We have heard various practical objections to the amendment. We have heard of the dangers to Scottish industry and to employment in Scotland, especially in those parts of industry supplying the oil and other energy industries, if this amendment were to be accepted and Scotland were to be responsible for the administration of the great oil industry.
        In looking at our energy policy, I am certain that we have to do so from a United Kingdom point of view. Any attempt to deal with such a vast subject as energy policy in terms of Scotland or Wales or even of England would be a very grave mistake.
        What has come out in this debate is that, without the discovery of North Sea oil, the Scottish National Party would not hold the seats in Scotland that it does today and we should not be debating this amendment to this Bill. Scotland was a poor country until the Union in 1707. After that, it flourished greatly for a

        523
        long time until, I suppose, the depression of the late 1920s. Now it has once again gone through miseries which the Labour Government, unfortunately, have inflicted on the whole of the United Kingdom.
        The capture of oil in the North Sea for Scotland's exclusive use offered a way out, and all those who were tempted by greed jumped on the Scottish National Party bandwagon. It has been an unedifying spectacle, especially for friends of Scotland in England who have always admired the Scottish people and their great contribution to the United Kingdom.
        No one seriously believes that Scotland should take over the United Kingdom's oil. But the Scottish National Party raises the cry "We have been robbed." Through the ages it has been the cry of those with a chip on their shoulders and those with a grudge which they have developed and exaggerated to compensate themselves for their own shortcomings. That such an absurd amendment as this could be tabled shows what an absurd and extraordinary Bill this is and how far this Committee is straying from reality.
        What annoys and distresses me and what, I know, annoys and distresses an increasingly large number of people in the United Kingdom as a whole, is that here we are in this Chamber, discussing the Scotland Bill day after day—we are on our tenth day today—while the country is still suffering from one of the most serious economic problems to have affected it since the war.
        We know that oil can help with our balance of payments, but it is not the answer to our problems. The answer for Scotland, as for England and for the rest of the United Kingdom, is to learn to produce as efficiently as our competitors do, to cut down overmanning in our industries and to ensure that in design, quality, delivery and servicing our products are the equal of any other country's. That is the essential problem facing the country today—coupled with the lack of incentive and the low morale among many people without leadership. That is what we should be discussing, not this silly amendment in this dangerous and irrelevant Bill.
        Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr.
        524
        Stokes) said that in relation to North Sea oil the feeling had been expressed "We wuz robbed." The genesis of this amendment and the very philosophy of the Scottish National Party arise from feelings which, either real or imaginary, stem from the fact that people believe that the real benefits of North Sea oil have not reached particular individuals or groups of people.
        Some months ago, I received a letter from a constituent. It was an anonymous letter. It was headed "Labour voter turning SNP". The letter made the point that, as a result of the boom in North Sea oil, people were coming from outside the city and getting houses which native Aberdonians could not get, and getting all the best jobs which native Aberdonians could not get, and that their children were overcrowding the schools, making it difficult for the children of native Aberdonians. They also seem to have a very high rate of sickness, because apparently it is more difficult to get into hospital because of the non-Aberdonians. At the same time, the non-Aberdonians are apparently coming to the city and benefiting from the social services.
        The letter closed with a remark which I am sure every hon. Member has had directed towards him, either verbally or in writing at some time—
        "Send them back to where they belong."
        But that means sending them back to Glasgow, not to England, and certainly not to some far overseas place.
        It is difficult to know how my constituent's fears can be cured, and, when I hear in this amendment, as in others, how there is a strong case for either the proposed Assembly taking over the control of North Sea oil and its depletion or an independent Scotland doing so, I find myself almost giving way to certain temptations—not because of greed but simply on the basis of trying to do my best for my constituents and for other people around Aberdeen.
        I am not sure whether I am making a formal announcement but I am tempted to say that it is perhaps a good idea to form a new party which would be dedicated to the Grampians. Its aim would be a Grampian unilateral declaration of independence. There would be certain difficulties. It may not have penetrated the mind of the Comimttee that if one

        525
        took the initials of the party, GUDI, the members would be known as "The Goodies". That would be a good start.
        We are told that North Sea oil revenues might reach £3 billion per year. If one drew boundaries, however generous one were to the Orkneys and Shetlands, I reckon that my new independent State could claim two-thirds of the oil. That would give us a guaranteed income of £2 billion a year. I do not wish to say whom I would recommend to be life-president of this oil-rich kingdom, but I promise to carry out my duties faithfully.
        Certain difficulties are involved in the question where one draws boundaries. The city of Aberdeen, which is Labour-controlled, would become the heartland of the new country. One could draw the boundary carefully so that it came just above the high water mark and project the boundaries out and claim the oil. I know that this proposition is a farce, but it is no more a farce than is the SNP proposition. By drawing boundaries in certain ways members of the SNP say that they have a right to claim the oil revenues.
        There is little cultural or other affinity between the East and West coasts of Scotland. The only time that I received a standing ovation was when I was being heckled by the SNP. Jokingly, I said "It is Aberdeen oil". When they cheered me I had to say "Steady on, boys, it is a joke". The whole idea that we should claim revenues on the basis of spurious geographical lines is pure farce, and the sooner we recognise it the better.
        Mr. Sproat: A number of hon. Members have correctly pointed out that if it were not for North Sea oil the SNP would be nowhere. That is indisputable. We know that there are other reasons for members of the SNP receiving votes, but if it were not for oil they would not have more than one hon. Member in the House of Commons. Despite the fact that they run on oil, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) gave a low-key speech on the one subject that swept him to power. We have the right to ask why he spoke in so low a key on a subject that he presents in such a hysterical key in Scotland. The reason is that North Sea oil is turning out to be a subject with rather more traps than he thought.
        526
        I am pleased to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes) in his farcical metaphor. It is no more ridiculous to talk of Aberdeen oil than to talk of Scottish oil. It is significant that in those two parts of Scotland where North Sea oil has already made the biggest impact—in Shetland and Grampian—the Bill is likely to receive a "No" vote in the referendum.
        Like many hon. Members, I have received another letter from the Shetland Islands Council saying that it wants no part in the Bill. I am sure that if I asked the Grampian Regional Council it would be only too happy to say in even stronger terms what the Shetland Islands Council has already said.
        7.15 p.m.
        Perhaps the truth cannot be too frequently reiterated. Shetland has about 60 per cent. of the oil. That is why the hon. Member for Dundee, East was in such a low key. He did not want to draw attention to the fact that the Shetland Islands do not want anything to do with an independent Scotland or a Scottish Assembly. That truth wipes out the SNP's economic and other arguments. It is totally devastating to that party's case.
        When the amendment was moved, we noticed something that was conspicuous by its absence—another two-faced argument that the SNP continually puts forward. When speaking to conservationists, members of the SNP say "Look at Norway. What a happy country that is, drawing out the oil slowly so that they do not have the problems involved in extracting the oil at the maximum rate." Members of the SNP say that they will move more slowly and take full account of the conservationists' argument.
        They say that with one side of their mouth, but with the other they promise, on the billboards of Scotland, that "It is her oil", showing a picture of a poor old-age pensioner to illustrate that slogan. There is nothing that members of the SNP say will not be paid for by the oil, but that can be done only by extracting the oil at the fastest possible rate at the highest price.
        The hon. Member for Dundee, East approaches the subject in such a low key because he is aware that although he can get away with it in Scotland, when holding a Press conference and with no one

        527
        to challenge him, it is another matter to present this economic nonsense to the House. The hon. Member therefore tried to skate over it.
        Earlier an hon. Member talked about a self-governing Scotland, and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) shouted "Sovereignty". It is unnecessary to go into the semantic differences between "sovereignty" and "self-governing independence". Members of the SNP are happy to talk about sovereignty when it has an emotional ring about it. But the hon. Member for Dundee, East did not want to talk about sovereignty, because he did not want to enter into all the clownish trappings that that entails—a Scottish air force, Scottish navy, Scottish customs and a Scottish diplomatic corps. Such trappings would cost about £1,000 million. Nor did he mention a Scottish dictator or Scottish president, which would cost even more. Sovereignty is mentioned when it is part of an emotional argument in Scotland but not when it involves all the extra costs which would eat up most of what North Sea oil would bring in, even assuming that Shetland oil and all the oil from the Auk, Josephine and Argyll fields went to Scotland.
        There are many examples of the implicit dishonesty in the way in which the amendment was moved. It was typical of the case that members of the SNP present on every possible occasion. To each audience they give according to what they believe that audience wishes to hear.
        I am sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is not in the Chamber, because he made the type of speech that one can always respect. Even if one disagrees with him, if one puts a fact to him which he has not taken into account he will always say "That is a point", and try to get round it. There is an intellectual honesty about that approach.
        When the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West said that Scotland had done very well out of the Union, the hon. Member for Dundee, East muttered "No, it has not." Yet every hon. Member knows that before oil entered the scene Scotland was getting out of the Union 20 per cent. more per head of the population than was England. According to the latest figures provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
        528
        expenditure in Scotland per head over England is running at 30 per cent. Yet the nationalists persist in saying that Scotland gets nothing out of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member said tonight "They will be spending the oil money in England." We know that Scotland now gets more than its fair share. There is no doubt that in the future, however the oil revenue is spent—whether, as Labour Members would like, to regenerate industry, or, as we would prefer, to cut taxation—Scotland will certainly benefit. The hon. Member for Dundee, East did not rise to his feet and ask about the 30 per cent. He muttered his comment sotto voce.
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: If I rose to my feet on every insulting statement, I would never be off them. Does the hon. Member agree that Scotland has had less than its fair share of economic growth in the United Kingdom and far more than its fair share of unemployment?
        Mr. Sproat: I cannot go into the definition of fair shares of unemployment or growth without straying out of order. But in that matter which is easily quantifiable, namely, money, Scotland gets more per head than any other part of the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Member have any figures to show, with every piece of Scottish industry or commerce, for how long after the Union the Scots still had some minute say in the Scottish economy?
        Mr. Sproat: It would be fascinating to look into that and to look also into those companies which are resident in England and which I object to calling English companies, which were founded by Scotsmen and have Scottish managing directors or chairmen. It would be interesting to look into those great United Kingdom companies which have Scottish origins. I am thinking of Dunlop, as an example.
        Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not think that the hon. Member understood my point. It was that the decline and fall of any part of Scottish industry or Scottish commerce was the fault of no one but the owners. In 95 per cent, of cases they were Scots themselves.
        Mr. Sproat: The decline kept pace with the decline of natural resources, but that

        529
        is not attributable to any Englishman. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is absolutely right. The SNP completely ignores that argument.
        Let me return to one statement of principle on this amendment—the statement that what ever else we do, our energy programmes in this country must be unified; they must be United Kingdom programmes. It would be madness to have a Scottish energy programme or an English energy programme. The hon. Member for Dundee, East wants to devolve the control of North Sea oil to a Scottish Assembly as a step towards an independent Scotland. What would happen if a Scottish Assembly had control over the oil in Scotland while control of the oil discoveries which have just been made in Dorset remain under the control of this House? It would be absolute madness to develop two lots of controls and regulations, one for oil in Aberdeen and the other for oil in Dorset. The mind boggles at the bureacuracy, the confusion, the mistakes and the chaos that would result from trying to handle oil in different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom.
        There is then the absurdity of the coal industry. No one in that industry has ever supported anything that the SNP has said about devolving control and responsibility for Scottish coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) pointed out that under this Government the Scottish coal industry had been subsidised to the extent of about £40 million by the United Kingdom Treasury and by that part of the British mining industry that lies outside Scotland.
        Scotland gets its gas from off the Norfolk coast. That gas is supplied to every part of the United Kingdom at an equal price. The hon. Member for Dundee, East complained that his house did not get the gas very quickly. How soon does he think the people in Cornwall got their gas? Does the hon. Member believe that there is an official in the Department of Energy whose job it is to ensure that the Scots get their gas after the people of Lancashire or Cornwall? It defies credibility to think that the British Government operate on that basis.
        I leave aside the ludicrous principle of trying to divide up the energy resources
        530
        of this country in order to give one example of the slippery arguments that the SNP uses. In this case it was the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, East in respect of research, the last named item in the amendment. He said that research should be devolved, but then he hurriedly moved on, because he knew that it would be ludicrous to devolve research to the Scottish Assembly. He said that of course research should be done on a European or even a world basis. There may be subjects which should be researched on such a wide basis, but at the moment research is done on a British basis. The hon. Member argued that research should be done on a European basis because of size. He defeats, with the logic of his own argument, his suggestion that research should be devolved to Scotland, which would be smaller.
        As well as disregarding common sense and principle the nationalists are blatantly dishonest. One of the advantages of this House is that there are people here with enough intelligence to see through what the nationalists are trying to do. In Scotland they can get away with the slogan "It is your granny's oil", but they cannot do that here, and if this debate does nothing else it will enable us once and for all to nail down the SNP.
        Mr. Budgen: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) that this debate is about oil. He concentrated upon oil because it is the promise of the oil revenues transforming the Scottish economy which has given life and force to the Scottish nationalist movement.
        An interesting attack was launched against the SNP by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He said that its policy was one of greed and he asked whether it was right that a nation should be rich simply because within its territory there was oil. He asked equally whether it was right for a nation to be rich because it had fertile land. I disagreed with his conclusion. The distribution of wealth is usually by chance. It might be by the chance of inheritance or by the chance of differences in ability. There is no alternative to that but the allocation of resources through direction by the State.
        I do not attack the SNP on the ground that it is greedy. What I attack the SNP

        531
        about is the question whether its greed is wise greed, whether it uses its greed in order to enoble enlightened self-interest. Even on the most favourable assumptions, I would suggest that the greed of the SNP is likely to turn out to be self-defeating.
        7.30 p.m.
        Let us put the case on the basis of greed at its highest. Let us assume for a moment that all the oil in the North Sea could be described as Scottish oil. Let us assume that the Shetland problem does not exist and that the Shetlands can be regarded as part of Scotland for these purposes. What are the advantages that will accrue as a result of that oil? First of all, it must be pointed out that there is no such thing as a free market price for oil. It is a rigged market. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has said, it is expensive oil. It is expensive because the price has been artificially kept high by the OPEC cartel.
        Therefore, the principal advantage of this very expensive oil is not so much on the balance of payments, because that is going to mean that in all probability we shall have an over-valued currency. The real advantage will be in the tax take that will be levied on this expensive oil. Here again, on the assumption that all the oil is Scottish oil, what is the tax take that will come from the oil? It will be £2 billion a year in 1980. We cannot, because of the falsely high price of oil, look much further than 1980. But let us assume that because of the high price the rate of depletion is as fast as was predicted to 1980. Then it is £2 billion.
        Let us try to see what £2 billion is in terms of the United Kingdom economy at present. According to the Government's expenditure plans in the White Paper published last week, in 1980 public expenditure will be running in the United Kingdom at about £60 billion. Therefore, by 1980, of that £60 billion, £2 billion will be contributed by the tax from North Sea oil.
        Let us look at some of the Government's public expenditure plans in areas which are believed to be particularly important to Scotland. I am looking at Volume 2 of the Government's White Paper on public expenditure. In 1980–81 public expenditure on trade, industry and em-
        532
        ployment will be about £2 billion. Against the advantage of having that £2 billion for their exclusive use, the Scottish people will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South pointed out, have all the disadvantages of maintaining the trappings of sovereignty. They will have their own army, their own air force, their own diplomatic service, their own dictator or republic, or whatever they wish to have. As the hon. Member modestly puts it, this will be at a cost of about £1 billion a year. That is half of the oil revenues gone.
        The best that can be hoped for the Scottish people, if they were to have a short-lived independence based upon those transitory and small revenues from the oil is 10, 15 or 20 years of sovereignty. Then what would happen? The Scottish National Party does not seem to understand the effect on the British people of independence based upon transitory wealth. The English people at present may be deluding themselves that the economic miracle that is often promised will now come about because of the oil revenues. No doubt it can properly be argued that all this talk about oil wealth is a damaging illusion to the English people.
        But let us assume that the English people are denied that illusion and that all the oil revenues go to Scotland. The English people would have a few disagreeable years. There would have to be fiercer cuts in public expenditure than there might otherwise have been. But there would not be any long-term damage to the British economy if Scotland becomes independent. But one thing is clear. If Scotland, with her 5 million people, were to become independent, the attitude of the 50 million English people towards the price of oil would be different. We are now as keen as any oil sheikh to preserve the cartel and, as the hon. Member points out, not just to hold up the price but to push it up.
        If we in England had no oil at all, as the hon. Gentleman points out, our interest would then be in cheap oil. It is precisely because we have a United Kingdom Parliament that we never adequately discuss the rights and wrongs and the pros and cons of holding up the price of oil and having more expensive energy. But it is certain that if it

        533
        were all Scotland's oil, the 50 million consumers of energy in England would be on the side of the cheapest possible oil that they could get.
        Everybody knows that the capacity of the Saudis for the production of oil is far greater than the amount that they are producing at present. It could well be in their interests to flood the world with cheap oil and break the cartel.
        Even if the illusion were true that Scotland might have 10 or 15 years of great and glorious wealth, with all the trappings of sovereignty and the featherbedding of the biggest and best Welfare State in the world, and all the industries never having to be subject to any market forces, the illusion is likely to be cut down and broken up by the stronger diplomatic forces of 50 million English people.
        But what happens when the illusion is gone, when independence is seen not to be the great dream that Scotland hoped it would be? Does Scotland then come snivelling back to England? Does it then come grovelling along and ask to be taken back into the United Kingdom? Does Scotland say that the dream of independence based upon the oil revenues has turned out to be an illusion? Do the Scottish people say "There ain't as much money in oil as we thought there would be. We find that we are not as successful in diplomatic negotiations."?
        Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member poses a very interesting question. Can he name any country in the world which, having been allowed independence from England, has come snivelling back asking to return to English rule?
        Mr. Budgen: We are talking not about a colony but about a part of the United Kingdom. We are not talking about Pakistan or a country that naturally and rightly has its own sense of national historic identity. We are talking about two peoples who have stood together in peace and war ever since the Union and who are wholly and totally intertwined. We are talking about a dramatic severance that is proposed by a section of our United Kingdom. They should understand what they propose.
        The logic of the severence is that the Scottish people will be severed for ever.
        534
        If, after 10, 15 or 20 years, the Scottish people were to say "We have blued it all, we have had a ball, but the assumptions on which we demanded independence have now changed", what would the English say? For example, the Scots might say "We are having a row with Norway about some of the marginal fields which we are now finally exploiting. We would like to give up our independence and join you, the 50 million English people, once again." What would the English say? I hope that they would be generous. I hope that they would say "Come back into the United Kingdom." But the SNP is inviting the Scottish people to take a grave risk.
        I think that we are able adequately to point to the dangers facing the Scottish people in hoping for a short, illusory period of wealth. We ask them to weigh all that against the honour and dignity of being part of the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This amendment is larcenous and ludicrous. It is larcenous because it seeks to steal from the people of the United Kingdom as a whole the oil that has been developed off our shores for our benefit. It demonstrates, as many hon. Members have said, that the Scottish National Party founds its argument on larceny.
        Secondly, the amendment is ludicrous—
        Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Griffiths: I have more to say. Secondly, the amendment is ludicrous because the oil off the northern part of the United Kingdom is no more the exclusive property of the Scots than the food of Norfolk and Suffolk is the exclusive property of the people of East Anglia, part of which I have the honour to represent.
        The East Anglians historically were a significant nation. From time to time they are tempted, when successive Governments in Whitehall get a little highhanded, to seek to go their own way. Indeed, on the basis of their corn, sugar beet, pigs and control of the important ports that now link us with the Common Market, it is possible that East Anglia could seek to go its own way.

        535
        My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) referred to the gas that has been brought ashore in Norfolk. When that gas came ashore in Norfolk, the people of East Anglia did not start to talk about "oor gas". They recognised that the gas coming ashore at Bacton was for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole. Although it was piped to and distributed from Norfolk and Suffolk, causing considerable inconvenience for people in East Anglia, they recognised that it was for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, the amendment is larcenous and ludicrous.
        The effect of the amendment would be to put all the hydrocarbons—the oil, the coal and so on—under the hammer of the Scottish Parliament. Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Shetland and seeing some of the oil installations in the seas off the northern part of the United Kingdom. What is taking place there is, by any measure, a tremendous achievement of which this country can be extremely proud. The building of the ports, the refineries and the oil tank farms represents an enormously impressive achievement. That has been done not by the Scots alone, although they have taken a leading part, but by the international oil industry which has based its planning and obtained its investment on the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not believe that would have happened so speedily if there had been anything remotely resembling a separate Scottish nationalist Administration in Edinburgh.
        Mr. Welsh: Why not?
        Mr. Griffiths: That is my judgment. I do not believe that the international oil companies would have dreamed of basing the whole of their investment on the notions that have been put forward by SNP Members.
        Mr. Welsh: Why did not the oil companies hesitate to move into Norway, which is similar to what would be represented by an independent Scotland? Why should they hesitate to do a job of work in Scotland if they are doing a similar job in Norway?
        7.45 p.m.
        Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Norway is more sensible.
        536
        An important aspect of oil development in the Shetlands is the supecial arrangement that has been made for the Shetland Islands Council. I regret that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not present. I am sure that his absence from the Chamber is for a reason that we would all understand.
        Mr. John Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman should be fair. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was present when the hon. Gentleman was not.
        Mr. Griffiths: I am not seeking to draw attention to the right hon. Gentleman's absence. I am sure that it is for a very good reason. I do not wish to say anything that might offend him.
        The talks with the Shetland Islands Council and many representatives of industry, agriculture, fishing and local community councils demonstrated the value that is attached to Shetland's single county council, to the arrangements that have been made for special controls over planning concerning oil and to access to a modest, but important, fund for the protection of the environment and, as time goes on, for help for local industries—notably fishing, crofting and woollens—affected by the inflationary effect of oil production.
        It is right that those powers should exist. But what would happen if control were to pass exclusively to the Scottish Assembly? I believe that at some stage, whether the amendment is carried or not, the Scottish Assembly may seek to interfere with the local government provisions of the Shetlands. However, that matter is for another occasion.
        I believe that in the long term, the Scottish Assembly would be unlikely to allow the Shetland islanders to have their special fund, which is different from any other arrangement within Scotland's finances. I am sure that, as Glasgow and other great cities of Scotland get into difficulties with housing and social problems of one kind or another, inevitably the majority in the Scottish Assembly will cast envious eyes on the financial arrangements that have been made for the Shetlands and will seek to put an end to them, consequently destroying the guarantee that the Shetland Islands will have

        537
        funds available to protect their environment, fishing, crofting and woollens from the inflationary impact of the oil industry.
        In those circumstances, it is highly improbable that Shetland will be prepared to go along with these arrangements. We might be confronted with the absurd situation of the Shetland islanders regarding an independent Scotland as a threat to their proper control of their own affairs. Therefore, on simple, practical grounds, the only effect of the amendment would be to polarise the issue between Scotland and the Shetlands, and that could do no good for anyone.
        I hope that the amendment will not be accepted. It is absurd. It has at least demonstrated that the Scottish National Party is after not devolution but independence based upon the theft of United Kingdom oil.
        Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked me some questions. I do not want to take up very much time because I think that we are, perhaps, guilty of overkill in spending so much time on the amendment when the view of the Committee is predictable. I see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) nodding his head. I had him in mind in making those comments.
        My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked some questions about the
        Shetland Islands. His questions related to fishing, agriculture and oil. I do not quite understand the point that he was developing because fishing, except in the limited sense of salmon and fresh-water fishing, is not devolved. Nor is agriculture, energy or, for that matter, ports. I have attempted to set out, with some care, the answers to these questions in my correspondence with the Shetland County Council.
        That was the substance of the points raised by my hon. Friend, who I see has just re-entered the Chamber. I do not wish to be discourteous to him so I will say that I have been dealing with the points that he raised concerning freshwater fishing, agriculture and oil. None of these matters is devolved. The amendment would devolve them, it is true, but the points my hon. Friend was putting forward would arise on the Bill passing without this amendment.
        I have given up the task of trying to explain to my hon. Friend the functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It would be a mercy on my part to spare the Committee any further explanation.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 14, Noes 289.

        Division No. 65]

        AYES

        [7.50 p.m.

        Bain, Mrs Margaret

        Reid, George

        Watt, Hamish

        Crawford, Douglas

        Robertson, John (Paisley)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

        Sillars, James

        Henderson, Douglas

        Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

        MacCormick, Iain

        Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

        Mr. Gordon Wilson and

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Thompson, George

        Mr. Andrew Welsh.

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Blenkinsop, Arthur

        Carmichael, Neil

        Allaun, Frank

        Boardman, H.

        Clemitson, Ivor

        Anderson, Donald

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Coleman, Donald

        Armstrong, Ernest

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

        Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

        Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

        Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

        Cope, John

        Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

        Bradford, Rev Robert

        Corbett, Robin

        Atkinson, Norman

        Bradley, Tom

        Costain, A. P.

        Bagier, Gordon A. T.

        Brittan, Leon

        Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

        Banks, Robert

        Brotherton, Michael

        Crawshaw, Richard

        Bates, Alf

        Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

        Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

        Bean, R. E.

        Buchan, Norman

        Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

        Beith, A. J.

        Buchanan, Richard

        Dalyell, Tam

        Bell, Ronald

        Buchanan-Smith, Alick

        Davies, Ifor (Gower)

        Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

        Budgen, Nick

        Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

        Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

        Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

        Deakins, Eric

        Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

        Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Benyon, W.

        Campbell, Ian

        Dempsey, James

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Canavan, Dennis

        Doig, Peter

        Biffen, John

        Cant, R. B.

        Dormand, J. D.

        Bishop. Rt Hon Edward

        Carlisle, Mark

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Dunnett, Jack

        Knox, David

        Rathbone, Tim

        Dykes, Hugh

        Lamond, James

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

        Edge, Geoff

        Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

        Rees-Davies, W. R.

        Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Rhodes James, R.

        Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

        Lee, John

        Richardson, Miss Jo

        English, Michael

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Rifkind, Malcolm

        Ennals, Rt Hon David

        Litterick, Tom

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

        Lloyd, Ian

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        Fairgrieve, Russell

        Loveridge, John

        Roderick, Caerwyn

        Farr, John

        Loyden, Eddie

        Rodgers, George (Chorley)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Luard, Evan

        Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

        Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

        Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

        Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

        Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

        McAdden, Sir Stephen

        Rooker, J. W.

        Flannery, Martin

        McCartney, Hugh

        Rose, Paul B.

        Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

        McCrindle, Robert

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

        McCusker, H.

        Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Ross, William (Londonderry)

        Ford, Ben

        McElhone, Frank

        Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

        Forman, Nigel

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

        Forrester, John

        McGuire, Michael (Ince)

        St. John-Stevas, Norman

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

        Sever, John

        Freud Clement

        MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

        Shepherd, Colin

        Fry, Peter

        Mackintosh, John P.

        Silverman, Julius

        Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

        Maclennan, Robert

        Silvester, Fred

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

        Sims, Roger

        Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

        McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

        Sinclair, Sir George

        Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        McNamara, Kevin

        Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

        Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

        Madden, Max

        Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

        Ginsburg, David

        Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

        Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Snape, Peter

        Golding, John

        Marten, Neil

        Spearing, Nigel

        Gourlay, Harry

        Mather, Carol

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

        Mawby, Ray

        Sproat, Iain

        Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Stallard, A. W.

        Graham, Ted

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

        Meacher, Michael

        Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

        Grant, George (Morpeth)

        Mendelson, John

        Stoddart, David

        Gray, Hamish

        Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

        Stokes, John

        Grieve, Percy

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Stott, Roger

        Griffiths, Eldon

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Grimond, Rt Hon J.

        Mitchell, Austin

        Strang, Gavin

        Grist, Ian

        Moate, Roger

        Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

        Hardy, Peter

        Molloy, William

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

        Molyneaux, James

        Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Monro, Hector

        Tebbit, Norman

        Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Morgan, Geraint

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Hawkins, Paul

        Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

        Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

        Hayman, Mrs Helene

        Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

        Tierney, Sydney

        Heseltine, Michael

        Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

        Torney, Tom

        Holland, Philip

        Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

        Townsend, Cyril D.

        Hooley, Frank

        Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

        Tuck, Raphael

        Hooson, Emlyn

        Nelson, Anthony

        Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

        Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

        Noble, Mike

        Walder, David (Clitheroe)

        Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

        Orbach, Maurice

        Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

        Huckfield, Les

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Watkins, David

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Ovenden, John

        Weatherill, Bernard

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Weetch, Ken

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Page, John (Harrow West)

        Wells, John

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

        White, James (Pollok)

        Hunter, Adam

        Page, Richard (Workington)

        Whitlock, William

        Hutchison, Michael Clark

        Pardoe, John

        Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

        Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

        Park, George

        Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

        Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

        Parker, John

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Jeger, Mrs Lena

        Parkinson, Cecil

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Johnson, James (Hull West)

        Parry, Robert

        Woodall, Alec

        Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Woof, Robert

        Jones, Dan (Burnley)

        Pavitt, Laurie

        Wrigglesworth, Ian

        Judd, Frank

        Pendry, Tom

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Kaberry, Sir Donald

        Penhaligon, David

        Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

        Kerr, Russell

        Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

        Younger, Hon George

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Price, David (Eastleigh)

        King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

        Pym, Rt Hon Francis

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

        King, Tom (Bridgwater)

        Radice, Giles

        Mr. James Hamilton and

        Kinnock, Neil

        Raison, Timothy

        Mr. James Tinn.

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Question accordingly negatived.
        8.0 p.m.
        Mr. George Reid: I beg to move Amendment No. 468, in page 48, line 4, at end insert—

        'GROUP 1D (Broadcasting)
        Radio and television broadcasting.'
        The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take the following amendments:
        No. 469, in page 48, line 4, at end insert—

        'GROUP 1E (The Arts)
        Finance of Scottish Arts Council. Fixing and disbursement of grants.'
        No. 479, in page 48, leave out line 8.
        Mr. Reid: This should be a good amendment for the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It should also raise still further the abnormally high blood pressure about devolution shown by the hon. Members for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), because I admit at once that devolved broadcasting in Scotland would cost more than the present system. Also—I would concede this point to the hon. Members if they were here—devolved broadcasting could tend to become more provincial or insular. Why, then, do we propose this amendment? There are two basic reasons.
        First, if the Scottish National Party is asking that the economics of oil be devolved, that the £4,000 million oil wealth of our country should go to the Scots, we cannot dodge the fact that broadcasting, if devolved, would cost more. Secondly, we meet right on the nose the basic situation that we could face a Sunday Post-type broadcasting for Scotland unless we had a proper independent Scots broadcasting authority.
        Scotland is a difficult country in which to broadcast. We have a difficult terrain in terms of UHF and VHF signals. Our lochs and mountains do not fit a television signal. We do not have, as England does, a country in which broadcast signals reach large parts of the population. Our base for advertising and licence fees is small.
        The SNP concedes that the difference in cost between the present quality of programmes and the same service pro-
        542
        vided by a separate Scots broadcasting authority would probably be between £7 million and £9 million. There is also the question of the Annan Report. If my information is correct, the Annan Committee will not report until 1981, and the BBC charter and the licences of the existing ITV companies will be extended until then. It is foolish of anyone to assume that a Scots Assembly will sit idly by for the next two years until Annan is decided in London.
        There are three reasons for this. First, the Assembly itself will determine whether its proceedings should be broadcast. That means that the Assembly will have a relationship with the IBA and the BBC north of the border. Secondly, as the Bill states, Members of the Assembly will receive copies of the separate broadcasting reports as and when they are published. Thirdly, the Assembly will have to look at those areas of Scotland which do not at present receive a proper television broadcasting signal—the "white" spots, as we call them, in Galloway and the Highlands, where there is no proper BBC and IBA television coverage.
        All of us will concede, as Scots Members that something is wrong with broadcasting north of the border. Much of the present output is provincial and insular. Many of our top programmes hold up the standards of the English Home Counties as desirable. These programmes deal with English architects, English lawyers and English public relations men. These are held up in Scotland, in the family home, through television, as being desirable standards to aim at. That is wrong.
        Surely, from the situation on Clyde-side, for example, many a family programme could be produced for the Scots public about the ordinary man who works in Clydeside shipbuilding, about his problems and his family's problems, and there would thereby be greater understanding of Scotland's relationships to the United Kingdom in the great crises of the postwar period.
        Secondly, there are problems in terms of Scots broadcasting as set up in the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s. Roy Thomson went on record as saying that in Scottish Television he had a licence to print money. It was not just that. He had licence to take on board people at senior management level with no real

        543
        sense of the needs and necessities of Scots broadcasting. In the United States, one often finds senior television cameramen clutching their hearts as they trundle their cameras across the floor because they have been passed over for better things. Much the same is true of Scots television. People want to be big fish in a small pool. Our problem is that as long as it is the BBC or the IBA paying the Scots cheques or making up the schedules, Scots broadcasting will inevitably remain provincial and insular.
        I am therefore suggesting that we and the Assembly set up a Scots broadcasting commission, which would control licensing north of the border and simultaneously set broadcasting standards and point the way in which television and radio should be heading. I am not suggesting that we should have totally separate broadcasting services, because only a sovereign Parliament can decide the allocation of frequencies, for example, and that will have to wait until the Scots people decide themselves to go totally independent.
        I congratulate Mr. Alastair Hetherington, of BBC Scotland, who has pointed out the basic problem that as long as programme schedules are made up in London Scots broadcasting will remain rather poor. Scots programmes will be tucked away at the bottom end of the day's schedule and appear on our screens at 11 o'clock or 11.30.
        I would prefer, given the Assembly, that if "World in Action" on ITV is dealing with the major problem of, say, the situation in Liverpool Docks, a Scots programme could be slotted in at that time. If BBC "Panorama" is dealing with a major problem, say, London and race relations—that is not a particularly Scots problem at present—and if the programme controller wishes to slot in a Scots programme at that time, he should be able to do so.
        Perhaps I can tell the House a short story that is purely personal. When I worked for Granada I had good budgets, good teams and time. When I went back to Scotland I found myself in Shetland, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), having to make programmes about the Shetland fishermen or about bird-watching in Shetland in two days, whether the mist was down or not. In
        544
        terms of the narrow budgets available to STV, one had to go and film in those conditions. As a result, we produced, of necessity, provincial and rather bad programmes.
        I am suggesting that if STV were an amalgam of the Scots companies, and if STV, Grampian and Border Television came together as one Scottish ITV company, we would have an advertising base roughly comparable with that of Yorkshire at present. Such a company could begin to programme across the British network and the time available for Scots programmes, and for programmes on Shetland, would be roughly equivalent to that obtainable by "World in Action" producers. The problem at present is that north of the border we try to produce national programmes with roughly regional facilities.
        I am therefore saying that, given a Scots Assembly and given the fact that the Annan Commission will not be reporting within the next three years, the Assembly itself will take a few decisions on this subject.
        It would be wrong not to concede that broadcasting north of the border will cost more. It is difficult to discover the appropriate figures from STV or BBC Scotland because there are many cross-fertilisations in terms of programme budgets. But I believe that the shortfall for broadcasting in Scotland might be between £7 million and £9 million, although it could be £5 or £6 million either way, to produce in Scotland the same quality and standard of broadcasting that we have now.
        We in Scotland, through the Assembly, must concede that our programmes will not necessarily be run on the present duo-poly of the British system, which has commercial standards plus public service standards. Perhaps, like Norway or Ireland, we should consider a different broadcasting standard.
        The SNP itself has suggested that there should be established a Scottish Broadcasting Commission, roughly analogous to the University Grants Committee, which would hold a position midway between the Treasury and broadcasters. This could avoid the obvious problem that one could not put money into the pocket of the broadcaster without putting the broadcaster into the pocket of the

        545
        politician. Perhaps underneath the Scottish broadcasting commission we should have a public service—BBC-1 and BBC-2 and a commercially financed STV.
        Mr. Grimond: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I am not certain about his proposals to amalgamate STV, Grampian and Border Television, because there is a great deal of difference between the North of Scotland and the Central Belt. I would have thought there was a case for keeping those two separate contracting companies. I agree that it would mean that both would be rather small, but is the hon. Gentleman really convinced that Scottish broadcasting would be improved if they were amalgamated?
        Mr. Reid: I accept immediately that Grampian Television has done a marvellous job in terms of relating itself to and creating programmes for the Aberdeen area. I am not suggesting that there should be an STV take-over of ITV north of the border. I suggest that there should be a different confederal company north of the border, which, by taking in all three elements, would have an advertising base comparable to Yorkshire Television. If that happened, we could give our producers the time which they do not have at present because they are producing national services with fairly regional facilities.
        8.15 p.m.
        It would be quite wrong to suggest that the SNP or the Labour Party—because it has put very much the same evidence to the Annan Commission—wants to see STV take over Grampian and Border. One of the things that Mr. Hetherington has done is to prove that with small facilities one can create new broadcasting communities. I congratulate him on what he has done for Shetland with Radio Shetland and for Orkney with Radio Orkney. [Interruption.] The Tories chortle on about this, but the fact remains that Mr. Hetherington created in Lerwick a service of two hours a day with one producer and one secretary. He has created in Kirkwall a service for the people of Orkney, with one producer and one secretary. I hope that very shortly he will do the same thing in the Western Isles.
        546
        It is sad that a political party in this House should condemn the controller of BBC Scotland for looking at the Scots broadcasting situation and, as the wife of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said in evidence to the Annan Commission, establishing a broadcasting authority north of the border which is distinctive from that of the present British State.
        Mr. Teddy Taylor: There was no question of our criticising in any way the splendid radio service in Orkney and Shetland, of which we approve.
        Mr. Reid: I am grateful for that.
        Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's argument for having a commercial station for Scotland with outposts in the various areas. He has rightly praised the Scottish controller of the BBC, Mr. Hetherington. Why should the present situation be substantially altered, for good or bad, by the transference of legislative authority to the Assembly?
        Mr. Reid: I congratulated the chairman of BBC Scotland for all that he has done, despite the present United Kingdom financial structure. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, Mr. Hetherington has had a difficult battle with the BBC management down south to get through his overspend, because there are cross-book entries at present. I am suggesting that if one wants to create a distinctive new form of Scots broadcasting one would be better able to do it if backed by an Assembly which looked at the needs of the Scots people.
        No one in the SNP is for a moment suggesting that we should take away "Coronation Street" from the average Scots viewer. There is no way in which any practising politician in Scotland could conceivably attempt to conceal the fact that a separate Scots broadcasting system will mean a licence fee of about £35. The United Kingdom structure, of course, will not allow hypothecation of revenues. Everything that is raised under the existing broadcasting structure north of the border has to enter the great maw of the United Kingdom Treasury. I do not see why that should be so. I do not see

        547
        why such moneys should not be used to create a capital base for transmitters and why the Treasury itself should not provide the transmitter services or the camera services inside the duopoly of public service and commercially based licensing. That is where we could square the difference of between £7 and £9 million to which I referred earlier.
        Mr. Dalyell: I am told that a separate Scottish broadcasting system along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman would mean a TV licence of £60 per set. Can the hon. Gentleman deny that? He may well deny it. But that is the figure that I have been given and I should like him to comment on it.
        Mr. Reid: I deny that. I think that £60 is double what the fee might be. What I am trying to work my way through is the difficult situation of the SNP having to concede that broadcasting north of the border, being totally devolved, will cost a great deal more. Nevertheless, £60 is far too high. I would think that £32 or £33 is about right.
        We must not think of the present United Kingdom structure of financing broadcasting as being parallel to that north of the border. We must not think of the present duopoly continuing. We in the SNP are suggesting that there might be a single Scots broadcasting commission which could look at priorities north of the border. Neither we nor the Labour Party—which gave evidence to the Annan Committee along these lines—believe in the fourth channel. We are concerned with the spread of broadcasting rather than more broadcasting. We are concerned with filling the white spots in television rather than creating a blanket service. We need a complete commitment to the view that those people in Galloway or the Western Isles who are without a service at present should have one through BBC Scotland.
        The Committee will know that Scottish Television used to be housed in the Theatre Royal in Glasgow, and the Scottish Opera is there at present. All hon. Members will have heard the arguments from the Government Benches that we have a fine broadcasting service. There is a mood of self-congratulation on the Labour side. Labour Members believe that everything is wonderful in broadcasting in Britain. They claim that in
        548
        this country at least we have the best broadcasting service in the world.
        Let me tell the Committee a story. The Glasgow Opera had a new Italian tenor who said publicly at the end of his first concert that he had never before had so many curtain calls. He said that Gigli and Caruso received only five or six encores, but that he had received eight. A little Scots voice piped up from the balcony "Aye, and ye will keep getting them until ye get it right." That is basically the argument that we in the SNP are putting to the Government.
        Mr. John Smith: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. As I read it, the amendment gives the Scottish Assembly and Executive devolved powers for radio and television broadcasting, excluding the allocation of frequencies. Can he explain the relationship between the transfer of legislative and executive powers and a licence fee which is gathered by the United Kingdom Government?
        Mr. Reid: I must concede immediately to the Minister. As I said before, perhaps my amendment is not properly drafted. I accept that allocation of frequency is a matter for a sovereign Parliament dealing with other sovereign Parliaments. Nevertheless, this is a useful opportunity to debate broadcasting north of the border.
        Secondly, the Minister himself should contact the Home Office and point out that if it is right for the Home Office to put off a report on the Annan Committee for another three years it would be crazy for anyone to think that the Scottish Assembly will wait around for another three years for London to decide what will happen to Scottish broadcasting. The Assembly will decide whether to broadcast its proceedings—and I hope it will —whether its committees will be broadcast and whether, for example, Radio Clyde will extend its services to Oban and Ayr. The Minister is foolish if he assumes that when proceedings in the Scottish Assembly are being broadcast, its members will leave all these things to London to decide.
        Mr. John Smith: I am not assuming anything. I am seeking elucidation. If this amendment is simply an attempt to have a debate about broadcasting in Scotland, I understand. However, I am

        549
        taking the amendment at its face value as a serious attempt to amend the Bill. The licence fees are gathered by the United Kingdom Government. I would be grateful if the hon. Member would explain to me what he intends. I am simply seeking information.
        Mr. Reid: We are under the guillotime and many financial clauses in the Bill have not been debated. The basic financial structure of the Assembly has not been debated at all.
        When the Minister was at university in Glasgow with me we were both fairly active in the Labour student movement at that time. There we discussed the relationship between central Government and Scotland in terms of devolved-expenditure. That has never been discussed in this Bill.
        I am in great difficulties trying to juxtapose this matter with proposals for a Scottish Treasury. All we are doing in this debate is putting up our own arguments on both sides in the post-imperial failure of the British State. I do not think that the Bill is workable. The Minister is trying to draft a federal relationship in the British Isles within a unitary State. To ask me, therefore, to justify my remarks in terms of the measure is difficult.
        Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Member has said, in effect, that this debate is a farce. Would it not be much better for him to withdraw his amendment and allow us to get on with the debate on universities, which has much more substance?
        Mr. Reid: I shall conclude my remarks very quickly. It is not unreasonable for the SNP to try to get a debate on broadcasting. If anybody thinks that the SNP simply wants to create a more Scottish broadcasting system he underestimates and misunderstands what our party is about. Most of us come from an apolitical situation of wanting a more international Scotland, rather than a more Sunday Post Scotland.
        Anyone who concludes that we will make broadcasting north of the border 100 per cent. Scottish is wrong. England makes some of the best television programmes in the world and these will continue to be screened in Scotland. All we
        550
        want is the same freedom for television producers as there is for people in economics, social workers and so on. In broadcasting, as in politics, as long as London signs the cheques and makes up the schedules, Scotland will remain provincial.
        The First Deputy Chairman: May I make an official contribution to the debate by indicating that the guillotine will fall on this and other amendments at 9 p.m. I hope that that will have some effect on the length of the speeches.
        Mr. Craigen: I agree with the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that we want to improve the quality of television and radio in Scotland, but I wonder whether this amendment is the best way to achieve that aim.
        The hon. Gentleman zig-zagged throughout his case. Until he said so explicitly I had not appreciated that he was not seeking a separate broadcasting set-up in Scotland but one in which the United Kingdom would be prepared to pay the high capital costs of servicing Scotland's outlying areas, with Scotland and its Assembly being concerned in the administration and running of television and radio programmes.
        It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to Roy Thomson. I read Roy Thomson's autobiography and what came through to me was that when he sought to establish Scottish Television there was a great lack of interest among many Scottish organisations in subscribing to such a company.
        I feel that there is a need for the Government to take early action on some of the Annan recommendations. However, I wonder how quickly the Scottish Assembly when set up would be able to get down to the task of looking at the adequacy of TV and radio programmes within the country.
        The hon. Gentleman might have told us a little more, had time permitted, about commercial television and how the advertising base would be strengthened. He did not answer to my satisfaction the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the cost of the licence fee in Scotland. I do not know about the people in London writing cheques, but certainly the people in Scotland would have to

        551
        write pretty large cheques if they were to pay the licence fees to sustain either a separate television authority or an authority with such decentralised powers as I suspect the hon. Gentleman envisages.
        8.30 p.m.
        Mr Reid: The hon. Gentleman must accept that he is either a United Kingdom Treasury man who believes that all money raised from broadcasting north of the border should go into the English Treasury or he is not. I believe that there is about £7 million to £8 million raised from broadcasting which could go back into providing the services and which could close the gap in providing the more expensive services. Has the hon. Gentleman ever watched programmes on Saturday afternoon and, although wishing to see a good "B" movie, found himself on both channels having to watch some football programme? Perhaps a Scottish broadcasting commission, if we do not have to live with British standards, would allow differentiation and freedom of choice.
        Mr. Craigen: I do not get much time to watch television on Saturdays, but I know that some of my enthusiastic football friends prefer to watch some of the football programmes produced down south rather than some of the Scottish programmes.
        As for my being a United Kingdom Treasury man, that is not the case. I want to see an improvement in the quality of television in the United Kingdom as a whole. I took part in the debate on the Annan proposals, and what concerns me about television in the United Kingdom generally is the extent to which we seem to depend on American television. I am also concerned about insularity. I have watched television programmes in Norway and Sweden—nations which SNP Members invariably quote as superior models of the small State. I was surprised at the extent to which their television services drew on the United States and the United Kingdom output. Those countries appeared to be far more international in their approach than is the case here.
        Since the Chair has called for brevity, I conclude by saying that the approach in this amendment is not the best way to obtain greater decentralisation in run-
        552
        ning our television and radio programmes. I shall vote against the amendment.
        Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I shall try to be as brief as I can on this subject, considering that there are other subjects which, because of the guillotine, the Committee will not reach at all.
        Mr. Teddy Taylor: Shocking!
        Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) was nationalistic in his reference to English presentation of programmes, as though the BBC in London were not well staffed indeed by people from Scotland.
        Mr. Reid rose—
        Mr. Fletcher: I am very limited in time and the hon. Gentleman has already had a good share of it.
        The question is whether broadcasting would be improved if the amendment were passed and responsibility for broadcasting moved towards the Scottish Assembly. Would that benefit the listeners and viewers in Scotland? We must ask whether people want more political involvement in broadcasting and the arts, because they would get unnecessary meddling by the Assembly in programmes and the content of programmes. Radio and television producers could hardly want that.
        The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire painted a dismal picture when talking of Scottish broadcasting generally. He missed out the success of Radio Clyde, which is probably the most successful commercial radio station in the United Kingdom. I am authorised to quote the managing director of Radio Clyde, Mr. James Gordon, who has said:
        "We do not think that broadcasting should be devolved to a Scottish Assembly. In terms of transmitter costs, Scotland benefits considerably from broadcasting being organised and financed on a UK basis. As regards programme content and control over it, most of the television output will still come from south of the Border; and it is better that Scotland continues to be represented in the control that is exercised there, rather than opt out and be forced to treat English television output as though it were from a different country.
        Most important of all, the relationship between broadcasters and Government in this country is a very delicate and sophisticated one: it would be difficult to duplicate this

        553
        mature relationship if a separate broadcasting authority were to be set up in Scotland."
        That is an important statement from someone in a responsible position in Scottish broadcasting.
        Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman talks about English influence on Scots broadcasting. I hope that, like other Scots Members, he objects to major programmes referring constantly to "the three major parties" in broadcast after broadcast. This clearly disadvantages the SNP.
        Radio Clyde is identified with a clear area on Clydeside, it has been fairly brash and has created a good advertising base, but I wonder whether Jimmy Gordon would be as willing to extend his services to Oban and Ayr. I wonder whether that has the backing of the Conservative Party.
        Mr. Fletcher: That response shows an extremely partisan attitude and perhaps some professional jealously towards James Gordon, who has been particularly successful in this area.
        The hon. Gentleman did not mention the success of Scottish Television with Grampian and Border, who appear to be well thought of in their own areas. I am authorised to quote the managing director of STV, who said:
        "The IBA could not be responsible to two separate legislative bodies. If the Assembly were able to pass a broadcasting Act for Scotland, they could apply quite different conditions to such vital matters as finance, hours of broadcasting, standards of programmes and advertising, numbers of channels and technical development.
        As the spread of transmitters increases throughout Scotland, there is a very substantial capital expenditure being undertaken by the UK system in Scotland."
        I should like to quote some more of his comments, but, in view of the shortage of time, I shall not do so. I merely add that these two men, who are both running successful stations in Scotland, do not support the amendment.
        The problem with Scottish broadcasting may revolve around the BBC and there may be a case for a greater autonomy for BBC Scotland within the organisation as a whole, but it is a nationalised body and is, inevitably, overcentralised. I understand the frustrations of BBC staff in Scotland and no
        554
        doubt similar frustrations are felt by the same sort of people in Wales and the English regions, but organisational problems within the BBC can hardly be a reason for changing the whole system of government in Great Britain. The question is, therefore, whether the BBC, STV or Radio Clyde would be freer to produce programmes to suit listeners and viewers in Scotland if broadcasting were devolved. I contend that the chances are that the opposite would be the case.
        I make two other points about broadcasting. Obviously, the major BBC and ITV networks are fully and freely available in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The popularity of network programmes—the hon. Gentleman referred to this—and regional programmes emanating from Bristol and Manchester, for example, knows no physical or political boundaries throughout Britain. I should not advise anyone, politician or broadcaster, to stand between Scottish viewers and their favourite programmes, whether it is "Play of the Month", "Match of the Day" or, as the hon. Gentleman said, "Coronation Street". It might even be "Today in Parliament". However, that is what the amendment is about.
        There is the question of hiving off television and broadcasting to an Assembly. We must be talking of hiving off if we are to take the amendment seriously. That must be so, unless yet again the SNP is seeking some sort of authority without responsibility—in other words, looking for a façade of independence in broadcasting.
        The bulk of the programmes originate outside Scotland and very few people in Scotland would want to change that. To most viewers in Scotland a BBC programme is a BBC programme from wherever it comes. The same applies to those who watch programmes emanating from the ITV network.
        The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of television licences. That is a matter that cannot be made too clear to those who might support the amendment, or those in Scotland who think that magically they will enjoy anything like the same standard of programme. The information that I have about the cost of a television licence in Scotland if there were any prospects of achieving the same

        555
        standard of programme is that it would be not £60 or £70 but £120. That is the equivalent figure that I have been quoted. It is clearly a substantial figure.
        Mr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman identify the source of his information?
        Mr. Fletcher: I cannot allow another intervention.
        Mr. Reid: Tell us the source of your information.
        Mr. Fletcher: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, the source is quite obvious. That is the figure that I have been quoted, and it is a serious figure. It does not seem ridiculous if we consider the situation that would apply in Scotland.
        The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I can help the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) with the source of the information. The source is Mr. John Gray, BBC Scotland's chief assistant, radio, who told an Edinburgh business club that the cost of a tartan television licence would be £120 in a separate Scotland.
        Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that yet again the Committee is grateful to the Under-Secretary of State in this debate, as in other debates. That would be the cost of a television licence if an attempt were made to maintain anything like present day standards. There is no guarantee that even with that sort of licence fee it would be possible to produce in Scotland the standard of radio and television programme that we now enjoy throughout the United Kingdom.
        Surely broadcasting is one subject in respect of which it may be said that the further away politicians are from the programme producers the better it is for the listeners and viewers. The same might be said about the other part of the debate —namely, the arts. It is unfortunate that we should be debating these matters in such a rush. It is unfortunate that a whole list of subjects, including education, agriculture and forestry, will not be considered. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire is as worried about that as everyone else.
        Mr. Buchan: Hurry up.
        Mr. Fletcher: I tell the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) that I am hurrying up.
        As for the arts, there is one thing that we must try to clear up with the assistance of the Minister—namely, the confusion that seems to exist as to what is or is not devolved. I refer to an Answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) received from the Department of Education and Science. The most important part of the Answer read:
        "The arts are a devolved subject in the Scotland Bill, and the precise arrangements for the handling of the arts in Scotland after devolution will be a matter for discussion between the Government, the Scottish Assembly and the Arts Council."—[Official Report, 2nd December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 469.]
        Therefore, it is quite clear that it is very difficult this evening for the Committee to be sure what it is talking about at all when discussing the arts unless the Minister can make some clarification on that point.
        8.45 p.m.
        Nevertheless, I contend that the argument about the arts is not seriously different from the argument about broadcasting. Whether or not one supports the idea of an opera house in Edinburgh or a football stadium in Glasgow—I happen to support both—or anything else, the fact that neither exists at present is not because there has been no devolution in this context. The reasons lie entirely in Scotland, particularly on the former proposition. The Committee will understand if I do not elaborate on the reason why that has not come about.
        Mr. Hector Monro: The third amendment under discussion concerns recreation. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister about the relationship between the Sports Council and the Scottish Sports Council in relation to the Royal Charter, which clearly gives responsibility for certain aspects to the Sports Council for the British Isles?
        Mr. Fletcher: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister of State was listening most attentively and will try to include a reply later.
        Yesterday and in other debates the Committee has recognised the increase in

        557
        Scottish Office activities that has taken place over the years in the shift of responsibilities to the Secretary of State. The fact that broadcasting and the arts have not been transferred previously, by successive Governments—as they could have been and, I am sure, as they would have been had the demand and desire existed —indicates that over the years Governments have thought better. We believe that that has been the right decision. Therefore, we cannot in any way support the amendment.
        Mr. Dalyell: The point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State must be borne in mind. Mr. John Gray has stated, with the authority that he holds in his position in Edinburgh, that the television licence would cost £120.
        Coupled with that, there is the question of frequencies. Mr. Gray has said,
        "We'd have to go to Geneva for allocation of frequencies. If we went as an independent nation and as a separate independent unit it's unlikely that we'd get the amount of frequencies we'd require. We'd have technical limitations and the cost of transmitters would be astronomical.
        The licence income from Scotland is between £14 and £15 million a year and it's cost £17 million to provide TV and radio. There's a shortfall of £2 million, and between £6 million and £7 million of the licence revenue comes back to Scotland for the TV and radio we produce here."
        Are those the facts of the situation? If they are, there are financial consequences to any of the ideas put forward by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid).
        Mr. John Smith: I should like to make a brief intervention now to answer a question put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). First, concerning the amendment, I am not quite sure as to what its status is. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) said at one stage that it was to initiate a debate on broadcasting. There are some obvious problems about it, to some of which he referred. The hon. Member conceded, I think, that the question of frequencies would have to be a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament. That is so. It is stressed repeatedly in the Annan Report that that would have to be the position.
        558
        However, what I must confess I am not very clear about is the relationship of the Scottish Administration and the Assembly, if they dealt with radio and television broadcasting, when we have a financial structure based upon a United Kingdom licence. I do not think that I should recommend to the Committee that we could accept the amendment until there is more clarification on that point.
        The Government are considering the Annan Report on the future of broadcasting. It is rather foolish to forecast that it will take three years for any proposals to be put forward. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced that he hopes to publish his proposals in the form of a White Paper. The Committee knows that some of the questions relating to broadcasting in Scotland, and in Wales and Northern Ireland, were considered by the Annan Committee. Its recommendations were probably against the devolution of responsibility for these matters to the Assemblies in Scotland and in Wales.
        The arts are devolved as a subject to the Scottish Assembly, but there is the complication that the Arts Council of Great Britain is a Royal chartered body. I think that the Sports Council falls into the same category.
        If the Scottish Administration chose to do so, in the case of the arts it could continue to operate through the existing machinery. The Arts Council of Great Britain could consider, in consultation with the Assembly and Administration, what adjustment should be made to its charter to meet the wishes of the Scottish Executive. Then, it is assumed, the Arts Council of Great Britain would apply to the Privy Council for any necessary amendments to its constitution to be made, although, under the Bill, the Assembly could legislate to amend the charter only after having obtained Crown consent. That is the procedure for dealing with Royal Charter bodies.
        What is important is that the question how the Scottish Administration wishes to deal with the arts should be discussed between it, the Government and the Arts Council of Great Britain, before there are changes. It seems to me to be sensible and practical before making any changes we should ascertain the wishes of the Assembly and Administration.

        559
        For the reasons I have given, I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment, which is rather inchoate.
        Mr. Monro: The Committee accepts that the SNP amendment has been demolished, for a whole host of reasons.
        I believe that broadcasting should be retained as it is, but I also hope that, finance permitting, all viewers in Scotland will soon be able to see Scottish BBC rather than receiving BBC transmissions from Newcastle, as we do in Dumfries and Galloway. I should like the BBC and Border Television to give a firm assurance that the whole of Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway, will be able to watch all the World Cup matches this summer.
        The Minister has helpfully replied on the subject of the Arts Council, but I press him to think in greater depth about the Sports Council as opposed to the Scottish Sports Council. The Sports Council has responsibility in Great Britain for such matters as overseas events and the Olympic Games. That responsibility is specifically written into its Royal Charter. When our sportsmen and women are performing for Great Britain, as opposed to Scotland, as would happen on most occasions, and particularly at such events as the Commonwealth Games, there could be severe friction if the responsibility is not clarified. I do not want to see Royal Charters, which have been set up very carefully, after much thought, chopped and changed without the best of reasons.
        To sum up, I hope that in Dumfries and Galloway we can have full coverage of programmes we want to see and that the Government will carefully examine the future of Royal Charters.
        Mr. Buchan: I shall be brief, because I know that everyone wants at least the university amendment to be moved tonight if possible.
        I apologise to the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) for having come in late during this debate. I had not realised that it had started.
        As I understand it, the heavy cost of engineering transmission and so on, will be borne by the Treasury and only the rest of the cost will be borne within Scotland. Only on that basis do we
        560
        arrive at a figure of about £30 for the licence. The evidence from John Gray and from engineers and others to whom I have spoken suggests that it might be three times that amount if we had a totally self-financed Scotland. The alternative is a completely commercial structure. I hope that the Scottish people will reject that, and I am disappointed to hear that that view is held by the SNP.
        I move to a second matter. The Labour Party evidence in Scotland referred to a single structure for commercial television, leaving the way open for local opting out, but basically in order to strengthen the quality of television in Scotland, which has been extremely inferior.
        Another matter that I wish to raise is that, if we are to have the kind of Scotland that we all want, I hope that we shall not refer, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire did, to "the person" who led the evidence for the Scottish Labour Party. That was my wife. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had referred to her as Janey Buchan instead of
        "the wife of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West".
        One of the worst things in a small country is that people in public life are not seen as persons in their own right. The same would have applied if the hon. Gentleman had got on to the Scottish Arts Council, of which my wife is a member. I take great exception to this attitude on the part of the hon. Gentleman. We have distinct attitudes and distinct public postures in relation to political and social affairs in Scotland. It is an example of a male chauvinist and dreadfully Scottish attitude that it should have come out in that form.
        Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I wish to comment on the Minister's reply in relation to the Arts Council. Before doing so, however, I should say that I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), a great believer in local autonomy, say that he was anxious to become a unionist and to unite the three existing television networks into a single one, despite the fact that two of them clearly do not wish to be united in this way. It was a curious inversion of the normal approach of the SNP.
        Mr. Reid: I spoke about a confederal structure which would retain broadcasting in Aberdeen and the Borders but allow the Scottish whole to be comparable with Yorkshire in terms of advertising rates.
        Mr. Rifkind: It would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman applied to the United Kingdom the degree of flexibility that he appears to be willing to give to broadcasting. I had not realised that con-federalism was now the policy of the SNP. I can understand the "con" part, but federalism seems a new development. The fact remains that it is a novel approach, and the smile of the hon. Gentleman may indicate his own attitude to the matter.
        I want to question the Minister about his unsatisfactory reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). My hon. Friend quoted a reply which I had received from the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science on 2nd December of last year about responsibility for the arts, especially the Arts Council. The Minister made a very unsatisfactory and confused response.
        Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman should understand that, following devolution, because of the effect of the Bill the existing administrative and statutory functions exercised by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in relation to the arts in Scotland will be transferred to a Scottish Secretary, and the devolved Administration will be able to develop its own policy for the financial support of the arts, deciding how much of the block fund should be devoted to the arts and whether to dispense the financial support directly itself or whether to operate through the Arts Council of Great Britain or its subsidiary, the Scottish Arts Council. That is an effective transfer of responsibility. However, the Royal Charter would require further consideration.
        Mr. Rifkind: I had understood that there was a transfer of responsibility, and undoubtedly both the White Paper and the schedule to the Bill imply that such a transfer of responsibility will take place. But what the Minister said is in conflict with the reply from the Minister at the Department of Education and Science. In his reply, the Minister said nothing about
        562
        charters. He said that the precise arrangements for the handling of the arts in Scotland after devolution would be a matter for discussion between the Government, the Scottish Assembly and the Arts Council. He did not refer specifically to the Royal Charter. He spoke of arrangements for the handling of the arts If the Government are to be entitled to take part in discussion of these matters, presumably the Government, this House and the United Kingdom as a whole will retain some responsibility for arts matters in Scotland.
        It would have been more appropriate if the Government had come to a conclusion on this matter before publishing the Bill. They said that this was a matter on which they wanted to take the view of the Scottish Administration. They have not applied that criterion to every other matter which is to be devolved to the Scottish Assembly. The Government have come to a conclusion, they have put their conclusion in the Bill, and they have been prepared to Whip their supporters to ensure the acceptance of their proposal.
        On this one matter the Government say that they are showing great flexibility. I suggest that all that they are doing is creating enormous confusion for the Arts Council in Scotland, which does not know whether its relationship is with the Government, the Scottish Assembly or a combination of the two. It will be a considerable time before that problem can be clarified.
        We know that the Assembly will not start functioning for another year or so and that the Arts Council will not be a priority that the Assembly will want to consider as soon as it is established. The Scottish Arts Council has had a history—
        It being Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
        The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.
        Amendments made:
        No. 566, in page 51, line 12, at beginning insert:
        'The following, except in relation to the provision of financial assistance for the execution of works for the benefit of the fishing industry:'.
        No. 567, in page 52, line 46, leave out from 'Secretary' to 'or' in line 47.
        No. 568, in page 53, line 4, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 5.
        No. 569, in page 53, line 5, at end insert:
        'Paragraphs (a) and (b) above do not apply to a person who is a member of the home civil service of the state or to a person designated under section 64(4) of this Act; and paragraph (c) above does not apply to a person who is employed exclusively for the purpose of a reserved function.'.
        No. 570, in page 54, line 43, at end insert:
        '() The powers to give directions under section 17(5) and determine questions under section 17(8) are not included so far as exercisable in relation to excepted statutory undertakers in cases where an objection is made by a coast protection authority;'.
        No. 571, in page 54, line 48, at end insert:
        or held for the purposes of a Scottish Secretary '.
        No. 572, in page 56, line 33, at end insert:
        'or held for the purposes of a Scottish Secretary'.
        No. 573, in page 56, line 36, at end insert:
        'The Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 (c.41) section 14(2).
        The power to determine questions is not included.'.
        No. 574, in page 58, line 30, leave out from 'and' to end of line 32 and insert
        'so much of paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 as relates to the number of officers and servants of the Forestry Commissioners.'.
        No. 575, in page 61, leave out lines 26 and 27.
        No. 576, in page 65, line 31, column 2, at beginning insert 'Not'.
        No. 577, in page 67, line 5, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 3(1), 7 and'.
        No. 578, in page 67, line 13, at end insert—
        '() section 16, so far as relating to property held by any person for the purposes of a devolved matter;'.
        No. 579, in page 67, line 14, leave out from 'Schedule 2' to end of line 15, and insert paragraph 2'.
        No. 580, in page 67, leave out lines 20 and 21.
        No. 581, in page 67, line 36, leave out 'Included' and insert 'Not included, except for—

        (a) the powers under section 1 to give directions and to make orders; and

        (b) the power under section 3(1)(a) to prescribe matters to be taken account of under section 2(2)(b).'

        Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the Tenth Schedule to the Bill:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 164.
        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

    Schedule 11

      MATTERS WITHIN POWERS OF SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE BUT NOT WITHIN LEGIS LATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY
      Amendment made: No. 503, in page 69, leave out line 5.—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the Eleventh Schedule to the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 166.

      Division No. 66]

      AYES

      [9.00 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Campbell, Ian

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Anderson, Donald

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cant, R. B.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Flannery, Martin

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Coleman, Donald

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Bates, Alf

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bean, R. E.

      Corbett, Robin

      Ford, Ben

      Beith, A. J.

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Forrester, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Crawford, Douglas

      Freud, Clement

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Boardman, H.

      Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Ginsburg, David

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Deakins, Eric

      Golding, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Dempsey, James

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Bradley, Tom

      Doig, Peter

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hardy, Peter

      Buchan, Norman

      Edge, Geoff

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Buchanan, Richard

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      English, Michael

      Henderson, Douglas

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Hooley, Frank

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stallard, A. W.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Molloy, William

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Huckfield, Les

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Stoddart, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Murton, Rt Hon Oscar

      Stott, Roger

      Hunter, Adam

      Noble, Mike

      Strang, Gavin

      Irving. R Hon S. (Dartford)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Ovenden, John

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Pardoe, John

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Park, George

      Thompson, George

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Parker, John

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Judd, Frank

      Parry, Robert

      Tierney, Sydney

      Kerr, Russell

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Torney, Tom

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Pendry, Tom

      Tuck, Raphael

      Kinnock, Neil

      Penhaligon, David

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Lamond, James

      Radice, Giles

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Watkins, David

      Lee, John

      Reid, George

      Watt, Hamish

      Litterick, Tom

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Weetch, Ken

      Loyden, Eddie

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      White, James (Pollok)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Whitlock, William

      MacCormick, Iain

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Rooker, J. W.

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      McElhone, Frank

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sandelson, Neville

      Woodall, Alec

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Sever, John

      Woof, Robert

      McNamara, Kevin

      Silverman, Julius

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Madden, Max

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Snape, Peter

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Meacher, Michael

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. James Tinn.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Banks, Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Bell, Ronald

      Goodhew, Victor

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Marten, Neil

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mates, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mather, Carol

      Biffen, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Maude, Angus

      Blaker, Peter

      Grieve, Percy

      Mawby, Ray

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Brittan, Leon

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Moate, Roger

      Brotherton, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Molyneaux, James

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hawkins, Paul

      Monro, Hector

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Budgen, Nick

      Holland, Philip

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hordern, Peter

      Morgan, Geraint

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hurd, Douglas

      Nelson, Anthony

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Newton, Tony

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Nott, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jopling, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Clegg, Walter

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Cockroft, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Cope, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kimball, Marcus

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Raison, Timothy

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Forman, Nigel

      Loveridge, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Fry, Peter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rhodes James, R.

      Galbraith. Hon T. G. D.

      McCusker, H.

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      566

      567

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Spence, John

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Sproat, Iain

      Walters, Dennis

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Warren, Kenneth

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wells, John

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Stokes, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Tebbit, Norman

      Younger, Hon George

      Silvester, Fred

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Mr. Jim Lester and

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Michael Roberts.

      Division No. 67]

      AYES

      [9.18 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Deakins, Eric

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dempsey, James

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Doig, Peter

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Edge, Geoff

      Judd, Frank

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      English, Michael

      Kerr, Russell

      Bates, Alf

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Bean, R. E.

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lamond, James

      Beith, A. J.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lee, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Litterick, Tom

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Flannery, Martin

      Luard, Evan

      Boardman, H.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Ford, Ben

      MacCormick, Iain

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Forrester, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bradley, Tom

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      McElhone, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Freud, Clement

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Buchan, Norman

      Ginsburg, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Buchanan, Richard

      Golding, John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Graham, Ted

      Madden, Max

      Campbell, Ian

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cant, R. B.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Meacher, Michael

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hardy, Peter

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mitchell, Austin

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Molloy, William

      Coleman, Donald

      Henderson, Douglas

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Crawford, Douglas

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Noble, Mike

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Huckfield, Les

      Orbach, Maurice

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ovenden, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hunter, Adam

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Irving Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Pardoe, John

      Park, George

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Parker, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Parry, Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Watkins, David

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Stallard, A. W.

      Watt, Hamish

      Pendry, Tom

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Weetch, Ken

      Penhaligon, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Welsh, Andrew

      Radice, Giles

      Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Stoddart, David

      Whitlock, William

      Reid, George

      Stott, Roger

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Strang, Gavin

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Woodall, Alec

      Rooker, J. W.

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Woof, Robert

      Rose, Paul B.

      Thompson, George

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Sandelson, Neville

      Tinn, James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Sever, John

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. Peter Snape and

      Silverman, Julius

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mr. Jim Marshall.

      Skinner, Dennis

      NOES

      Adley. Robert

      Hawkins, Paul

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Banks, Robert

      Holland, Philip

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bell, Ronald

      Hordern, Peter

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Benyon, W.

      Hurd, Douglas

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Biffen, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Raison, Timothy

      Blaker, Peter

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bottomley, Peter

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rhodes James, R.

      Brittan, Leon

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Brotherton, Michael

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Buck, Antony

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Budgen, Nick

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Knox, David

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lawson, Nigel

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Silvester, Fred

      Clegg, Walter

      Loveridge, John

      Sims, Roger

      Cockroft, John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Cope, John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Cormack, Patrick

      McCusker, H.

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Costain, A. P.

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spence, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Sproat, Iain

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Farr, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Marten, Neil

      Stokes, John

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Mates, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fox Marcus

      Maude, Angus

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fry, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Viggers, Peter

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Walters, Dennis

      Goodhew, Victor

      Molyneaux, James

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Monro, Hector

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wells, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gray, Hamish

      Morgan, Geraint

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Grieve, Percy

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Nelson, Anthony

      Younger, Hon George

      Grist, Ian

      Newton, Tony

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Nott, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. Peter Morrison and

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 63

      LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING DEVOLUTION ISSUES
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Now that the chopper has fallen and we have completed our business on this section of the Bill, I think it is right to draw the attention of the Committee and the Leader of the House in his absence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—to the fantastic position that we have now reached. We have been debating parts of Schedule 10 and Schedule 11 and we have not even been able to reach Group 3 on education or to deal with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), which we know the Minister of State wanted to reach.
      Quite apart from that, there has been no debate on the proposals for housing, local government, transport, agricultural land or fisheries—and we know what a hot issue that is at the moment. There has been no debate on forestry. We have been unable to debate those subjects, quite apart from Parts II and III of Schedule 10. Nor have we been able to discuss Schedule 11, where the Government made a mistake. I ask hon. Members to note that no fuss or complaint was made about their adjustment of it.
      It is a fantastically unsatisfactory situation that when a change as big as that contemplated in the Bill is before us we should have arrangements for dealing with it which prevent us from debating all these particular aspects.
      We know that the Government wanted these things. We wanted them, but in the time available it is not possible for these subjects to be debated. It is surely wrong for this Committee to go through with a procedure of this kind because it may well be that some of the aspects that I have mentioned will never be properly debated.
      I do not think that is right, and I believe the Leader of the House ought
      572
      to note the dissatisfaction which is felt over the way in which we are conducting our business.
      The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I can answer the right hon. Gentleman straight away by saying that these protests are not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have received representations from many bodies in Scotland—from professional bodies, universities, groups in industry, agriculture and fishing—regarding this Bill. A great number of views have been expressed. I seek your guidance as to how hon. Members who have received representations and have sought to raise them in amendments and debates can now deal with those points raised by constituents and by innumerable responsible bodies in Scotland. I ask your advice on how we can deal with this.
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. There is something which touches more closely upon the House and its future relations with any Scottish Assembly. Not only have we not debated the amendments or discussed whether certain items are suitable for being devolved at all, we have not discussed whether these items, if judged worthy of being devolved, should come into Schedule 10 for legislative devolution, or Schedule 11 for executive devolution. This is an important matter. It is on such issues that areas of conflict will develop in the future.
      Nor have we discussed the complications which could arise, because of the proposals in Schedules 10 and 11, for the United Kingdom's international obligations. There could be the possibility of conflict because of the division of authority.
      This applies particularly to airports. Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act has to be amended and we are bringing in new legislation on civil aviation. The Minister has told the Scottish Chambers of Commerce that the Government feel it necessary to be able to over-rule local authorities and civil aviation authorities in cases of major airports. It seems very odd that if the Government take this view of airports, which are sometimes regional as well as central to London, they should at the same time suddenly

      573
      decide to lessen this control in Scotland on the grounds that the Assembly is the more appropriate body to deal with it, especially by referring to new legislation not yet decided.
      This kind of thing is of constitutional and international importance, yet it has not been discussed at all.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Will it be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and myself to raise the amendments concerning forestry and inland waterways at any time during the Report stage? Some of us are not too clear about what happens on Report when a Bill has been taken in Committee on the Floor of the House.
      The Chairman: I can answer the question of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) straight away. Matters regarding Report stage are for Mr. Speaker, not for the Chairman. I must point out to hon. Members who have raised points of order that the time taken in raising them is coming out of the time available under the guillotine for the next part of the Bill which, now, is something under one and a half hours.
      Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. This is a matter in which we must look to you for protection. You will notice that the Lord President is not in his place—[Hon. Members: "Where is he?"]—at a time when we have had a crucial Division and when large parts of Schedule 10 and the whole of Schedule 11 have now been guillotined. It seems that the elected Chamber now has no opportunity to debate matters of major constitutional importance. In the absence of the Leader of the House, to whom can Back-Bench Members look for the protection of the reputation of the Committee and of this House?
      There is no doubt that the way in which this Bill has been debated is causing consternation and indignation throughout the country. We are invited to approve key parts of the legislation without a debate. This is reminiscent of the Reichstag. We must look to you, Mr. Murton, for guidance, because the Leader of the House is not here. If he were here, we would be addressing these questions to him. If you glance to your right, Mr. Chairman, you
      574
      will see hon. Members on the Government Benches sitting smugly and apparently proud—[Hon. Members: "There are not many of them."] No. There are more on the Front Bench than there are behind them.
      The point is that if this Committee follows this guillotine procedure, we shall have no opportunity to debate key constitutional measures. This is an outrage and that is why, Mr. Murton your position is so important. The Leader of the House is not here. Would you consider sending a message through one of the learned Clerks asking the Leader of the House to come here to help us in our difficulties?
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman addresses his remarks to the wrong quarter. It is not for me to say who shall be present in this Committee. All that the Chair can do is to administer the guillotine which has been passed by the House. That I have done to the best of my ability.
      Mrs. Jill Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Some of us feel outraged at the way this Government are prepared to sell the unity of the United Kingdom for a mess of "Scot Nat" potage. It appears that it is not possible to protest at this situation, but we should surely be able to do so when we are discussing such vital subjects as these. If that has happened, our proceedings have come to a sorry state.
      The Chairman: The hon. Lady can protest but protestations addressed to the Chair will, I am afraid, receive the same answer—namely, that is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Edward Gardner: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), Mr. Murton. It is not only Scottish bodies which have made representations concerning the provisions of Schedule 10 which are being steam-rollered out of any debate in Committee. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench listed some of the other matters which have been left out of debate. I have received many representations from people employed in the tourist industry who are now concerned about proposals in the Bill which constitute—
      The Chairman: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is going back to matters which have already been decided as a result of the guillotine. I am sorry, but we cannot go back over past ground.
      Mr. Gardner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. These are matters affecting thousands of people and thousand of jobs.
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what he can do. What I have said is purely factual. We cannot back-track on what has been decided. The House has decided on the guillotine and passed the appropriate business motion. For that reason the Chair can only administer the guillotine in the form in which it was brought before the House.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Could you ascertain, Mr. Murton, whether there are precedents for items of vital importance which have not been discussed in Committee being open for discussion on Report? I am concerned with the amendments dealing with forestry, but there are many other vital amendments. If these matters cannot be discussed and there are no precedents for that discussion to take place on Report, it is a constitutional outrage.
      The Chairman: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) touched on this point earlier, and I remind the Committee of what I said then. I said that matters dealt with on Report are entirely within the prerogative of Mr. Speaker himself and that the Chairman of Ways and Means has no control over them.
      Mr. Galbraith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Could you enlighten the Committee whether Mr. Speaker has ever chosen to debate matters which have not been dealt with in Committee? If Mr. Speaker has not called such matters for debate on Report when they have not been debated in Committee, what you are saying, Mr. Murton, is that we shall never have a chance to debate those subjects unless they are raised in the other place—and, thank goodness, there is another place in which to raise them.
      9.45 p.m.
      The Chairman: Mr. Speaker may well have done so, but that is not a matter for the Chairman.
      Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Every time that we have protested in this way about the lack of time left by the guillotine, we have been informed by the Leader of the House—when he is here—that this is a matter for the Business Committee. Has the right hon. Gentleman indicated to you that he intends to move any motion in the Business Committee to extend the time allowed under the guillotine or to bring any such motion before the House?
      The only way in which we can ask these questions is by protesting in this way and hoping that the Leader of the House will have the decency to come here to answer the protests and to tell us that he putting down a motion to extend the time under the guillotine.
      The Chairman: I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's point of order quite shortly. It is not competent to discuss the Business Committee until its deliberations have been reported.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The Minister who has been answering debates throughout the Committee stage has indicated that the Government wanted to discuss education as much as did the Opposition. This has not been done because of shortage of time. Is it not possible for the Leader of the House to come here and see the disillusion and concern on both sides of the House that important matters are not being considered properly by the Committee?
      I have companies in my constituency that have operations in Scotland and there are operations in the constituency with headquarters in Scotland. They have made representations to me, but many of the issues that they have raised cannot be taken up because the guillotine has fallen.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have already explained, that it is not within the competence of the Chair to comment on any point except the one on which I have already commented, which is that I am responsible for the operation of the guillotine.
      Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It would be fair for you to point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that it

      577
      is not within the power of the Business Committee to extend the time under the guillotine. That is a matter for the House.
      The Chairman: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Pym: I hope that the points that have been made about the lack of time will be conveyed to the Leader of the House in his absence. What we are doing is not proper scrutiny and the proper parliamentary process is not taking place on this Bill. Under the sharpness of the knives of the guillotine a number of clauses and schedules have been taken at one fell swoop. The Committee will want to make progress on the next stage of the Bill, but feeling in all parts of the House is fantastically strong that this is not a proper parliamentary legislative process and that it should be adjusted.
      Mr. Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. As a former Minister of Aviation, I feel that we have ridden a little too lightly over the international obligations that go with the control of airports, which has not been discussed because it falls under the timetable motion. There is scope for serious discussion here, but I appreciate that this cannot take place in the circumstances that we face.
      I wonder whether the overriding of powers which are to be devolved in relation to airports does not conflict with the Long Title of the Bill. There is some doubt about this matter and I should welcome your guidance on it.
      The Chairman: I replied yesterday to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) when he raised a similar point of order. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing something that has been overtaken by the guillotine. I repeat what I said last evening—namely, that the Bills progress in one parallel and that one does not conflict with the other. I must also point out that Mr. Speaker gave that ruling.
      Mr. Amery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Are we not faced with what might be described as an Alice-in-Wonderland situation, sentence first and verdict afterwards? I do not see how we can proceed when we do not know what it is that we are proceeding about. It is rather difficult. We do not know what the
      578
      Civil Aviation Bill will contain, because it has not yet passed through Committee, but we are being asked to take blind, without any debate, a clause that refers to a measure that is now being superseded. Is it not ludicrous, Mr. Murton?
      The Chairman: It may be difficult, but we must make the best of it. The right hon. Member for Pavilion asks how we should proceed. I suggest that we proceed by putting the Question in respect of Clause 63—namely, that it should stand part of the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 12

      LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING DEVOLUTION ISSUES
      Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 587, in page 71, line 35, at end insert—
      '2A. Where it has been determined on the consideration of a devolution issue in any legal proceedings that a Scottish Assembly Act, or any provision of a Scottish Assembly Act is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly or that a matter with respect to which a Scottish Secretary has purported to exercise a power is not a devolved matter, such determination shall not adversely affect or prejudice any person who before such determination has done any act which would but for such determination have been lawful".
      When the dust settles on these sorry proceedings and the final word is spoken by the people of Scotland, and if the Bill ever becomes enacted, the sad task that will fall to the courts of this country will be to decide what exactly it means. When the courts are engaged upon that task, which is governed by the schedule, they will not be assisted by the fact that as a result of the operation of the guillotine the Committee spent such a short time considering and sifting the proposals put forward by the Government in an attempt to make some sort of sense out of them. When Her Majesty's judges are called upon to consider these matters, as they will be, I have no doubt that they will say, in tones of bewilderment and anger, "How on earth did Parliament come to pass legislation of this sort?" The only answer that we shall be able to give is that a rapacious Government, anxious to snatch votes at all possible cost, used their temporary and fleeting majority to bully the Bill through the House of

      579
      Commons irrespective of the consideration that could be given to it. That will be the answer.
      Mr. Graham Page: The majority at the moment appears to be one Law Officer, one Whip and an opposer of the Bill.
      Mr. Brittan: That is about the size of it, and that is the answer.
      I say to the Committee—I direct my remarks especially to the Lord Advocate —that it will be a matter of shame for us as a legislature that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government brought about a situation that will mean that this legislation, when it comes before the courts, will be ill-considered and ill-digested, and, therefore, difficult of interpretation.
      The schedule deals with the situation that will arise when a challenge is made to a Scottish Assembly Act, or a purported exercise of power by a Scottish Secretary, on the ground that the Assembly, or the Secretary of State, has exceeded its or his powers and done something that the enacting constitutional document, the Scotland Act, does not permit.
      The Opposition think that it is absolutely right that it should be possible to argue in the courts, in proceedings, that an Act of the Scottish Assembly or an Act of the Executive is ultra vires and beyond the powers of the Assembly or the Executive after its passage through the Assembly or its decision by the Executive, even if the matter has not been referred to the Judicial Committee in advance of the enactment of the Assembly Act. The Committee will recall that there is a procedure thereby, if it is thought that a matter that the Assembly is thinking of doing will be ultra vires, it can be referred to the Judicial Committee in advance, which can pronounce on that point.
      We think that it was quite wrong of the Government to resist all attempts to enable people other than the Secretary of State to refer matters at that stage to the Judicial Committee. We think it quite wrong that the Government should have reserved to themselves power to bring before the courts, before enactment, an Assembly Bill to see whether it is or is not within the powers of the Assembly. However, we welcome the
      580
      fact that, that initial mistake having been made, it is still possible for a citizen to raise in the courts the vires of an Act of the Scottish Assembly or an Act or proposed Act of the Scottish Executive.
      We also think it right—it is relevant to say this—that a challenge to the vires of a Scottish Assembly Act or of an Act of the Scottish Executive should be possible even if the matter has come before the Judicial Committee and has been held to be intra vires by the Committee. As we understand the legislation before us, even without any amendment, it is open to the courts, if the vires of an Act of the Assembly or an Act of the Executive is raised, to decide that it is ultra vires even if the Judicial Committee has previously allowed the Bill to go through and to become an Act.
      Apart from anything else, I should like from the Lord Advocate confirmation that that position, as I understand it, is the one that he intends the Bill to convey, because it is a matter of some importance.
      It might be thought at first blush that it is a curious procedure that the Judicial Committee can say that a Bill is all right but that later, when it comes before the courts as an Act, it should be possible to argue that it is not all right and that it is beyond the powers of the Scottish Assembly. I think, however, that that is a correct procedure.
      Those of us who have looked into the history of the United State's handling of these matters will know that there is a wide feeling in the United States that the constitutionality or otherwise of legislation is something that really ought to be determined not as a theoretical question but when a case or controversy is raised in real proceedings between litigants, whether or not one of them is the State. That is because it is only when one sees how and where the shoe pinches, and what the actual effect on individual litigants is. that it is possible really to determine the scope of legislation and see whether goes beyond the powers of the somewhat general words used in the actual legislation that confers the power.
      All that is to the good, subject to the clarification that I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to give about my assumption on these matters. But—and this is the reason for the amendment—problems will still arise, and the principal problem

      581
      that we have to consider in the amendment is the whole question of retrospectivity. What happens if, when it comes before a court, that court, whichever one it be, decides that a particular Act of the Scottish Assembly is null and void because it was beyond the powers of the Assembly to pass it?
      10.0 p.m.
      The problem may be said to arise to a lesser extent in the case of byelaws or subordinate legislation which can be struck down by the courts under our present law, without the Scottish Assembly. But the position is much more serious, because such byelaws and subordinate legislation are all made under an Act of Parliament, and Parliament can intervene to put right the ill that the courts have found to exist. It can amend the legislation under which the subordinate legislation was passed so that comparable legislation subsequently becomes possible.
      But in the case of the Scottish Assembly and the Acts of the Scottish Executive, the position is very different, because what has been determined has been determined not by a body within the hierarchy of Parliament, the Minister and the local authority but by a body which in fact, if not in form, is a separate body with a life of its own—the Scottish Assembly. If a Scottish Assembly Act is held to be outside the powers conferred by the Bill, it will be by no means so easy to return to Parliament to put that right.
      What will be the consequences if a Scottish Assembly Act is held to be void and therefore void ab initio, never to have had any force? That may happen years after it was passed simply because it never comes to the courts until then. What will be the position on vested rights that may have accrued as a result of people behaving as if the law were valid, when it is proved to be null and void? Are those rights to be set at naught or to be regarded as matters to which force must be given? What happens if someone has acted in a way that was legal under the legislation but, if the legislation is void and of no effect, has later proved to be illegal?
      These are real problems, and the Government have not provided even the semblance of a solution. The right course
      582
      may be that the principles applied by the courts to previous subordinate legislation such as I have described, in relation to a decision of the courts, should be applied here. If so, the Government should say so in the Bill and not leave it for the courts to reach decisions on that point with no guidance from Parliament. It is right not only for the courts to be given guidance but for the individuals who may be affected to know the consequences on their property rights and their position under the criminal law if something that they thought to be legal under this measure proves to be illegal.
      This is yet another illustration of the uncertainty that will be caused by the passage of legislation which is so half-baked and the consequences of which are so ill thought out.
      I do not pretend that the amendment deals with those problems. It cannot possibly do that, because to deal with them effectively would require at the very least a whole schedule setting out the principles to be applied by the courts when legislation is struck down as being ultra vires.
      Mr. Percy Grieve: Surely the best way of avoiding that appalling insecurity would be not to have the Bill at all.
      Mr. Brittan: That is the position that we have adopted consistently, and this whole area of problems is merely another vivid illustration of how much wiser that course would have been in the first place.
      But, if we are to go along this road, the least that this Committee can ask for and the least that the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom as a whole can ask for is that the Government have the intellectual integrity, the courage and the assiduity to work through and put on the statute book the consequences of their ill-conceived notions and thereby give the courts the guidance which is so singularly lacking about how to deal with problems that will arise whenever a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly is held by the Judicial Committee to be void and of no effect.
      Our amendment does not solve the problems, it only raises them. But, by raising them, it illustrates their magnitude and the total paucity of any solution provided by the Government.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am not a lawyer. Nevertheless it is perfectly legitimate for a Member of Parliament to ask those who might be thought to have first-hand knowledge on such an issue. Therefore, I have to report to the Committee that I talked to the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Mr. MacKay, and later to Mr. Cameron, who is specialising on this Bill on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh. I am authorised to say that they are very concerned about the vagueness of the schedules, which they say will create difficulties in the courts.
      It is not up to me at this time of night to go into the details of the long document which was given us in February 1977. But they say that in fact, although the Government have met some of the minor points, it is their opinion that the major points put forward by the Faculty of Advocates have not been met.
      They say, for example that the difficulty will occur in cases where there are provisions dealing with the same subject matter both in an Assembly Act and in an Act of Parliament. They also say that it is by no means easy to see precisely where the dividing line between devolved and non-devolved matters will ultimately rest. It appears, however, to be so drawn as to create obscurity and anomaly in at least the following respects —and they go on to refer to consumer protection. They are worried about the term "juristic persons". They concern themselves with a number of other matters, including the protection of depositors.
      I go on to the next related matter. The same complaints come from Mr. Pritchard, who is secretary of the Law Society in Scotland. He says that the document which was issued by order of the Council of the Law Society, Ian A. Macmillan, president, in fact in most respects still stands.
      On previous occasions, I have quoted at some length from this document. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I think that there is a serious case, at any rate before Lords Amendments, that Ministers have to get together with the most prestigious legal bodies in Scotland to work out matters which cannot be worked out in a short time and
      584
      still less by me as a non-lawyer in this Committee. Therefore, I put the formal request to my right hon. and learned Friend and say that, speaking for myself —and I cannot speak for anyone else—I shall not be satisfied until I hear from the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates that they are satisfied.
      Finally, earlier today and on a previous occasion, on 29th November, I raised the issue which concerned many of us about what will happen if decisions are to be made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It seems to us that, whatever the legal position on this matter may be, Scottish National Party Members here and many Members of the Assembly will never be satisfied if they are told that in the ultimate, final analysis it is not their oil, for example, because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decided the issue.
      Tonight I say in all humility that I took it upon myself to send copies of Hansard with a covering letter to seven possible members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—Lords Diplock, Denning, Dilhorne, Edmund Davies, Simon, Wilberforce and Gardiner. They did me the courtesy of replying. It is not up to me to tell the House what they said or to pretend that they were on my side of the argument. I am saying that it is legitimate for a Member of this Committee to say that he hopes profoundly that the legal authorities with whom this buck will rest at the end of the day if this Bill becomes an Act should stir themselves—to use the word politely —and reflect on what they are being asked to do. The situation is different from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council deciding on some difficulties in Canada or Australia. It is being drawn into the mire of what is, by definition, the most acute problem of current political controversy.
      We should not be here if it were not for oil. The situation would have been totally different. The SNP campaign involves posters which state that it is his, her or their oil. To be told at the end of the day by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that it is not his, her or

      585
      their oil may be legally correct but it is not politically possible that it will be accepted easily. The Committee might be quite right but those who have campaigned will not bow to the superior wisdom of Lords Diplock and Dilhorne.
      What is the position in relation to the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates? What are the political realities which we are likely to face when we draw the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council into a political situation, besides which Sir John Donaldson would have been a model of political objectivity?
      Mr. David Steel: We have been a little discourteous about the substantial redrafting of the Bill. The difference between the formula of the Scotland and Wales Bill and the proposals in the present Bill are substantial. I say to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it would have been far more vexatious and difficult to progress on the basis of what we had in the last session when there were a series of ministerial overrides where power was devolved in one clause and taken back in another. That was a recipe for continual political conflict in a way that this schedule is not.
      One of the criticisms which I and my colleagues made of the original Bill was that we should move towards the type of constitutional review with which other parts of the Commonwealth are familiar. The hon. Member for West Lothian says that it is all very well for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to issue judgments on matters in Canada and Australia but that it is too difficult to do that in these Islands. I do not accept that view.
      My purpose has always been to see that we bring the devolved powers as close as possible, in the light of geography and population, to a clearer concept. We have suggested that the real solution is to have a special constitutional court. The compromise of the Government is that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should do the two jobs of pre-assent and post-assent review. Not to give some acknowledgment to the Government for this substantial change and, I believe, improvement
      586
      in the arrangements is, to say the least, niggardly.
      Mr. Grieve: The quarrel which we on these Benches have is not with the judicial review by the Privy Council, which we would all agree is an improvement, and one that we strongly urged in the last Bill. In the amendment we are seeking to meet the insecurity which will result in the period pending such review.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Steel: The hon. and learned Member is rushing ahead of me in my speech. I was just beginning to say that this is a substantial improvement in the legislation. We are therefore faced with a completely new concept which is that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will intervene in an area which was previously open to straightforward political conflict. I do not think—and this is probably where I part company with the hon. Member for West Lothian in this argument—that the elected Members of the Scottish Assembly, or the citizens of Scotland after the Assembly is set up, whatever its political complexion, will be looking for points of litigation and points of conflict with Westminster. That appears to be the assumption. Much will depend on what is climate after the Assembly is set up, but I guess that those who are elected to it will, whatever their politics, want to make it a success. I do not believe that everyone will start off on the assumption that they are out to make as big a mess of it as they can.
      Mr. Dalyell: I did not say that they wanted to make a mess of it, but the truth is that they will not have the cash to carry out half the promises that they have made. There is the problem of finding the cash and where, apart from the oil revenues, will they get it?
      Mr. Steel: I will deal with that point but not on this amendment.
      I thought that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) put forward a cogent case in support of his amendment, and the Lord Advocate should deal with the questions about what the position in law will be if a law passed by the Scottish Assembly is subsequently judged to be ultra vires. I do not think necessarily that the wording of the amendment is perfect, and in fairness I should point out that the hon. Member

      587
      did not claim that. But the Lord Advocate will have to answer that point because basically I, who was one of the supporters of this fundamental change, am also sympathetic to the point made by the Opposition, and I think that that point has to be answered.
      Mr. Grieve: As I said when I intervened briefly in the speech of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), I do not think there is anyone on the Conservative Benches who would not contend that this is a great improvement over the original Bill in that it provides for a review by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. My right hon. and hon. Friends advanced that view strongly over many long nights on the previous Bill.
      The amendment is designed to effect some improvement in the rights of the ordinary citizen. It is impossible to travel about the country today without sensing the appalling feeling of insecurity among people in managing and arranging their affairs, in dealing with their wills and in making their financial and family arrangements through the plethora, the spate and the weight of ill-digested, ill-considered and, all too frequently, guillotined legislation. We face that situation not only on this Bill but on Bill after Bill. Legislation pours from this Parliament but it is ill-considered because there is no time in the House to consider it. It is considered in another place, but when it is returned here, their proposals are frequently rejected.
      This, I have frequently urged upon the Committee and upon the House of Commons, is one of the reasons why we are facing a demand for devolution at all, to the extent that such a demand exists. It is a sickness felt by the citizen with over-Government. People resent government. They resent having their powers changed from day to day, from year to year, and from Government to Government by legislation. They condemn London. They condemn Whitehall. They say "Let us have some more government nearer to where we are", little realising that they are simply creating another tier of bureaucracy.
      The result of this legislation would be that people would go to their lawyers and make arrangements and try to order their affairs in Scotland in accordance
      588
      with what they consider are the terms of the Bill when it has gone through Parliament, if it does—God forbid. They will then be faced, perhaps a long period afterwards, with a matter taken to the Privy Council that will alter the whole complexion of the law, alter the interpretation of the Bill and leave them in a position in which it may well be that arrangements which they have entered into in all good faith appear no longer to be right. They may find themselves in extreme legal difficulties.
      That is the vice at which the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is aimed. That is the vice which the amendment is designed to conquer and to meet. For that reason I, for one, give it my unflinching support. I hope that it will meet with support from both the Government and Opposition. It certainly met with support from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). No one has been more assiduous than he in the consideration of the Bill in its progress, if progress it can be called, through the House of Commons.
      For those reasons I commend the amendment to the Committee. I commend it to my hon. Friends. I do not know whether it is necessary to commend it to Labour Members because, as has been observed, there are only three Members present on the Government side—the hon. Member for West Lothian, who is bitterly opposed to the Bill, the Lord Advocate, who is making the best of a bad job and a poor, poor Whip.
      Mr. Gow: It would be churlish not to point out that from the time when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) sat down to the moment when I rose to address the Committee another hon. Gentleman from the Government side had joined the Committee. There are now four hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches. It would be churlish not to welcome to our proceedings the Lord Advocate. I understand that today is the first occasion on which he has assumed ministerial responsibility for an amendment to the Scotland Bill. I express the hope, even before having heard his reply, that he will grace the Committee on future occasions with his presence and, above all, with his speeches. We look forward

      589
      with mounting impatience to the maiden speech of the Lord Advocate on this Bill. As you glance to your right, Mr. Murton, you will see in his place the right hon. and learned Gentleman. You have not heard him yet, Mr. Murton, and I hope that you may have the privilege of sitting in that Chair when the Committee resumes on Wednesday of next week, for then, if not tonight, the Lord Advocate will be addressing the Committee.
      I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had sought to catch your eye, Mr. Murton, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) sat down. There was one way in which the Lord Advocate could have shortened these proceedings and allowed us to debate other matters. That was simply by seeking to catch the eye of the Chair when my hon. Friend had sat down and then to say in one sentence "I congratulate the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby on an excellent amendment and, on behalf of the Government, I accept it". That should have been the Lord Advocate's maiden speech to the Committee.
      My hon. Friend put forward a most compelling argument. Indeed, he moved the amendment with that characteristic modesty that we have come to expect from him. Quite unlike the Government Front Bench, my hon. Friend did not say that his amendment was perfect. He did not claim for the Tory Party that this one amendment would make such an improvement to this dreadful Bill that it ought to go down in the annals as a great achievement. Rightly, my hon. Friend said that if the amendment were accepted, it would be an improvement to the Bill.
      Why did my hon. Friend say that? For the very reason that you, Mr. Murton, and I came into the House of Commons in the first place—to protect the individual against the arrogance of the State. That is what motivated my hon. Friend, just as it motivated you, Mr. Murton, and other right hon. and hon. Members.
      What does the amendment seek to do? It seeks to provide that any person who, subsequent to something which is done or purported to be done by either the Scottish Assembly or a Scottish Minister, in pursuance of the Act which the Bill
      590
      will then have become, acts ultra vires through no fault of his own, shall not be subject to penalty. That is the effect of the amendment. A person who has acted bona fide in trying to interpret the mysteries of what will become, if the Government have their way, an Act of Parliament, shall not be adversely affected or prejudiced.
      How can the Government sustain the proposition that the amendment is unacceptable? It is a modest, fair amendment. It seeks to absolve from blame, culpability or penalty any person who acts in accordance with a determination made by the Assembly or by a Scottish Secretary. Why should a citizen of Scotland or, indeed, any other part of the kingdom, be held accountable for the misdeeds of the Government? The misunderstandings, difficulties of interpretation and the whole question of vires will—not may—arise.
      My hon. Friend and the Lord Advocate are members of the senior branch of the legal profession. I am only a solicitor. I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that a very great deal of legal business will result if this Bill should ever become an Act. The question of vires, the question of the competence of the Assembly, of a Scottish Secretary, will be continually and continuously in dispute.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Sproat: A legal bonanza.
      Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) talks of a legal bonanza. There are many right hon. and hon. learned Members on the Labour Benches who are opposed to a legal bonanza. I speak against my profession when I say that they are right. I hope that the Lord Advocate, when he makes his maiden speech, will graciously say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby "I thank the hon. Member for introducing this amendment. I recognise that it is an improvement to the Bill." I hope that he will accept the speeches of my right hon and hon. Friends in that spirit.
      Mr. Graham Page: The whole of Schedule 12, which this amendment seeks to alter, is contrary to natural justice. If it is pursued the Government may well find themselves brought before the Court of

      591
      Human Rights. It deals with what is called a "devolution issue," which is duly defined in paragraph 1 of the Schedule as follows:
      "In this Schedule "devolution issue" means a question—

      (a) whether a Scottish Assembly Act or any provision of a Scottish Assembly Act is within the legislative competence of the Assembly; or

      (b) whether a matter with respect to which a Scottish Secretary has purported to exercise or proposes to exercise a power is a devolved matter."

      This issue will not arise by reason of the Lord Advocate thinking that some power has been exceeded. It will not arise by reason of the Scottish Secretary admitting that he has exceeded his powers. It will arise because some individual citizen feels aggrieved, because he feels that he has been injured by what he thinks is a wrong exercise of power, or even as a result of a dispute between two individuals.
      What are those individuals to do? This devolution issue is to be fought out between two Government officers. The aggrieved individual is to be forbidden to take part. The Lord Advocate shakes his head. I hope that he can put me right. As I read Schedule 12, there is nothing in it which accommodates the aggrieved in it which accommodates the say that he can take part in this issue, or have anything to say. After all, he is the person most concerned.
      When the issue has been decided—perhaps it is an issue between two individuals—one of them may well find that it has been declared that he has been acting illegally. One individual may feel that he has won the argument while the other may find that he has been acting illegally. It is that which the amendment attempts to ameliorate and to say that if some poor individual, who has not had a chance to put his own case, is found to have acted illegally, at least he shall have the indemnity offered by the amendment.
      I would have thought that this amendment—even if the Lord Advocate cannot accept it as it is phrased—is something which in principle ought to be included in Schedule 12. It would, at least, save the Lord Advocate from being brought before the Court of Human Rights and being told that the whole of Schedule 12 is against natural justice.
      The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I was invited to thank the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) for introducing this amendment and I gladly do so. We have had a useful debate on it. But I cannot go further. The hon. Member frankly said that he did not maintain that the amendment was perfect. He urged, rather, the principle of the amendment upon the Committee. I would like to reply in that spirit.
      First I confirm that it is my view that if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on a pre-Assent reference, passed a Bill as intra vires—although it might not arise in a decision in exactly that form, the effect would be to endorse it as intra vires—that would not bar later court action to gain the benefit of a court decision to the effect that part of the Act or the whole of the Act was ultra vires. I agree that that is the reasoning by which the hon. Gentleman supported the desirability of that conclusion.
      It is desirable that decisions involving justice and injustice to citizens should be real decision taken in a real context. Indeed, that was argued strongly by the Government on the Scotland and Wales Bill last Session. I welcome the view of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) in so far as he dealt with this matter and gave some credit to the Government for responding to criticisms made on those lines.
      The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby suggested that one of the differences between ordinary subordinate legislation and Assembly legislation—which, after all, from the point of view of this Parliament, is subordinate legislation—
      Mr. Brittan: In theory.
      The Lord Advocate: I accept that. At any rate, it is not of the status of the legislation of this sovereign Parliament. One must remember that the reality is that, if the subordinate legislature, however important its primary legislation may be, oversteps its proper limits, this sovereign Parliament must have an inherent power to rectify that situation. That is a matter that I think the hon. Gentleman overlooked.
      On one of the things he said about the amendment the hon. Gentleman was perhaps guilty of a certain exaggeration. If

      593
      there are merits in the amendment, one of the criticisms that can be made of the Government's position on the basis of the amendment is not justified. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the position he sought to improve, or the defect he sought to remedy by means of the amendment, is something which logically requires the Government to spell out a whole series of remedies for possible situations.
      Surely that kind of approach is dead against the genius of our law, both the common law south of the border and Scots law north of the border. The genius of our law is rather to proceed in an empirical way. Indeed, I would adopt an argument he used earlier in his speech, that the benefit of having post-judicial decisions in real litigation in the courts is that one gets decisions on real problems.
      Surely it is wrong in principle and contrary to the traditional legislation of the House of Commons to seek to spell out every possible inequity and all possible remedies to every possible inequity. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman thinks about that, he will see that such is the logic of the argument he presented.
      I come now to the mainstream of the argument. The hon. Gentleman indicated that the amendment was proposing a provision to achieve the effect that a judicial determination than an Assembly Act or provision was ultra vires would not prejudice or adversely affect any person who relied upon its being lawful prior to that determination.
      This, on the face of it, is a well-intentioned amendment with what appears to be a reasonable objective. But, apart from the defects that the hon. Gentleman recognised might lie in it, closer examination reveals this type of remedy to be a radical departure from existing legal canons, the implications of which would be far reaching and, indeed, unforeseeable. I press that as an important point. The implications of such an amendment would be quite unforeseeable and would almost certainly generate greater inequities than hose it sought to solve.
      This case can be put by pointing out that the amendment seeks to change, in this quite restricted field—vires in regard to Assembly legislation and Executive acts—the normal rules about
      594
      the effect of court decisions on pre-existing law and the pre-existing legal relations which rested upon that law.
      Normally the prudent man must act upon the best advice that he can get as to the law as it is believed to be. If it turns out to be wrong, the consequences lie where they fall. But the issues which give rise to a successful challenge of vires will in general be no different in character from those which arise in the course of litigation about statute law or subordinate legislation at present. Indeed, they will arise in the course of an ordinary action seeking from the courts some remedy which the court is able to give to that litigant.
      Although the Assembly in its legislation will clearly be enacting legislation more far-reaching and of a higher status than subordinate legislation of this House, in principle the latter—the subordinate legislation and statutory instruments of this House—gives rise to the same problem to which the same solution might be proferred.
      The hon. Gentleman recognised that in presenting his argument. I suggest that we should pause to consider that matter carefully before adopting a solution which is an extremely radical departure from normal practice and which has not been thought to be necessary or equitable in regard to existing problems of vires.
      I cannot resist the aside that there is a certain paradox here because the official Opposition in earlier debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill laid more stress on the merits of judicial review being available through the ordinary courts in the land. That was a view I agreed with. It is surprising that those who took that view should now be tabling this amendment, the effect of which is to reverse that position to some extent. To put the matter another way, if Assembly Acts like Acts of Parliament cannot be challenged as to vires this problem would not arise at all. Logically this is an amendment which points in the direction of not having judicial review at all. I put that as an aside. But the real and substantial difficulty is that the consequences of an amendment of this type are far-reaching and unforeseeable.
      At this point I would make another aside. Some hon. Members who have

      595
      spoken have perhaps failed to appreciate that in the original Scotland and Wales Bill, had nothing whatever been said about legislation of the Assembly being challenged, there is no doubt in law that the courts would have had the normal power of judicial review. Accordingly, if nothing is said, judicial review exists.
      What we are doing in Schedule 12 is not to spell out all the implications of judicial review. What we are seeking to do is to provide the essential machinery to enable effective steps to be taken—in other words, to give a degree of certainty and provide the machinery for the carrying out of judicial review. It is not meant to go beyond that.
      Looked at in that light, some of the criticisms levelled against the Government are not justified. The implication of seeking to correct a possible inequity in a comparatively narrow range of cases which are very difficult to envisage is that it would have far-reaching effects which might create all sorts of different inequities which go far beyond the rights, duties and legal obligations of litigants and involve all sorts of people who are not party to litigation and who have not had a choice about it.
      If we were to agree to this sort of amendment it might have that sort of effect. A strong and cogent case would have to be made to prefer that to the normal rule with regard to a judicial decision, which is to the effect that the consequences in a judicial decision have to lie where they fall.
      10.45 p.m.
      There may be other remedies, such as legislation in Parliament. Sometimes ex gratia payments can be made in appropriate cases and pardons granted in criminal cases. These are remedies that are essentially outside the normal course of litigation which seem appropriate in the present state of the United Kingdom before devolution. These are the lines upon which we should concentrate.
      Mr. David Steel: Is the Lord Advocate saying that the only difference between the judicial review of Acts of the Scottish Assembly and the normal course of the judicial review of subordinate legislation of this House is that there is a third option opened up? Either the court effectively establishes the law of the land and
      596
      everyone abides by it or Parliament decides to change the law in line with the decision. Now there is a third option in which the Scottish Assembly adjusts the Act, and this is the only difference.
      The Lord Advocate: I am grateful to the right hon. Member. I accept that there is a third option open.
      Mr. Brittan: But this is not an option opened to deal with this problem. The Scottish Assembly may be able to achieve legislation of a broadly comparable kind, minus the defect that led to the previous legislation being held to be ultra vires. But it will not be able to affect or rectify the position as far as it concerns people who have acted in the past on the basis of the previous legislation being valid. Surely the whole basis of the point that the Lord Advocate is making is that these are within the same structure. It is all very well to talk about ex gratia payments and pardons as ways of dealing with striking down a piece of subordinate legislation within the United Kingdom system, but when there are two Governments and two legislatures, that cannot be done in the same way. We cannot have a United Kingdom legislature and a United Kingdom Government intervening to rectify the effects of subordinate legislation of the Scottish Assembly that has been proved invalid in the same way as United Kingdom subordinate legislation. If we did that, there would be considerable political problems. We cannot leave the law silent because there are important political differences between straightforward legislation and Scottish Assembly legislation.
      The Lord Advocate: I accept the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put it. The Scottish Assembly will not necessarily be able to rectify it. When I mentioned ex gratia payments I meant that the Scottish Assembly and its Executive could take steps to rectify the situation in this way.
      I come back to the main stream of the argument and point out that there is other machinery to ensure that this kind of inequity would be very rare. I am thinking particularly of arrangements for pre-enactment scrutiny, which are crucial. These include arrangements for pre-enactment references to the judicial committee. Nothing of the kind exists for subordinate legislation of this House. Pre-enactment

      597
      scrutiny should be a considerable protection against the existence of the kind of evil that this amendment intends to meet.
      Let me deal, somewhat out of order, with the interesting point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I must refute his argument. I think that he possibly has in mind an argument which might have been advanced on other amendments, if reached, but which will not, I am sure, be reached tonight. I think that it is appropriate for me to point out the reason why in this part of the schedule there is specific reference to the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General as people who have title to raise the issue of vires in appropriate litigation, because if they were not mentioned there might be doubt whether they had title to sue. For that reason they have been expressly mentioned in the schedule. But by the same token an ordinary litigant who has an interest in the matter and who has title to sue would be able to raise that issue in an action competent before an ordinary court of law. There is no doubt about that. Accordingly, the hypothesis he put to me is without foundation and the right hon. Gentleman's worry is unjustified.
      Mr. Graham Page: Does that not mean that two actions may take place at the same time and that the devolved issue may arise in court in an action between two individuals? If it rests with the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General to fight it out between them, surely the litigants in the case in which the matter has arisen should be allowed to take part in that action between the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General.
      The Lord Advocate: If the right hon. Gentleman re-examines the schedule, he will find that we have anticipated that possibility.
      I return to the main stream of the argument. It seems to me that the more one examines the amendment the more one sees that any attempt to unravel a transaction entered into and acquiesced in many years previously in the way required would be a desperately difficult task. The remedy is not as easy as it looks. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said that problems might arise because something that appeared as settled law might be affected, but the remedy pre-
      598
      scribed might be at least as difficult and complex as the situation it seeks to put right.
      I think that the amendment adopts a difficult approach in a narrow area which cannot be separated in content from what occurs in an ordinary action. It seeks to produce new and separate rules affecting established principles—for instance, the principle that money paid under an error in law cannot be recovered, and the principle of res judicata, which prevents the parties to a legal action which has been concluded from reopening it on the ground that a later decision has changed the law on which it was decided. All these matters would have to be reconsidered and the far-reaching effects of the amendment cannot be exaggerated.
      The amendment would also create insoluble problems in relation to its effects upon successive decisions of different courts which came to different conclusions on the same vires question. Persons could be left in complete uncertainty about the security of their rights under past transactions and relationships.
      One might have a decision of a relatively subordinate court which, for good reason, nobody wanted to refer to the Judicial Committee or to appeal. It might be that for good reasons the litigants would think the case settled and finished. However, there might have been a different result if the case had been appealed and years later there might be a conflict. The difficulties of the amendment make the mind boggle.
      I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was guilty of a certain amount of exaggeration in his remarks this evening. I know that it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to satisfy all lawyers on any proposed reform or constitutional change, but the Faculty of Advocates to my knowledge went on record strongly in support of a judicial review. That is what the Government are introducing and that is what this issue is concerned with. I know that we have not satisfied the Faculty in every single respect, but I am not aware of any serious doubt about Schedule 12. I understand that the Law Society of Scotland is entirely opposed to judicial review and it would be impossible to satisfy the Society in this debate. I shall not direct myself to a task which is, by definition, impossible.
      Mr. Dalyell: On this narrow point, I am willing to be satisfied. On the broader point raised by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), if the Faculty and the Law Society tell me that they are satisfied, I shall automatically be satisfied.
      The Lord Advocate: I think that my hon. Friend is baying for the moon. We shall never get all legal bodies satisfied about anything.
      The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby conceded that the amendment was not perfect. It has drafting defects. For example, a proper construction of the amendment would exclude the very remedy it seeks to bring about because the loser in litigation is bound to be adversely affected and he may not be able to get a remedy under the amendment.
      For all the reasons that I have mentioned, I advise the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Brittan: The Lord Advocate has applied an exclusively legal approach to this problem. Of course it is a legal problem, but one cannot ignore the political dimension. Looked at solely on the basis of a legal construction, it is tenable to say that Scottish legislation is just like an Order in Council or a Statutory Instrument introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. But that is wholly unreal, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the unreality and does not apply that principle in the Bill.
      If we could rely on the well-applied and accepted principles for the determination of issues as to the vires of Statutory Instruments, there would be no need for Schedule 12 and the special machinery. We could allow the issues to be raised in the same way as are the vires of bye-laws or Statutory Instruments.
      The fact that the Government have introduced special machinery shows that when they are wearing their political hat they are wise enough to realise that the principles to be applied in considering what happens when a Scottish Assembly Act is declared ultra vires cannot be the same as those applied when considering whether a Statutory Instrument is valid.
      The Lord Advocate cannot just sweep the problem aside and say that these
      600
      matters can be dealt with in the same way. At least some of the ways by which they might be dealt in the case of subordinate legislation are not open to use in circumstances where there are two politically different bodies which may not concur about how the problem should be dealt with.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Assembly might grant ex gratia payments or pardons, but suppose it were deeply resentful of the fact that its Act had been declared ultra vires.
      Mr. Dalyell: And it would be resentful if that happened.
      Mr. Brittan: Indeed it would. Is the Lord Advocate suggesting that the Assembly would tamely say that the Judicial Committee had broken down the Assembly Act and that its members would have to bear the consequences, including the possibility of making substantial ex gratia payments to citizens who had been aggrieved by the illegality? That is politically unreal. The problem remains.
      If the Lord Advocate thinks that the principles that need to be applied in determining what happens in those circumstances are exactly the same as those applied in the case of Statutory Instruments, let him write into the Bill a simple provision saying just that. Let him provide that the principles to be applied in dealing with the situation arising after a Scottish Assembly Act has been declared ultra vires shall be the same as those applied in the case of Statutory Instruments. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman regards that as a constructive suggestion and that he will give it serious consideration so that this canon of interpretations is inserted on Report or later.
      Mr. Dalyell: Undoubtedly my right hon. and learned Friend—
      It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
      The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the

      601
      disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
      Schedule 12 agreed to.
      Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again pursuant to Order [16th November].
      Committee report Progress: to sit again tomorrow.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (JURISDICTION AND JUDGEMENTS) CONVENTION
  11.1 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of Commission documents Nos. R/2962/76 and R/2963/76 on Jurisdiction and Judgement Conventions.
  I was expecting my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to introduce the debate. Perhaps I can assist—[Interruption.] We shall probably get on more quickly if my right hon. Friend the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household leaves me to do so as briefly as possible. I am glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend has now returned to the Chamber.
  11.2 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I apologise to the House. There was a little disorganisation.
  I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of Council Documents Nos. R/2962/76 and R/2963/76 on Jurisdiction and Judgements Convention.
  The second of these documents is the English text of the Convention of 27th September 1968 on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, and the Protocol of 3rd June 1971 on its interpretation by the Court of Justice. The first document is the preliminary draft convention on the accession of the new Member States to the 1968 Convention and to the 1971 Protocol. I will call this the "draft Accession Convention".
  The instruments of which the House is invited to take note are not, as is usually the case in these debates, draft regulations or directives which are awaiting the approval of the Council; they are treaty instruments to which the member States are to become parties. Eventually it will require the approval not of the Council but of the member States to bring the Accession Convention into effect. The House will therefore have further sight of the final text before it is adopted and the treaty is ratified. The draft is not yet in its final form.
  The origins of these instruments are to be found in Article 220 of the EEC Treaty, which provides that the member States shall enter into negotiations to

  603
  secure for their nationals the simplification of formalities governing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments. That provision was given effect by the 1968 Convention. It was, of course, negotiated only by the six original member States, and so it took no account of the particular problems of the United Kingdom. By the time we joined the European Communities, the 1968 Convention had been ratified by the Six—in some ways that was unfortunate—and it entered into force between them on 1st February 1973. The Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice was concluded, again by the six original member States, in 1971, and it entered into force between them in 1975.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: It may be for the convenience of the House if my right hon. and learned Friend could give us his opinion on this matter. He has just said something that is to our surprise: that is, that this is not in the final form—though that should not be surprising. But he said something about it coming back to the House again. He used the phrase a "sight of it". Can he assure us that it will be moved and debated on a Question and motion on the Floor of the House, or will it, perhaps, be going to the Scrutiny Committee and not of necessity coming to the Floor of the House? This is a matter of some procedural importance and interest to some of my hon. Friends who are present tonight.
  The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend is very beguiling, as ever, but I must not yield to temptation. I can go no further than what I have said. My hon. Friend knows very well that it is not a matter for me to dispose of the time of the House and say how it should be arranged. It is right, however, that I should reiterate that, as this is a treaty, it requires to be ratified. The fact that I have already stated that this is something that the House will have a sight of at least means that the House will have an opportunity to make the necessary arrangements, if so advised, so that there could be a full debate if that were required and desired. That opportunity would be there, and beyond that I clearly cannot go.
  Mr. Graham Page: This will come before the House on the treaty being
  604
  designated a treaty which we have to bring into the law here. It will then come before the House again when we have to change the law here to bring it in line with the treaty.
  Mr. Ian Percival: The answer is "Yes".
  The Lord Advocate: In so far as the right hon. Gentleman is saying that this House will have to legislate in order to give effect to the treaty, that is undoubtedly right. Appropriate legislative machinery will have to be enacted. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) is asking me to say that I undertake that there will be a debate of a certain kind in a certain form. I cannot do that. But that legislation of this House is necessary is, it seems to me, a sufficient guarantee that opportunities will exist for hon. Members to press for the kind of debate that they wish.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon and learned Gentleman clear up once for all the question whether it will be necessary for this Convention to be recognised as a treaty under, I think, Section 14 of the European Communities Act, or else is it the proposition that, since this Convention is implicit in the Treaty of Accession, it does not need to be added by the procedure of Section 1 of the 1972 Act, in which case no debate would necessarily arise upon the decision itself, though, of course, there would be debate upon the domestic legislation necessary to implement it?
  The Lord Advocate: That is very much the kind of matter that I had in mind. The right hon. Gentleman has focused exactly the kind of doubt that can exist in this area. Without notice, however, I am not prepared to go beyond what I have already said.
  Article 63 of the 1968 Convention foresaw the possible enlargement of the EEC and required any new member States to accept the Convention as a basis for negotiation. This obligation was embodied in Article 3(2) of the Act governing the conditions of our accession, which required the United Kingdom and the other new member States to enter into negotiations with the original Six on the adjustments necessary to enable the new member States to accede to the 1968 Convention.

  605
  The negotiations began in November 1972 with the setting up of a Council working party, and this working party negotiated the necessary adjustments and reported in December 1976. The draft Accession Convention prepared by the working party was submitted to the Governments of member States in the spring of 1977, and they were invited to submit their comments to the Council of the EEC by September of that year. Before I come to the comments that Her Majesty's Government have made, I would like to say a few words about the 1968 Convention and the amendments of it proposed in the draft Accession Convention.
  Although Article 220 of the EEC Treaty speaks only of recognition and enforcement of judgments, the 1968 Convention is not so confined; it also regulates the circumstances in which the courts of member States may assume jurisdiction over matters which have an international element, and it is this part of the Convention which will make the most significant impact on our law.
  In March 1972, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland set up a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Kilbrandon to advise on the adjustments which should be sought before the United Kingdom could accede to the 1968 Convention. This committee reported in October 1973, and the conclusions of its report have largely determined the stance of the United Kingdom negotiating team in Brussels. For this reason, the report has not been published. Since 1973, the United Kingdom delegation has been advised by a working party under the chairmanship of a High Court judge.
  In the light of our Treaty commitment to accede to the 1968 Convention and its Protocol after making necessary adjustments, the scope for making changes in the Convention is restricted, and Her Majesty's Government believe that in general its provisions can be accepted and will work satisfactorily. Most of the adjustments which we considered essential for the operation of the courts in the different parts of the United Kingdom will be made if the draft Accession Convention is adopted.
  Of the principal adjustments which would result from the draft Convention, three provide additional grounds of juris-
  606
  diction of peculiar importance to our legal systems. They deal with maintenance, Admiralty proceedings and trusts, and a word about each of these may be appropriate.
  First, as regards maintenance, the 1968 Convention allows proceedings for maintenance to be brought only in the courts of the country where either the claimant or the respondent habitually resides. In this country maintenance awards are most commonly made in consequence of divorce proceedings, and the divorce proceedings will often have been brought in courts other than those of the habitual residence of one of the parties. As a result, many maintenance awards made by our courts would not have been enforceable in the other countries of the Common Market. An appropriate amendment, to be found in Article 5(3) of the draft Accession Convention, will overcome this anomaly.
  Next, I come to Admiralty proceedings. The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court over maritime disputes is in the majority of cases based on the presence of ships or cargo in the United Kingdom. It is an arrest jurisdiction. But the 1968 Convention does not provide for such a jurisdiction, except indirectly in so far as it allows other Conventions to continue to operate. Our Admiralty jurisdiction accords generally with the provisions of the Brussels Convention of 1952 on the Arrest of Seagoing Ships.
  The preservation of other relevant Conventions does not, however, provide a complete answer, first because two of the member States, Denmark and Ireland, are not at present parties to the 1952 Convention, and secondly because actions for the limitation of a shipowner's liability are not covered by it. This latter point is met by a specific provision in Article 6 of the draft Accession Convention.
  As regards the preservation of existing conventions and the Brussels 1952 Convention in particular, there are a number of important provisions in the draft Accession Convention. Any doubt about the right of member States which are parties to another convention to rely on that convention even as against nationals of another EEC State which is not party to the other convention is resolved by Article 24 of the draft Accession Convention, which article also provides for

  607
  recognition and enforcement of any judgments given in reliance on such other conventions, present or future. Moreover, the peculiar needs of Denmark and Ireland are met by a transitional provision in Article 35, which allows them to exercise Admiralty jurisdiction pending their accession to the 1952 Convention.
  The third additional jurisdiction concerns trusts. None of the original six member States has a legal concept akin to the common law notion of a trust, and the 1968 Convention accordingly makes no mention of trusts. Amendments proposed in the draft Accession Convention will plug this gap. They will ensure, for instance, that in proceedings concerned with the internal relatonships of an English or Scottish trust the appropriate courts of the United Kingdom will will continue to have jurisdiction.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said a few moments ago that most of the adjustments that the Government considered essential for the working of our own courts were included in the document. But that suggests that some are not. Will he tell us what they are?
  The Lord Advocate: I propose to do that. If I omit some that the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks to be important, perhaps he will take them up with my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General when he replies to the debate.
  Other major proposed amendments relate to insurance. The 1968 Convention contains special provisions governing jurisdiction in insurance proceedings. Their underlying assumption is that the insured is at such an economic disadvantage as against the insurer that the Convention must help to redress the balance by expanding the number of jurisdictions where the insured can sue, and limiting those where he can be sued. These assumptions do not hold good in many fields of commercial insurance. Having regard to the United Kingdom's major interest in insurance matters as the centre of the world's insurance market, the Kilbrandon Committee thought that the most important point for the United Kingdom in the negotiations was to secure amendment of the relevant articles—namely, Articles 7–12—and, that at the very least, they should not always apply
  608
  to marine and aviation insurance. This result should be largely achieved by the amendments in Articles 8 and 9 of the draft Accession Convention.
  I said earlier that the draft Accession Convention now before the House was referred by the Council to the Governments of the member States for their comments. The United Kingdom submitted observations, of which copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses before Christmas. Hon. Members who have studied them will see that, in addition to a number of technical points, there are three points of substance on which we would like to see further amendment. They are concerned with agreements on jurisdiction which, in accordance with Article 17 of the 1968 Convention, are effective to give specified courts jurisdiction only if a number of conditions are satisfied.
  The issue to which Her Majesty's Government attach most importance concerns the form of such agreements. The first paragraph of Article 17 provides that a jurisdiction agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing or is confirmed in writing. This provision has been interpreted by the European Court so narrowly that only an express written provision about the court which is to have jurisdiction will do. It concedes a limited exception for agreements made in the course of a continuing trading relationship. But, every day, agreements worth many millions of pounds are made in which the parties intend to cover jurisdiction without expressly mentioning it. The jurisdiction clause is not contained in the agreement in writing but is incorporated by reference to the standard conditions of, for instance, the London commodity markets. It would be most undesirable if such agreements reached between parties of equal strength negotiating at arm's length, were to become ineffective. We have, therefore, proposed that, in commercial as distinct from consumer transactions, the strict requirement of writing should not be retained.
  The second point is that jurisdiction agreements are effective only if one or more of the parties is domiciled in a member State. We see no reason why such agreements should not be effective even though none of the parties is a Community domiciliary. There is an international demand for the services of

  609
  our courts to which we attach much value. A high proportion of the cases in the Commercial Court are cases in which neither party is British, and in many of these neither party is a Community domiciliary. If the parties wish to see their disputes litigated in London or—indeed, Edinburgh—unless there are overriding considerations to the contrary we see no reason why effect should not be given to their wishes.
  The third point is related to the second. If a court assumes jurisdiction in disregard of a choice of court agreement, we propose that this should in itself be a ground for refusing recognition of the resulting judgment.
  The draft Accession Convention has been referred back to a Council working party, which will be meeting next week to discuss the observations of the member States. In these discussions, the British delegation will be able to bear in mind the views expressed in the House tonight. Subject to a satisfactory resolution of the points raised in the United Kingdom observations, the Government believe that the draft Accession Convention contains all the adjustments necessary to enable the United Kingdom to accede to the 1968 Convention. In that light, I invite the House to take note of this document.
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an extraordinary hour and a half that the House is having. In the observations which I want to make I should like to make it clear at the outset that there is implicit no criticism of the Lord Advocate, who, as I well remember, was not one of those who voted that a Lord Advocate should ever find himself in a position of having to make a speech such as he has just made from the Box.
  It is really inconceivable that this House should be told that the far-reaching changes in the laws of this country have to be made in pursuance of a convention when—I think that the Lord Advocate admitted this in response to the query of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and myself—we shall not even have the semi-formality of adding that convention to the documents which are treaties for the purpose of the 1972 Act.
  When we come to the consequential legislation, we shall be told that this is
  610
  not, in the ordinary sense of the word, debatable since it is in pursuance of a convention which we have already entered into and ratified.
  I shall give two brief quotations from the Explanatory Memorandum. The first is:
  "The accession of the United Kingdom…will require…substantial amendment of existing law in relation to the grounds on which the courts of the United Kingdom exercise jurisdiction, as well as significant (although less substantial) changes in the law relating to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and consequential amendment to procedural rules."
  The second quotation, from paragraph 7, is that the Convention
  "will involve the abandonment of certain long established rules in both England and Scotland".
  In the former case, these are matters no doubt requiring intricate and careful legislation which certainly ought not to be made by Parliament under any sort of duress, and they should not come before either House in a form in which the Houses are hound by a pre-existing and ratified convention.
  It is intolerable that we should have been warned that we should have "further sight of the final text" of the Convention, after which it would be necessary for the House to legislate to make changes of a substantial character.
  Incidentally, although hon. Members have had before them the Explanatory Memorandum, for most of them the secret was revealed only in the course of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that, consequent to the memorandum of last May, there has been an exchange between this Government and the Community authorities which was deposited in the Library of the House. We tried to pick up as best we could from the Lord Advocate's speech the points in that communication. It is intolerable that it was not brought to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members that a document material to the debate as lying in the Library unbeknown to them and, presumably, to anyone but the Government.
  Those of us who are enemies to the cause of such a consequence as this are often accused that in these debates we are unconstructive. That is a contradictory accusation. On the occasion, however, I wish to make a very specific suggestion to the Government with which I

  611
  hope both sides of the House will associate themselves. I am not denying that in the position in which we find ourselves we are bound to ratify such a Convention and that we are bound as best we can to implement it. I am not seeking to deny that that is implicit in the present fact of our membership of the EEC. But, at least we in this House can decide what opportunities there should be of debate and of understanding, and of enabling those whom we represent to understand, what is compulsorily happening to them. At least, that is a matter which we have open to us.
  My suggestion is that, before there is any move for ratification, the legislation, and possibly the new rules which will have to be made in pursuance of the Convention, should first be produced by the Government and made available for hon. Members. That would not involve the Government in any extra work. The Bill will have to be drafted to give effect to most of these changes, and to those which do not require legislation effect will presumably have to be given by new rules of the courts. Those will have to be drawn up. They will have to contain the necessary degree of correctness and precision. That is work that will have to be done.
  I suggest that that work should be done first and that both Houses should have available to them a draft Bill and draft rules before the question of ratification arises, so that at any rate when we come to the actual legislation we are not in the position in which we found ourselves back in 1972, or in a worse position, of being told, whenever we seek to raise a matter or introduce an amendment, "You cannot do that because this matter is already settled and binding under a Convention which has been entered into and ratified."
  At least, it would be decent and, I believe, in the long run, in the interests of the Government for both Houses to have available to them a draft Bill. This very much concerns another place since, whatever views hon. Members may hold of it, there is no doubt that in that place there is assembled considerable legal knowledge and experience which should be brought to bear upon such legislation as this. I therefore put it to the Government that this should be done.
  612
  No doubt the Lord Advocate cannot give an answer off the cuff tonight but I hope it will be supported on both sides of the House that the legislation, in the widest sense of the term, which will eventually become necessary should be available in draft form before ratification takes place.
  I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be able to promise that a debate will take place before ratification, on the assumption that proceedings under Section 1 of the 1972 Act are not necessary. Nevertheless, I hope that the fairness, the reasonableness and even the decency of the course I have proposed will be recognised and that the, Lord Advocate will be able to indicate at any rate that the Government will give serious consideration to acceding to this request.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am perhaps unwise to enter into this debate because I feel, like many of us did this morning on our way to the House, in a fog. My vision is necessarily limited. Since I am representing the interests of ordinary citizens, not lawyers, it is perhaps right that I should make a number of points.
  First, the motion refers to the House taking note of Commission documents, but I am not quite sure whether these are Commission documents. I do not see the usual Commission frontispiece.
  The Lord Advocate: They are Council documents.
  Mr. Spearing: I think that we might return to this point before the end of the debate. But I am glad that I have at least cleared that up. Perhaps my remarks about fog are more relevant than I thought.
  My right hon. and learned Friend used the word "sight" in his introduction. I am glad that I interrupted him, because it appears that this could be the last opportunity that the House will have to debate this set of documents. For that reason, some hon. Members might not wish to take note of them.
  If we are to take note of documents, we should at least be capable of understanding them or of having them expounded in such a way that the ordinary citizen, the reader of Hansard, not only

  613
  those professionally concerned with international law, understands those matters which will affect him, and clearly these matters will affect him. With respect to my right hon. Friend, I am not sure whether the exposition or, indeed, the documents come into that category.
  Secondly, if we are to take note of documents, we should understand their implications. I certainly do not. Clearly, they will be important. At some time, either in British courts or in some cause célèbre, the fact that we adhere to this Convention, if we do, will be pointed to as an obligation. Indeed, the debate may be cited, if this motion goes through, as showing that the House gave its approval for such proceedings to take place in this country. The police, tipstaffs, bailiffs and others may be involved as a result of judgments having to be enforced.
  I should have thought that more of our colleagues with legal experience would have been present tonight. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in their places. But I should have thought that lawyer Members would have been here en masse to examine this matter, because it will clearly have some effect on their profession and on the proceedings in which they take part.
  This Convention is pregnant with problems—at least, I think that it is—and I want to divide what I have to say into two parts: first the practice, and secondly whether some of the results which may stem from it should be promoted by the EEC.
  The Explanatory Memorandum points out:
  "Judgments given by a court of a Member State are to be recognised and enforced by the courts of other Member States without further investigation, the grounds for non-recognition being effectively limited to breach of the principles of public policy or natural justice."
  There may be some loopholes there, and I should not like to say how wide they may be.
  My right hon. and learned Friend clearly spelt out matters—Admiralty
  614
  trusts, insurance and so on—which will be of great commercial importance. I submit that they will also affect people, particularly in matrimonial matters. I take it that the custody of children may come into this matter. If not, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will explain in winding up the debate.
  Many people come to see me in my surgery. Among the matters that they raise are the maintenance and custody of children and minors domiciled in other EEC States. There is a good deal of emotion in these matters. If there are to be tug-of-love scenes between not only parents but courts, in this country and other EEC countries, where evidential practices and the basis of law are different, we shall be heading for big trouble. This Convention may cover such matters, but I have not been able to discern whether it does from what has been said so far.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Gentleman referred to people being emotionally involved, tug-of-love scenes, custody of children and so on. Surely the incidence of such disputes arising would be reduced or minimised as the result of the harmonisation of legal terms, procedures and practices in different countries.
  Mr. Spearing: That remains to be seen. I suspect that the law will become even more complicated. In practice, harmonisation does not always result. Even within English law, let alone Scottish law, problems arise in this area.
  If there is to be an obligation on the courts of this country to apply without further investigation the judgments made by courts in other EEC countries—and even if it may be simpler for lawyers if the law is codified; I am not saying that it will be—I suggest that in human terms we may be in for difficult times. People here may say "We cannot do that. We have to act on the judgment of another court, without any let, hindrance, appeal or argument of that sort."
  I can foresee that there will be problems. Perhaps there will be fewer problems than before, but I fear not because of the obligation of application. I do not say that there should not be some international arrangement of this sort: any of us can see that there will be clear

  615
  advantages in some international arrangements in legal matters. That is common sense—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend doubts that. Perhaps there are good arguments against it. There is a balance of argument on both sides—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The point that worries me is that, because we are not expert in these matters, the question whether we accept them becomes a case of our having to follow our instincts. We can be guided only by what has happened in the past and by the circumstances of our entry into the Common Market. When I hear stories about the advantages that will accrue, I have to remember, as my hon. Friends have to remember, what has happened in other circumstances.
  Before the 1972 Act, after the Treaty, and many times after the referendum—although the voices of the pro-Marketeers have become a little more muted on these matters—it was said that tremendous advantages would accrue, economically and in many other respects. But we have witnessed a massive increase in the dole queues and, until recently, a massive increase in inflation. We have seen Britain's economy being brought to a standstill, even in respect of steel. In the whole area of our connections with the Common Market I tell my hon. Friends that there is nothing of advantage I cannot find any advantage in this proposal, either.
  Unless my hon. Friends can tell me that there is something here that will accrue to our benefit—something specific that they can show me—I cannot give my support to a proposal of this kind.
  Mr. Spearing: I entirely follow the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in the sense that in the past the results of harmonisation and of joining the Common Market have been held out to us as concrete advantages; but the promises made in this respect have proved to be incorrect. My hon. Friend has every right to say what he has said, because we have had similar offerings in the past.
  I do not discount the possibility of some international legal arrangements being made, but I suggest that they must be arrived at within a specific structure and under specific auspices, and that if such arrangements are made the House
  616
  must study them carefully. If there are changes to our statutes, those changes must go through this House, which is the proper body to deal with them. We must study proposed changes in legislation and we must study the Convention, in its future form, in the minutest detail.
  These proposals are not of that sort. An entrepreneur, an international agency or a supranational agency is not the same thing as a convention of States coming together for specific legal purposes. We are dealing with the EEC. That makes it into a very different type of arrangement.
  We all know that the EEC is a unitary structure, with its own Court of Justice. I do not know whether that court comes into this. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us. I suspect that the EEC court has a place in this arrangement. Since this is an EEC treaty, I take it that the court will decide matters of dispute. This proposal goes far beyond international legal arrangements of which some of us might approve. It is part of the system of the EEC.
  The EEC has many objectives, and the laws of the EEC and their enforcement provisions will be of a specific character. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether there is any specific provision for countries not being members of the EEC to participate in this international treaty? The matter is left open. Norway is not a member of the EEC but it is in Europe and there will be some issues, such as those touching on Admiralty and navigation matters, which will be of concern to it. It would be more appropriate for another international body, perhaps the United Nations, perhaps a convention of maritime countries, to deal with this question of legal co-operation, if it were thought right to have such a body. Yet the EEC is taking this issue under its wing. The EEC has a specific tenor and has specific objectives which are ultimately supranational. The EEC court is supranational in a way in which the other International Court at The Hague is not.
  I submit that this is a commercial arrangement which will spill over into the lives of individuals. Until now, the courts of this country have provided protection to its citizens. I am not sure that they would be able to provide this protection if this Convention were accepted. The

  617
  courts would have to say "We are sorry, but the court in Messina made that judgment and we have to enforce it." As I understand it, that is what will happen, and that is not the case at the moment.
  I question whether we should take note of these documents, for two reasons. In the first case, I think that the merits are not clear. Even if they were, the vehicle chosen for this form of international cooperation is not an international body but a supranational body. It is for that reason that some of us would not wish to take note of the documents.
  11.42 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: Before considering the documents before us, I have two protests to make. The first concerns the timing of the debate. It is being held late at night and we have been given only a short time to deal with the subject. I suppose that there are a score of important points of law raised in these documents—the sort of issues on which we would spend days in Committee, discussing and trying to get them right. We are asked to deal with them in one and a half hours after 11 p.m. It is quite impossible to do so with justice. As a result, we must take a broad view on the various points raised.
  My second protest concerns the fact that once again in a debate of this sort the House finds itself without a vital document. This is not the first occasion on which this has happened. It seems to be almost a habit. The vital document is the one which has been placed in the Library. To place one copy of a document in the Library is not the same as putting it in the Vote Office, with copies available for all hon. Members. The document should have been included with the others available for the debate in the Vote Office. We do not know, except for what the Lord Advocate has said, what further points are being put forward by the United Kingdom with a view to improving this Convention. That is what we are debating tonight. We are debating what Ministers ought to do, in the proper councils of Europe, to improve these documents as they apply to the United Kingdom.
  Having made these protests, I think that this kind of subject is absolutely right for a treaty or convention amongst the States of Europe. This is exactly the
  618
  sort of subject in which we can benefit from being members of contracting States in Europe. If the other States are going to amend their laws—indeed, if they join this Convention they will do so—as we amend ours, we shall get as much benefit, if not, in some cases, more out of the Convention as the other contracting States will get from our change in our laws. So this is an appropriate subject for some convention, treaty or agreement between the European States.
  But then I come to the form that the agreement will take. As I understand it, if it is a convention which is not acknowledged as a treaty, we can discuss it fully in this House before it affects this country through our own substantive law. But if it is to become a treaty—and at some stage we shall designate it as such under Community law—everything in that treaty which alters our law automatically takes effect without any further legislation in this country.
  I want the Minister to give an undertaking that this convention will not be designated as a treaty and thereby bind us without any further legislation in this country. That is the position. We have seen it recently in the result of a designated treaty, and we have argued it out on the Floor of the House. We are forbidden, indeed, by our Treaty with the Community to try to put a treaty into our law. We are bound by the wording in that Treaty, and we cannot repeat it in our law.
  If this Convention is to be treated in that way it will be very serious, because we shall not have an opportunity of discussing its terms fully. I hope that this one will come before us again as a full draft Convention, so that we can discuss it in some form in detail before it becomes a substantive part of our law, either by treaty or by rules of court, or will be put before us by the Government in the form of a Bill.
  On the merits of the proposals, my view is that the change in the basis of jurisdiction of the courts will be very valuable. Physical presence has never really been a satisfactory basis for jurisdiction. Domicile is far better. If one relies on physical presence, the proceedings may be frustrated by the disappearance of the defendant after he has been served. He is much less likely to leave

  619
  this country permanently if he is domiciled here.
  But if that applies in the other contracting States, and if a person domiciled in this country is physically present in another contracting State, we must provide in this Convention that the service of the proceedings on him in that other contracting State is facilitated. If he is to be brought before the courts here—and under the Convention he should be brought before the courts in the State in which he happens to be at the moment—the service of the proceedings by those courts here must be simplified somehow.
  I see a little difficulty here in that "domicile" is to be left for the definition of the contracting States. Indeed, we are told in the memorandum from the Lord Chancellor that this country will be able itself to define what is meant by "domicile". If we are to have a different definition of "domicile" in all the contracting States, I can foresee considerable difficulties. Indeed, this is where I and some of my hon. Friends will have to declare an interest in that litigation will multiply, and, being a solicitor, I am sure that I shall make a lot of money out of it. I hope that that will not be the case. I hope that the definition of "domicile" will be the same in all the contracting States.
  I turn to the other points which are cleary set out in paragraph 7 of the memorandum. The special jurisdictions set out in Articles 5 to 16 of the 1968 Convention are clearly right. There are some which should perhaps be added. This, again, is where we might have been assisted by having been able to study the document laid in the Library. But one cannot go into such details in a debate of this sort. I only say in general that the special jurisdictions which we have seen set out in the documents before us seem to be correct.
  I am a little worried about the fact that jurisdiction cannot be fixed by agreement between the parties. The Lord Advocate mentioned the demands internationally for the services of our courts. In fact, litigants who by domicile, physical presence or the performance of the contract have no real claim to come to our courts nevertheless do so. I do not see why we should prevent that. We should be able to have a form of agree-
  620
  ment whereby litigation can be brought before our courts here.
  The same applies to the point mentioned in paragraph 7(d) of the memorandum—the discretion of the courts to assume jurisdiction. I would regret it if that were abolished.
  However, one can deal with this subject only with a broad brush. On the whole, we must recognise that this is one of the cases—for me there are many others—where by agreement between the contracting States we ourselves can gain great benefit out of this harmonisation. I believe that we shall get just as much if not more, benefit out of the other contracting States bringing themselves in line with what we shall suggest even though we shall have to alter our law to harmonise with theirs.
  11.53 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I join briefly in this debate not because of any particular legal knowledge or expertise on this subject but to add a few words which, I hope, will not be too general and will fit appropriately into the debate.
  I also join enthusiastically with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who referred to the frustrations that are caused by this kind of debate in that a maximum of an hour and a half is given late at night to a subject which is extremely important. The fact that it is heavy with legal consequences makes it a natural deterrent to most hon. Members. However, it is an important subject which should be dealt with in a much less cavalier way by the Government.
  Our trying to indulge seriously in genuine and legitimate scrutiny of important EEC documents is in stark contrast to the aggressive political attitude of the Government in respect of different portfolios and different negotiations and subjects in Brussels, where they continually say that they are the only guardians of British interests and the only sturdy upholders of the national interest. That attitude is in stark contradiction with the fact—which is worth repeating—that the Government have on so many occasions refused to show more courtesy to the House by providing time and more suitable opportunities for the effective scrutiny of documents of this kind.

  621
  My personal view is that this kind of complicated document, particularly when it is of a legal and esoteric nature, is very difficult for hon. Members to absorb in the limited time available. I believe that such documents should be dealt with on more than one occasion, beginning on the Floor of the House, going upstairs to the Statutory Instruments Committee and then returning to the Floor of the House for a final debate.
  The Lord Advocate arrived here rather breathless, and he did not seem to be all that familiar with the material in his very well written brief. If I am wrong on that point, I shall withdraw it immediately. Surely he would feel that it would be better to have a more thorough discussion of the weighty matters in these documents.
  I concur with what has been said earlier in this debate. Since this is a preliminary draft, much more must happen. The suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about two bites at the cherry should be taken on board by the Government.
  I assume that there is no chance of our being ready to sign the Accession Convention by the original due date and that the next stage will be our normal procedure for the ratification of treaties. Interposed in that may be an intervening stage which might be an opportunity for the Government to tidy up these documents between English and Scottish law.
  I hope that that does not mean a delay in the prosecution of the documents or in accession to the Convention. The fears and anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) should be allayed. These documents are not as far-reaching as he thinks. They are much more marginal, and they arise in logical terms from the Treaty of Accession and Sections 1 and 2 of the European Communities Act.
  The House of Lords, in its 45th Report at the end of July last year, gave a very good report, suitable for both Houses, on the need for these Conventions and the legal principle of effectiveness. In those terms the House can proceed, after proper discussion which we have not had tonight, to approve these documents.
  622
  It is a pity that even the terminology is wrong on this occasion. These are not conventional Commission documents as we know them. They may be remote to most people, rather obscure and not of much importance. But the absence of the documents, to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred, is disturbing to most hon. Members. Perhaps the Lord Advocate could answer that point.
  This has been an object lesson. On future occasion when convention accession or treaty accession documents come before the House, a much clearer procedure should be used by the Government in order to help the House to deal with these matters more sensibly and expeditiously.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is well known that these matters are dealt with under Standing Order No. 3 dealing with exempted business. That Standing Order, in lines 45 to 55, clearly states:
  "'Commission documents' means draft proposals by the European Economic Community for secondary legislation and other documents published by the Commission for submission to the Council of Ministers".
  It will be within the recollection of the House that in my speech I elicited that these documents are not Commission documents, and when the motion refers to "Commission documents" it is inaccurate. Therefore, I submit that both the motion and this debate are out of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Does the Lord Advocate agree with that?
  The Lord Advocate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must concede that these documents are in no sense Commission documents.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Since it appears that the documents before the House are not Commission documents within the meaning of Standing Order No. 3, I must withdraw the motion from the consideration of the House.
  Mr. Graham Page: On the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to be clear about the bombshell which has been sprung upon the House. We were all waiting for the wise words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

  623
  Southport (Mr. Percival) and for the Minister's reply. Are we not now to receive those comments?
  If that is so, may we have some statement from the Lord Advocate? He has thrown the bomb at us, so to speak, by saying that these documents are not what they were said to be on the Order Paper. When are we to debate these matters? Indeed, shall we have a chance to debate them at all? We do not want the documents to move to the next stage without the House having a chance to debate them and having the opportunity to be given a ministerial reply to the points which have been raised in the debate.
  Mr. Dykes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I heard correctly, the Lord Advocate said that the documents concerned were not Commission documents. Since there has been nothing said about the veracity of the matter, could we not continue for the concluding period?
  The Solicitor-General: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was to reply to the debate, and I assure the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that I was bursting to do so. However, if you rule that I have no right to reply because the matter is out of order, that will be the end of the matter. The unhappy consequence will be that the House will be deprived of an opportunity to discuss something that is to take place on 24th January.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As it is clear that this is not a matter covered by the Standing Orders, I have no power to allow the debate to continue. What the Lord President does about the matter afterwards is not for me.
  Mr. Graham Page: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion having been not exactly withdrawn but sabotaged, torpedoed and sunk by the Lord Advocate, surely he should explain what he intends to do. It seems to me that this debate must be finished or set down for discussion at a proper time. If it is not to be dealt with at this late hour, it must be dealt with at a more normal time in our proceedings I seek an undertaking from the Treasury Bench that we shall be given Government time to complete the debate.
  Mr. Percival: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I echo the words of the Solicitor-General? He said how anxious he was to reply. I was waiting to get up to give him some more material to reply to.
  One again, we face the unhappy prospect that we are now losing one-third even of the limited time that we are given to discuss Community documents. I hope we may have an assurance from the Government on this matter. I am sure that the Ministers who are present share our views on the seriousness of the matter that was under discussion. The matter must be discussed; there are no two ways about it. Obviously, because of the procedure of the House we cannot discuss the matter now but, although we understand the Minister's difficulties, we are determined to press for an assurance that time will be given to debate it. We hope that Ministers will do their utmost to ensure that time is given to complete the debate before any further step is taken in the Community itself.
  The Lord Advocate: I apologise to the House for the situation in which we find ourselves. The Committee on European Legislation recommended this procedure, but I must take responsibility, on behalf of the Government, for the procedure having gone wrong. Obviously I cannot give an undertaking about further time, but I have taken careful note of all the points that have been made and I shall certainly pass them on to the appropriate quarter.
  It appearing from the debate that the documents referred to in the motion were not Commission documents within the meaning of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withdrew the motion from the consideration of the House.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIBRARY)
  Motion made,
  That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SEAHAM HALL HOSPITAL
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  12.5 a.m.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a subject of considerable importance in my constituency. Happily, I am able to raise it earlier than would have been possible but for the perspicacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who got the previous debate terminated so quickly.
  The subject that I wish to discuss is the proposed closure of Seaham Hall Hospital in my constituency. For the benefit of the Minister who is to reply, it might be helpful if I gave a little of the history of this rather beautiful bilding.
  It has historic links with the Millbanke family of local fame and was bought by the third Marquis of Londonderry in 1821. While in the ownership of Sir Ralph Millbanke, it became more famous because of the marriage of his daughter to the poet Lord Byron. The building occupies a spacious site set in romantic Byron's Walk on a promontory overlooking the sea.
  The building was leased by the present owners to Durham County Council in 1927 for the purposes of establishing a sanatorium for tuberculosis sufferers and was an admirable choice for such a purpose. Latterly it has gained a considerable reputation for the excellence of the cardiothoracic service established there some years ago. This service occupied 49 of the 119 beds in the hospital. The service has recently been transferred to the new Freeman Road Hospital in Newcastle as part of the reorganisation of the regional hospital service.
  That decision culminated in anxious and intensive speculation about the future of Seaham Hall Hospital. The decision to plan a complete closure was taken by the regional health authority early in 1977 and immediately provoked considerable local opposition to the closure proposal. Crowded public meetings were held and these led to the formation of a local action committee and a massive volume of support from virtually all public and voluntary bodies in the town of Seaham as well as private individuals.
  626
  Easington District Council and Durham County Council supported the campaign to save the hospital. A petition was organised by the action committee and presented to Sunderland health authority. Presumably the same petition will go to the area health authority in time for its meeting next week and will eventually arrive on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It will contain at least 10,000 signatures supporting the retention of the hospital. Proposals from the Sunderland Area Health Authority giving specific reasons for the closure decision, supported by the Durham Area Health Authority, indicated that Seaham Hall would be closed after the transfer of the cardiothoracic surgical service to Newcastle and the transfer of the chest medicine service to Sunderland.
  The Sunderland Area Health Authority went on to say that the principal reasons for wanting to close the hospital were the transfer of the cardiothoracic surgery service to the Freeman Road Hospital, Newcastle, which would render Seaham Hall an uneconomic unit, the need to make savings to finance other Health Service developments, and the desire to integrate general and chest services. As the authority pointed out, Seaham Hall is an adapted building and neither Sunderland Area Health Authority nor Durham Area Health Authority has any plans to re-use it for hospital services. The further development has now taken place where the 49 cardiothoracic beds have been transferred to the Freeman Road Hospital.
  The proposals to transfer the cardiothoracic surgery and the chest unit from Seaham Hall were reluctantly accepted by the community health council, if only because those plans had been in being since 1975 and were really too far advanced for the council to make any impact on the decision. It is understandable that at that point the local campaign began to gain even greater impetus, if only because Seaham Hall has been an extremely valuable hospital, small though it is. A most glowing tribute was paid in an article in the local Sunderland Echo of 11th July 1977, in which it was stated:
  "That leaves the hospital's other speciality —chest medicine, which Sunderland Area Health Authority wants to relocate."

  627
  Relocation has since taken place. The article continued:
  "The installation in the 17th century building of one of the best-equipped operating theatres in Britain was reported in 1965 as 'playing an increasingly important role in heart and chest surgery'.
  The first heart operation was performed in 1960. An intensive-care unit was developed during the next five years. One milestone in the Hall's enviable medical record was the successful 1964 hole-in-the-heart operation on a 13-year old boy. Open-heart surgery later became a Seaham speciality.
  Closed-circuit TV and a monitor room for physicians and technicians to watch theatre work kept the hospital in the forefront of developments. A new laboratory catered for pathology services."
  From that article the real value that is placed on the hospital by the local people will be acknowledged. They are quite properly claiming that it is unique in another respect, in that for many years it has been regarded affectionately as a happy hospital. It is a family hospital where, to my knowledge, there have never been any real staff problems.
  The Sunderland Community Health Council, supported by the Durham Community Health Council, with the backing of the local action committee and acting strictly within the provisions of the statute, began the consultative procedures by presenting the closure document to a packed public meeting on 13th July 1977. There were 10 alternative proposals put forward for the continuing use of the hospital, some of which were selected by the joint community health councils. Those proposals were ultimately flatly rejected by the area health authority.
  At a further meeting on 24th October 1977 the Sunderland Community Health Council decided formally to oppose the closure. It proceeded to submit a counter proposal comprising three specific alternative uses that had public backing. First, it was proposed that there be provision for the younger chronic sick. Secondly, it was proposed that it be used for geriatric patients. Thirdly, it was proposed that it be used for convalescent patients.
  As for the first category of younger chronic sick, the suggestion was made that 25 to 30 beds could be retained and made available for the longer-stay younger chronic sick. From its researches, the community health council
  628
  was able to prove a quite substantial need in the Sunderland area for long-stay accommodation. It had established that in the middle of last year there were then known 30 or 40 patients who would have benefited from the provision of such accommodation.
  The CHC went on to say that during the past four years people requiring long-stay care have been sent from the locality to places as far distant as Liverpool and Hertfordshire, many miles removed from Seaham Harbour, to Cheshire Homes in Consett and to Matfen in Northumberland. The CHC believes that this is the most important area of need in Seaham at present.
  Additionally, the regional paraplegic unit at Hexham has experienced difficulty in returning patients to home areas, including Sunderland, while adaptations are carried out to their homes. The proposed unit would enable such patients to be within their own community and would facilitate visiting, and earlier rehabilitation might well follow. I understand that the ground floor area of the hospital is easily convertible for this particular use at what could be minimal expense.
  The Department of Health and Social Security document "Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services", as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recall, emphasised the need for provision for the younger disabled.
  Secondly, the allocation of 30 beds for geriatric patients would clearly help the Sunderland area to move closer to the Department's guidelines on provision of beds for the elderly. There has been some difficulty in accurately assessing the number of old people in the area. The probable figure for Sunderland and that part of the Easington district which falls within the administrative area of the Sunderland AHA is about 53,000 people over the age of 65. I am told that that is a minimum estimate.
  The Department's formula suggests 530 beds to service such a population of elderly people, whereas only 388 such beds are available in the Sunderland catchment area. It is estimated that there are 16,000 elderly people in the Seaham community alone. I understand that 400 of these people, on average, are hospitalised in Sunderland each year. In those

  629
  circumstances, there is clearly a heavy strain on apparently inadequate resources.
  Increasing longevity, too, as my hon. Friend will appreciate compounds problems such as these. The example that I would cite is the large number of people who are over 75 years of age. This age group alone will increase by over 20 per cent. in the next 10 years. Clearly, this is another area of somewhat high priority.
  In category three the CHC recommends that 10 convalescent beds should be made available at this hospital for patients requiring a rest following hospitalisation. The need is highlighted by problems surrounding Silloth Hall in Cumbria, which has been a receiving hospital for this kind of patient. Its future is uncertain. I am told that the hospital operates on a year-to-year basis. In the last full year of its operation, 290 patients were sent from the Sunderland area to Silloth Hall. Again, it is important to have people convalescing nearer home. Admissions to Silloth Hall are becoming increasingly difficult. My information is that in May 1977 there were 80 women on the waiting list. It is quite possible that some of those women are still waiting for places in the hospital.
  It is the expressed opinion of social workers, general practitioners and consultants that the need is well above the current usage of convalescent beds in Sunderland of three to four patients per week. In those three categories the community health council proposal is for a maximum of 70 beds against the 119 that the hospital carries. The proposals have been rejected by the Sunderland Area Health Authority and have now been submitted to the regional health authority for final decision.
  We must have some regard to costing. I understand that about £760,000 was required to run the hospital in the fiscal year which ended in March 1977. The withdrawal of cardiothoracic services would leave an estimated £400,000 budget for the continued use of Seaham Hall, on the projections by the community health council. On the basis of regional averages and available financial information, the community health council estimated that the three-point counter proposal would cost £290,000 a year.
  630
  It is reasonable to assume that that calculation does not take account of inflation since the figures were compiled, nor, I imagine, does it take account of the cost of the minor structural works that would be required to adapt the building for the proposed re-use, but this would be a non-recurring cost. It is equally reasonable to assume that the balance can be equated with estimated annual running costs.
  Employment is an important factor here, even though the hospital is relatively small. It is even more important when we consider the very high unemployment rates in my constituency and in this part of it. A total of 202 staff were employed in the hospital when it worked at full capacity, and 60 per cent. were part-time workers. There is the possibility of some difficulty in redeploying those part-time workers in the Sunderland area. The 202 are the equivalent of a full-time complement of 160 staff.
  The counter proposal from the community health council requires only 100 full-time staff. The retention of those 100 jobs at Seaham would be quite a stimulus to employment in Sunderland, as it would also require the recruitment of additional staff to man the new Sunderland General Hospital.
  My constituents have given an emphatic "No" to the proposed closure. Here we have a fine building which has given wonderful service over a fairly long period. It is ideally sited for hospital purposes, despite being in a mining area There are three pits within virtually a stone's throw of the hospital. Closure must be a paradox in view of the high incidence of accidents and the dreaded industrial diseases to which all coal miners are highly vulnerable.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will therefore appreciate that local feeling runs high, not least over the madness of Health Service reorganisation, carried out by the Conservative Government, which places Seaham Hall Hospital firmly in the area of the Durham Area Health Authority yet within the administrative jurisdiction of the Sunderland Area Health Authority. If my hon. Friend does not understand the geography, he will have difficulty in acquainting himself with those facts. That reorganisation also cuts across equally

  631
  controversial and ridiculous local government boundaries, also determined by the Conservative Government.
  The regional hospital authority's decision is anxiously awaited not only by my constituents but by me. I appeal to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to examine carefully the case for retention, as proposed by the Sunderland Community Health Council. In the event of an adverse decision, I should hope to be able to persuade my right hon. Friend to receive a deputation from the locality. I should take great pleasure in leading it.
  12.25 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) for giving me the opportunity to speak about the future of Seaham Hall Hospital. I know this is causing a good deal of concern both to his constituents and to the people of Sea-ham and the surrounding area, and my hon. Friend enforced it in what he said. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already aware of this local feeling as he has received a number of representations from local groups including the Sunderland Community Health Council, about the proposed closure of this hospital.
  The Sunderland Area Health Authority has only recently referred its proposal to close Seaham Hall Hospital to the Northern Regional Health Authority, and I understand that the RHA is to consider the matter at its next meeting on 24th January. I must emphasise, therefore, that nothing I say today should be construed as prejudging the issue in the case of Seaham Hall Hospital and, in this context, I think it might be helpful if I described the procedures for the closure or change of use of any National Health Service building.
  Following the reorganisation of the NHS in 1974 and the introduction of new planning procedures, the procedures for the closure or change of use of health buildings were reviewed and my Department issued revised guidance in 1975. The aim of the new procedures is to enable scarce resources to be redeployed with the maximum speed and simplicity consistent with adequate local and, where
  632
  necessary, national consultation. The rightness of this approach seems especially relevant at a time of economic restraint, when it is absolutely essential that no unnecessary barriers should stand in the way of the cost-effective use of resources.
  In general, responsibility for determining the closure or change of use of health buildings rests with the appropriate area health authority, which in the case of the Seaham Hall Hospital is the Sunderland Area Health Authority, provided that the community health council is in agreement. Where there is general local agreement, it should be possible to effect a closure or change of use within a period of six months.
  Having said that responsibility rests with the area health authority, I should like to say a little about the role of this statutory body. It is there to direct and lead the officers who serve the authority to create and improve services for the management of the local health service and, perhaps most importantly, to oversee the standard of services provided both in terms of quality and quantity. Lest some hon. Members feel that an area health authority must in consequence be out of touch with the day-to-day running of services in its area, district, and hospitals. I would add that, thanks to this Government's actions in bringing about within two years of taking office a greater degree of democracy in the National Health Service than we inherited under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, the people who sit on health authorities are very much attuned to the feelings and aspirations of their community.
  If, having discussed informally a particular closure or change of use with the interested organisations, an area health authority considered that such a measure would be beneficial, it would have to initiate formal consultations. In this event, the procedures require the authority to prepare a consultative document covering such matters as the reasons for its proposal, an evaluation of the possibilities of using the facilities for other purposes or the disposal of the site, implications for the staff, the relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments and plans, and the transport facilities for those patients who might be affected by the proposals. The

  633
  area health authority would invite comments on the proposals contained in the document, within a period of three months, from such bodies as the community health councils, local authorities, staff organisations, family practitioner committees and local advisory committees, including the local medical committees. Hon. Members whose constituents were affected would also be informed of the proposals.
  Following this stage of consultation, the authority then reviews its original proposals in the light of the comments received, and it could then implement its original proposals provided that the community health council agreed. The regional health authority and my Department would be informed of the decision.
  However, if the community health council objects to the authority's proposals, it is required to submit to the authority a constructive and detailed counter proposal, paying full regard to the factors, including restraints on resources, which led the authority to make its original proposal. The matter must then be referred to the regional health authority. If the regional health authority is unable to accept the views of the council and wishes to proceed with the closure or change of use, it falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to act as arbiter. I must repeat, therefore, that nothing I say now should be construed as prejudging the issue, on which the consultative procedures I have described are still in progress.
  Having outlined the consultative procedures generally, I should like to say a few words about the particular proposals contained in the Sunderland Area Health Authority's consultative document on the future of Seaham Hall Hospital. I should perhaps stress first of all that Sunderland Community Health Council does not object to the AHA's proposals for the transfer of beds from Seaham Hall, but only to the proposal that the building should no longer be used for health services purposes. Having heard from my hon. Friend about the history of the building, I well understand local feeling about it. I should also stress that it is the area health authority's belief that its plans, which essentially involve the rationalisation of under-used
  634
  beds, will enable the authority to provide a more economic and efficient pattern of health care to the population it serves.
  In May last year Sunderland Area Health Authority issued its consultative document on the future of Seaham Hall Hospital which at that time provided part of the regional cardiothoracic service having 42 surgical beds, as well as 72 beds for chest medicine. The consultative document referred to two developments affecting the future of Seaham Hall which had been outlined in the regional strategic plan for the period 1976–86 published in March 1977. One development to which agreement had already been given in 1975 following consultation by Newcastle Area Health Authority (Teaching) was the transfer of the cardiothoracic service from Seaham Hall Hospital to the new regional cardiothoracic unit being built at Freeman Road District General Hospital, Newcastle. The second development was the building of Scheme I of Phase IV of the Sunderland District General Hospital to which I have already referred.
  As a result of this development Sunderland AHA carried out a general review both of its existing hospital beds and future bed needs to see what service rationalisation might be achieved. One proposal was that the chest medicine beds at Seaham Hall Hospital could be absorbed into the existing pool of Ryhope General and Sunderland Royal Infirmary general medical beds which were and are currently under-used. The area health authority's view was that the implementation of these proposals would achieve both financial savings and the greater integration of the area's chest medicine and general medicine services.
  As I have already said, agreement had already been given to the transfer of the cardiothoracic service from Seaham Hall to the new unit at Freeman Road Hospital and, as my hon. Friend is aware, the move took place last month. As the consultative document on the future of Seaham Hall explains, the area health authority's view is that the loss of the cardiothoracic service makes the hospital uneconomic. This is why the area health authority has proposed, first, that the chest medicine beds should be absorbed into the Ryhope General and Sunderland Royal Hospitals on completion of the

  635
  pulmonary function laboratory, the bronchoscopy room and ward upgrading scheme, which are all currently being built at Ryhope General; and, secondly, that the buildings at Seaham Hall should no longer be used for any other Health Service purpose.
  These plans have been made public by Sunderland Area Health Authority and I understand that a number of local organisations have commented. In particular—and again I wish to stress this point—the Sunderland Community Health Council, acting jointly with Durham CHC, has not objected to the proposed transfer of beds. What it does object to is the proposal to relinquish the use of Seaham Hall for Health Service purposes and it has made the following counter proposals. First, that the 42 cardiothoracic beds be re-used for the provision of between 25 and 30 long-stay beds for younger disabled patients. Secondly, that the 77 chest medicine beds be re-used for about 30 geriatric beds and 10 convalescent beds. I have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said in support of these proposals.
  I am told that the community health council's objections to the proposed closure of Seaham Hall and its counter proposals were carefully considered by the area health authority at its November and December meetings. As a result it was decided to reaffirm the principle of the authority's proposals and the matter has
  636
  therefore been referred to the Northern Regional Health Authority.
  I understand that the RHA will discuss both the proposals and the community health council's objections and counter proposals at its meeting later this month and it would certainly not be proper for me to comment further at this stage. I certainly cannot say what the regional health authority's decision will be; nor, if the matter is referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, can I anticipate his decision. All I can do at this juncture is to assure my hon. Friend that the RHA and my hon. Friend the Secretary of State—if he is asked to adjudicate—will consider all the evidence with the greatest care.
  Our aim is to ensure that consultation is a meaningful process, that each case is decided on its merits in the light of prevailing local circumstances, and that full account is taken of the views of the community health councils whose duty is to represent the interests of the general public. In this way we may anticipate that the National Health Service will respond objectively to changing needs and changing ideas and that the most efficient use will be made of available resources for the benefit of the population as a whole.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAY)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAY)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Energy Conservation (Cavity Walls)
  Energy Conservation (Cavity Walls)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Ministerial Travel
  Ministerial Travel
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Sex Discrimination Act
  Sex Discrimination Act
  Terrorist Offences
  Terrorist Offences
  Firemen (Casualties)
  Firemen (Casualties)
  Amusement-with-prizes machines
  Amusement-with-prizes machines
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Extradited Offenders (Commonwealth Countries)
  Extradited Offenders (Commonwealth Countries)
  Rhodesian Immigrants
  Rhodesian Immigrants
  Borstal Trainees
  Borstal Trainees
TRADE
  Companies Legislation
  Companies Legislation
  Imports (Restriction)
  Imports (Restriction)
  European Community (Common Fund)
  European Community (Common Fund)
  Hong Kong and Japan
  Hong Kong and Japan
  Airlines (Route Charges)
  Airlines (Route Charges)
  Newcastle Airport
  Newcastle Airport
INDUSTRY
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
  Miss Anne Edwards
  Miss Anne Edwards
  Plasterboard
  Plasterboard
  Credit Transactions
  Credit Transactions
  Mozambique (Beira Town Sites Company)
  Mozambique (Beira Town Sites Company)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zimbabwean Students
  Zimbabwean Students
  LEGAL COSTS
  LEGAL COSTS
  PUBLIC RECORDS
  PUBLIC RECORDS
  RACE RELATIONS
  RACE RELATIONS
  PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1936
  PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1936
DEFENCE
  Army and Air Force (Germany)
  Army and Air Force (Germany)
WALES
  Meat Production
  Meat Production
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Grain (Animal Feed)
  Grain (Animal Feed)
  Unification Church
  Unification Church
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Scotch Whisky
  Scotch Whisky
  Waste Recycling
  Waste Recycling
  Grain Consumption
  Grain Consumption
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
  Beer
  Beer
  Tea
  Tea
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Council of Ministers (Fisheries)
  Council of Ministers (Fisheries)
  Grain Imports
  Grain Imports
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Egypt
  Egypt
  Belize (Mexican Claim)
  Belize (Mexican Claim)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  United States of America (Visas)
  United States of America (Visas)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Savings
  Savings
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
TRANSPORT
  A47 (Acle Bypass)
  A47 (Acle Bypass)
  London Outer Orbital Route
  London Outer Orbital Route
  M1 (Widening)
  M1 (Widening)
  M25
  M25
  Highway Inquiries
  Highway Inquiries
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Liverpool-Preston Road
  Liverpool-Preston Road
  Driving Tests (Glasgow)
  Driving Tests (Glasgow)
  M1 (London End)
  M1 (London End)
  Westminster and Tower Bridges
  Westminster and Tower Bridges
  Derby-Mansfield (Route Number)
  Derby-Mansfield (Route Number)
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Motorways (Salting)
  Motorways (Salting)
  North Shields Port
  North Shields Port
  M40
  M40
ENVIRONMENT
  Bury St. Edmunds (Norman Tower)
  Bury St. Edmunds (Norman Tower)
  Derelict Land (Walsall)
  Derelict Land (Walsall)
  Energy Conservation (Cavity Walls)
  Energy Conservation (Cavity Walls)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Rating Relief (Disabled Persons)
  Rating Relief (Disabled Persons)
SCOTLAND
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Herring Fishing
  Herring Fishing
  Barlinnie Prison
  Barlinnie Prison
  Thornton Bypass
  Thornton Bypass
  Westray
  Westray
  Health Authorities (Finance)
  Health Authorities (Finance)
  Fort William—Mallaig Road
  Fort William—Mallaig Road
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Foreign Affairs Council Meeting
  Foreign Affairs Council Meeting
EMPLOYMENT
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Dismissal
  Dismissal
  Enterprise Workshops
  Enterprise Workshops
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Blaby
  Blaby
  Otis Elevator Company Ltd.
  Otis Elevator Company Ltd.
  Home Workers
  Home Workers
  Artificial Insemination
  Artificial Insemination
  Wages Regulations (Infringements)
  Wages Regulations (Infringements)
  Wages Councils (Inspectors)
  Wages Councils (Inspectors)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Mrs. June Wyatt (Supplementary Benefit)
  Mrs. June Wyatt (Supplementary Benefit)
  Radiation and Cancer
  Radiation and Cancer
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Burns Treatment (North-East Thames Region)
  Burns Treatment (North-East Thames Region)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Civil Servants (Protest)
  Civil Servants (Protest)
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
The Lord Moran—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

HOUSE-OWNERS: INSULATION INCENTIVES
2.38 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can elaborate on their recent energy conservation policy Statement and announce proposals by way of grant or tax remission for encouraging house-owners to bring their dwellings up to an acceptable standard of insulation.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Energy stressed in his Statement that the energy conservation programme is a continuing one. The "Save It" campaign is designed to bring home to house owners that there are strong incentives in the form of lower fuel bills to encourage them to insulate their homes themselves.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, I should like to ask him whether he can assure the House that the Government are really serious in this matter. For example, why did the first paper for the Energy Commission dismiss the whole subject of conservation in 10 lines out of about 40,000 words, or in two paragraphs out of 236? Would not the noble Lord agree that it does not ring very true?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we are already providing a valuable service through the "Save It" campaign and we are looking at further measures which could be taken to increase the number of insulated houses. With regard to the more general question, we estimate that our present policies have contributed to energy savings estimated approximately to be worth £2,000 million over the last four years.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that to seek to insulate houses in the public sector without making available a corresponding sum for houses in the private sector implies a contradiction and a lack of conviction about the merits of the policy itself?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have an open mind about this, and there is, of course, the question of cost. If we were to help the private sector in the same way as we are helping the public sector, it would cost about £60 million a year. If that is the policy put forward by the Opposition, they should say how they equate it with their wish to reduce public expenditure.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the point is really one of timing, because from this Bench we welcomed the Statement involving the public sector, which had been awaited for some time. But, in the private sector, will the Government take a decision and announce it soon? Otherwise there is a danger that householders will delay doing anything about insulation because they will think that there will be grants or some other form of assistance coming in some future scheme.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, our present policy in regard to private house-holders is to provide information on the costs of insulation and the financial savings that can be obtained. We have estimated that for an expenditure of £50 on insulation there would be a saving of £20 a year, so it should pay for itself within two years and, after that, would reduce the bills by that amount.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLIS: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an undertaking that spending money on insulation

95
will not mean that the rateable value and the rates payable will be increased, such as happened when people in smokeless zones put in central heating, only to find that they had to pay higher rates?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I would not think that was related at all.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, might it not be worth while to consider at any rate using part of the revenues from North Sea oil with a view to the future conservation of energy when North Sea oil runs out?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is a very different question. As the noble Lord knows, our depletion policy is under review, but at least we shall be able to control that, which would not have been the case with a Conservative Government.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, if somebody takes a sensible measure to save himself money, why on earth should he have a tax remission for doing so?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as I said, with this expenditure the private householder will be able to save a considerable amount of money on his fuel bills and so recoup the initial cost of the insulation.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the same argument applies to tenants of houses in the public sector and that they are being cushioned in this fantastic way?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend not think it is a great pity that this fuel-saving policy was not introduced by the Conservative Government?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I think it is one of many things which it is a pity were not introduced by the Conservative Government.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that I piloted through this House on behalf of a Member of another place a Bill for this very purpose but in regard to commercial buildings?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, that was during the Macmillan period—a Prime Minister I very much admired.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, would not the Government consider encouraging the wearing of more clothes, thus avoiding the need for this expensive process of insulating houses and at the same time helping our sheep farmers and our clothing industry?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that is a very interesting suggestion which I will pass on and I will ensure that it includes the wearing of decorative waistcoats.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think noble Lords have had a good run on this Question. And if you wear more clothes, all the better.

CHILD TAX ALLOWANCES
2.44 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration will be given to the position of parents who, under Section 25(2)(d) of the Finance Act 1977, will be denied tax allowances for children resident in new Commonwealth countries.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, may I apologise in advance for the length of the Answer I am about to give, but I judge it to be necessary because of the complications of the Question. Section 25(2)(d) of the Finance Act 1977 does not deny tax allowances for children resident in new Commonwealth countries. Child tax allowances are being replaced by child benefit payments and are being reduced by stages. Apart from residual allowances for older children, child tax allowances will be withdrawn altogether in April 1979. But Section 25 provides that the parents of certain children living outside the United Kingdom (including children living in new Commonwealth countries) are entitled to claim for

97
1977–78 tax allowances at the same rate as for 1976–77; and subsection (2)(d) merely excludes from such entitlement persons such as civil servants and members of the Armed Forces who are working temporarily abroad but who are eligible for child benefit. The special transitional relief afforded by Section 25 applies for 1977–78 only and it was announced last March, after careful consideration, that the Government did not think it would be justifiable to extend these special arrangements into later years.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I am not sure that I followed all that complicated Answer, the Minister was courteous enough to communicate with me in advance. May I ask him this. Is it not the case that, from next April, the advantages will be limited to residents who have dependants living in richer nations—Europe; the old Commonwealth, Australia, Canada and New Zealand; and Israel—and will be denied to residents who have children in the poorer countries of Africa and Asia? And if this is the case, is it not a denial of the Government's White Paper and the policy that priority of assistance should be given to the poorer countries?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, as I sought to indicate in the long Answer I gave, child tax allowances are to be phased out altogether. The payment of social benefits is a different matter. It never has been the tradition that social benefits intended for children in Great Britain should be paid to children who have never been in this country, living in countries with which we do not have reciprocal arrangements. We do have reciprocal arrangements with some of the richer countries and that is why social benefits fall to be paid in those cases.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if parents are seeking to bring their children from, say, the Indian sub-Continent to join them in the United Kingdom, and ultimately they are successful in doing so, those parents in the end would qualify for child benefit, would they not? So is not the Government's policy in maintaining these lengthy queues, particularly in Dacca and Islamabad, tantamount to denying the parents the financial support they would receive if, in accordance with declared Government policy, families were reunited in this country?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the length of the queue of dependants was one of the important factors taken into account when the Government allowed special and additional relief for the year 1977–78. The queue never exceeds two years, and it has fallen recently to a maximum of 18 months.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I appreciate that this is a very difficult problem, may I ask the Minister whether he will approach the Ministry for Overseas Development before next April to reconsider this decision, because will it not in effect mean that residents with children in poorer countries will suffer compared to residents with children in the richer countries?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, this decision was taken after the most careful consideration, and it would be misleading the House if I were to say that it is likely to be reviewed.

IMMIGRATION RULES: WORK AND RESIDENCE
2.49 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: 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—

(a) whether the wife of an overseas national, whose husband is the holder of a work permit and is in whole-time employment in this country, is normally free to reside in this country and to accept employment here; and

(b) whether the husband of an overseas national, whose wife is the holder of a work permit and is in whole-time employment in this country, is normally free to reside in this country and to accept employment here;

and if not why not.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Immigration Rules for Control on Entry provide for the admission of the wife of a work permit holder provided that he is able and willing to support and accommodate her without recourse to

99
public funds and that she has a current entry clearance granted for the purpose. Such a wife is normally allowed to stay here for the duration of her husband's stay and is not subject to any restrictions on accepting employment.
The Immigration Rules do not, however, provide for the admission of husbands of work permit holders, although my right honourable friend is prepared to consider making an exception in special cases where the woman is to be employed here for at least 12 months. Generally speaking, a husband must qualify for entry in his own right, because it is essential, especially in these days of high unemployment, to maintain a strict control over the entry of persons likely to take employment to the displacement of resident labour.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for that reply, I should like to ask him two further questions. First, does he not consider that the disparity between the treatment of husbands and wives in this matter is contrary to the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act? Secondly, if I were to give him particulars of a case where a United States citizen whose wife is in employment as a teacher in this country with a work permit, is himself prevented from accepting employment available to him in this country, because he is refused a work permit which—if I understand correctly the terms of the Ministry of Employment circular—he does not anyway need, would the noble Lord be kind enough to look into the matter with a view to setting it right?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Immigration Rules are not subject to the Sex Discrimination Act since the Immigration Act of 1971 ante-dates that Act. As regards the second point made by the noble Lord, I should be very glad to consider the matter and to have it looked into. If the noble Lord has the circular to which he referred I should like to have it so that we can look at its wording. The only other point that I should make as regards that matter is that, since 1973, there has been a concession under which a Commonwealth husband has been allowed to join his
100
Commonwealth wife who has been, or is being, admitted for the purpose of employment. However, it does not follow that he is entitled to take employment. This is a matter for the Department of Employment to determine. As I pointed out in my first reply, this is done to protect the resident labour within the United Kingdom.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, think that it is quite wrong in principle, notwithstanding the fact that the Sex Discrimination Act was passed after these rules were framed, to continue to allow certain rules to incorporate an element of sex discrimination? Will he not, therefore, urge his right honourable friend to bring the rules into line with the principles in the Sex Discrimination Act?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that I ought not to express an opinion, but had better draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has just said.

THE TRURO ROOM
2.53 p.m.
Lord MAELOR: 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 the Chairman of Committees why the Truro silent room in the Library has been converted into a non-smoking room.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the Library Sub-Committee at its meeting on 16th November decided that the chairs lost to non-smoking Peers in the Queen's Room on its conversion into a reference room should be replaced by converting the Truro Room into a non-smoking room.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees for his reply, which I regard as most unsatisfactory. As has been pointed out, before the rule was introduced, we already had a silent and

101
non-smoking room. As a result of converting this room into a similar type of room, it has now become an office. How silly we must look in this room because of the rule. We are all looking at one another, nodding, just like silent monks, or, perhaps I should say, like silent monkeys. I enjoy my smoke. In three weeks' time I shall be 80 years of age.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg my noble friend to ask a direct question.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in three weeks' time I shall be 80 years of age and that I have been smoking for 70 years? Now may I inform the House that, apart from the time when the noble Lord, Lord Platt, will be in that room—I respect his sincere views—I shall continue to smoke there. No one will be able to stop me, because if anyone speaks I shall say, "This is a silent room".
Lord PEART: My Lords, order! I must ask my noble friend to respect the courtesies of the House.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not sure what question I am answering. I assure the noble Lord that I have always associated him with smoking, but never so much with silence.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, if the noble Lord has the power—I am not sure whether he has such a power—would he extend this prohibition to the telephone boxes and telephone booths within the precincts of the House? Is he aware that there is nothing more repellent to a nonsmoker than to pick up a telephone which someone has been using while smoking at the same time?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords I shall certainly take note of that interesting suggestion.

VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS: WOLFENDEN REPORT
2.57 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG rose to call attention to the Wolfenden Report on the future of voluntary organisations; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My
102
Lords, barely two months have elapsed since the publication of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, on the future of voluntary organisations. However, I make no apology for introducing the debate upon it today. The report is of immediate interest to thousands of people engaged in voluntary organisations, and I welcome it because it provides a platform for the discussion of the positive role of voluntary organisations in our society and seeks to establish them as equal partners with the statutory social services, thus giving to the consumer an element of choice.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, should be speaking today and that there should be two maiden speakers. We shall look forward very much to hearing from the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, who I believe has done a great deal of work for the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled, and also from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. The report is also of great interest to my own political Party and is being studied by my honourable friend in another place, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, who has done so much valuable work with voluntary organisations. It is more than appropriate that this debate takes place almost exactly 10 years after the publication of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, on the reorganisation of the personal social services. If I may, I shall quote just one sentence from that report. It says:
"the mobilisation of community resources, especially volunteers, to meet need are as important aspects of the administration of the social services department—and demand as much skill—as its internal management".
The subject of voluntary organisations is large, diverse and detailed. In 1970 there were 76,000 charities registered with the Charity Commission and that number had grown to 123,000 by 1976. Of those registered in 1970 only 3 per cent. had an annual income of more than £10,000. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his Committee found that each year about 5 million people undertake voluntary work of some sort, doing approximately 16 million hours of work a week. Encouragingly, the proportion of people aged between 16 and 24 is now as high as that in the older age groups. Indeed, if we look at just some of the modern problems that confront us this

103
very year we see what a tremendous contribution voluntary organisations make. For example, the Salvation Army provides over 6,000 beds in over 40 hostels for men in Britain and is the largest provider of accommodation for the single homeless in this country. A third of the 12,000 job creation projects approved by the Manpower Services Commission originated from voluntary organisations. Over 60 per cent. of the Meals-on-Wheels in this country are served by the WRVS. So on three major social problems—the homeless, the unemployed and the elderly—a major contribution is currently being made by voluntary organisations.
I should like to say—particularly in view of the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro is speaking—that yesterday when I was in Cornwall I saw one of the best examples of the co-operation between the statutory services and the voluntary organisations in a day centre developed in Newquay; the money for that centre has been raised by voluntary organisations and it is now being run by the statutory services. It sets an excellent example that many could follow.
Not surprisingly the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his Committee limited their deliberations to the personal social services and some environmental services. Nor did they trespass on ground already covered by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on Charities or on the Ayes Report on Volunteers. None the less, I am sure that this report will come to be regarded as a text book for those who want to know the part voluntary organisations play in society today.
In particular Chapter 3 sets out the principles governing the work of voluntary organisations and their relationship with the statutory services. I am sure that it must gladden the heart of anyone involved in voluntary organisations to read the first conclusion on page 59 of the report, which says:
"Whether measured by man-hours or by expenditure, in the fields with which we are concerned the voluntary sector is much smaller than the statutory, except in the personal social services where, taking the efforts of voluntary and paid workers together, the input of the voluntary sector is the greater".
Equally important I believe is the philosophical principle of pluralism, which is clearly stated at the end of Chapter 2.
104
At a time when many people believe that many institutions are too large and too remote, the voluntary system enables thousands to participate usefully in organisations of a size which they can understand, to become a real part of the decision making process, and thus to be a part of a real devolution of power to the people.
In stating these principles the report makes it clear that voluntary organisations are an essential part of our national life; not something to be used in bad economic times as a cheap form of labour; but something of equal value all the time. I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has to say when he winds up this debate. It is important to know whether the Government will take up the challenge of the Wolfenden Report, take the initiative and work out what is described in the last chapter as
"a collaborative social plan which will make the optimum and maximum use of our resources".
Again on page 74 there is the important sentence:
"What we are proposing is the development of a new long-term strategy, by a new examination of the potential contributions of the statutory, voluntary and informal sectors, and their inter-relationship".
I very much hope that we shall hear how the Government intend to act upon that.
If I have a criticism—and, after all, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, will recognise that this is very much a debate among friends—it is that the report does not make enough definite proposals for the future. The last chapter, entitled "Final Reflections", suggests that. I can well understand that the Committee would not want to lay down a detailed blueprint for so many highly individual organisations, and indeed could well have been resented if it had. But surely a summary of some of the general conclusions and recommendations would have been helpful.
Perhaps I could give two examples of that. Much of Chapter 4 is devoted to the rôle of the Voluntary Services Unit, at present in the Home Office; and the Government evidence, which is most interesting, is set out fully in Appendix 4. The Voluntary Services Unit fulfils many useful functions but may broadly be said

105
to be the focal point for all the Government interests in voluntary organisations, which include three Departments of State as well as the Home Office—that is, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science.
The question to be asked is whether or not the Home Office is the right place for the Voluntary Services Unit, or whether the Voluntary Services Unit ought perhaps to go back to the Civil Service Department where it could be argued that there might be a Minister who would not have a particular departmental commitment to any one of the voluntary organisations. Furthermore, if voluntary organisations are to have an equal voice with the statutory services, again it is arguable that someone of Cabinet rank should speak for them. May I say at once that in saying that I mean no reflection at all upon the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. But tucked away on page 72 I think that the report says this:
"It therefore seems to us that a Minister with no departmental interests would be in the best position to suggest an appropriate allocation of responsibility without being accused of undue bias, and that to have sufficient authority to press his suggestions he must be of Cabinet rank".
If that is the belief of the Committee—and I think it is—why not say so in a summary of recommendations? I very much hope that this is a matter which will receive serious consideration from the Government. It is one that is of importance and it is one that has the support of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who devotes some part of his book to it.
Again, tucked away on page 183, the report says:
"The voluntary sector lacks the wealth of statistics that measure the activities of the statutory sector".
This is one of those splendid understatements that make those of us who struggle to understand the world of voluntary organisation, particularly of finance, feel rather like that wonderful poem about Matilda that:
"One should gasp and stretch one's eyes".
However, in Appendix 6E various ways are suggested by which the collection of data and statistics could well be improved. Why not, after all, include
106
questions about voluntary organisations and voluntary giving in the general household survey or in the next Census? If that is right, why not recommend it firmly and take up the other suggestions that are made?
That brings me to the whole question of finance. If the pluralistic society is to survive—which means it is essential that the independent sector remains independent—it must have its own source of money. If voluntary organisations entirely accept State finance, then they will be obliged to follow the fashion, and I believe will lose many of their present valuable functions and characteristics.
The report sets out in Chapter 9, and in very considerable and interesting detail in Appendices 6A—D, many important figures about the financing of voluntary organisations. The Committee estimate that the total income in 1975 was £1,000 million. One appreciates the difficulties that they have had in arriving at that particular calculation. There are questions that I should like to ask about it, but I do not think that this is the occasion on which to do so. But if one accepts that as their figure, about a half came from donations from individuals, companies and trusts; the remainder from charges, rent, investment and Government grant. The report makes clear that the voluntary income declines slightly between 1974–75, which is not altogether surprising, and concurrently the grants from the Government increased. What is disappointing is the conclusion at the end of Chapter 9 that in the future there will have to be greater reliance on Government funding and that we cannot expect a great increase from the voluntary side. I hope that that is not so.
The report of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made a number of recommendations on how private funding to charities might be increased. I am not at all sure on looking at those that I agree with the conclusions, drawn from those proposals, reached by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his Committee. His report does not consider at all whether private donations would be increased by allowing tax rebates in the higher tax brackets than rather simply at the basic rate. Yet more giving by companies and corporations ought surely to be encouraged.
Perhaps I might add in parenthesis the importance of the new "Motability" Scheme—a scheme devised largely by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and financed by private corporations—which will help disabled drivers to lease cars and, therefore, to be in a much better position than they would be if they were entirely dependent upon the disabled person's allowance. This indicates one way in which private giving can supplement the statutory provision for the disabled. I think it is a pattern that could well be copied.
There were many other proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, among which was that suggestion of reducing the seven year covenant period to four years. I recognise that there are arguments both for and against this proposal, but not to consider it and not to suggest that this is something which could encourage more voluntary giving is a policy of defeat which for one, would not accept. Perhaps I am being unfair, but it is such an important proposal and it seems to me to require further consideration.
There are many other points I should like to make, but I want to leave time this afternoon for the many distinguished speakers who wish to follow me. I wish that the report could have said something more about self-help groups, about the whole important world of community relations councils and all they do, and about the vast informal care network. I am one of those who is enormously interested in family policy, and I think it no exaggeration for the family rightly to be called the biggest voluntary organisation of all. Recently published figures show that even now the proportion of the elderly cared for by their families is greater than before the First World War, when so many of the old were in fact in Poor Law institutions. These figures, taken together with those in the report of the noble Lord, must give us all encouragement about the strength of our society and of the individuals within it.
I do not want to conclude on anything other than an optimistic note. This report must be the starting place for the consideration of voluntary organisations over the next 25 years. Not only do I hope that the Government will follow up the proposals
108
to which I have already referred but I hope to see further development of the important proposal for local intermediary bodies, their suggested functions of development, the co-ordinating of fund raising and the partnership with local authorities, which are invaluable suggestions. I believe that they need a lot of detailed work, which I hope will be taking place now, with the local authority associations to see how they can best be worked out. Furthermore, I hope that forthwith a look will be taken at the training courses for administration and for professional social workers so that all courses will include something about voluntary organisations and making the best use of volunteers, so that we may get this proper partnership between the statutory services and the voluntary organisations.
Let us use this debate today as a starting point. The report indicates so many lines on which we should be going, and I hope that many constructive ideas will follow today. The future of the voluntary organisations is a matter of importance not only for the individuals who take part in them, for the large number of consumers who benefit, but for the good of the country as a whole. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.13 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for providing us with the opportunity to debate this report so soon after its publication, and also for opening this debate with so comprehensive and interesting a speech. We should be grateful also to the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust and the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust who commissioned the report in the first place. As the noble Baroness said, we shall look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, later in the debate, and also to hearing the two maiden speakers.
I read the report with great interest. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his colleagues have provided us with a comprehensive guide to the functioning of voluntary organisations in the area of the personal social services and the environment and that, in itself, is useful. The interaction of the statutory and

109
voluntary sectors is carefully examined and the report provides a most valuable commentary on it. It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested perhaps rather short on proposals for the future, and somewhat tentative about those it does make, and this has perhaps caused a little disappointment in some circles. But I imagine all will agree with the report when it speaks of the vital contribution which the voluntary organisations are making to the pluralistic system of social provision.
The report finds the voluntary sector in a healthy condition, and that is encouraging, and I am glad that it stresses the importance of the voluntary sector retaining its independence and its spontaneity. The fullest co-operation between the statutory and voluntary sectors is clearly desirable, and the report lays stress on the important role of intermediary bodies at national level and local level—intermediary bodies of both a general and a specialist nature. Of course voluntary organisations deal direct with Government Departments and with local authorities, but intermediary bodies have an important function of co-ordination, representation, support and development to perform. The report emphasises the role of councils of voluntary service and rural community councils, particularly in identifying unmet needs and areas for new development. There is sometimes a danger that these bodies may become a trifle remote from the grass roots, and this has to he guarded against.
I support the suggestion in the report that there should be some central funding for intermediary bodies in urban areas, principally councils of voluntary service, on the lines of that provided for rural community councils in England by the development commission. I am less sure about the suggestion that the standing conferences of the councils of voluntary service and the rural community councils should no longer be serviced by the community work division of the National Council of Social Service. Another, and separate, entity at national level seems to be unnecessary fragmentation and there does seem to be a logical link between the standing conferences and the national council.
110
The report raises the question of where the boundary between the statutory and the voluntary sectors should lie. It clearly expects that the dominant position occupied by the statutory sector will continue, but it asks whether this should be allowed to grow. I do not think we can be doctrinaire about that. I do not think we can say that the statutory sector has come so far but it must go no further. The statutory sector may well take over certain services which are at present provided on a voluntary basis because, after all, one characteristic of the voluntary sector is to pioneer services which are eventually taken over by the statutory bodies.
Another and developing characteristic is to bring pressure to bear on the statutory sector to extend its area of operation, so I think we may look forward to growth in both these sectors in the course of time. I think that the voluntary sector has a duty to the client to guide him through the maze of statutory provisions, and I agree with the Association of Directors of Social Services, which is mentioned in the report, that we do not want the voluntary sector to become a parallel bureaucracy. The growth during the 1960s of new style voluntary organisations like Shelter and the Child Poverty Action Group was in some ways a criticism of the established older organisations which were thought not to be doing enough and to be doing it in too conformist a way.
The report draws attention, as the noble Baroness made clear, to the decline in income in the voluntary sector from donations and fund raising, and it declares that more statutory funding is required. I agree that more statutory funding is required, but I do not think that we should take a defeatist attitude to fund raising. After all—and here again I agree with the noble Baroness—the independence and spontaneity of the voluntary organisations are dependent on fund raising and the degree to which they are able to make it a success. We should not despise the activity of the fund raiser. There is perhaps just a suggestion in the report that time spent on fund raising is time wasted, but those who want to do that particular work would not necessarily be providing services if they were not so engaged. This is a way

111
in which they can be associated with the work, and the number of people involved could be extended.
We cannot over-emphasise the importance of the additional funds raised when there are strict limits on Government spending, or of the additional work which is carried out as a result of raising those funds. For example, Help the Aged reports that in a large town in eastern England a general hospital with what is described as a splendid geriatric team badly needed a rehabilitation unit to add to its geriatric ward; all the rehabilitation in the hospital has to take place in a small day hospital where only 20 patients can be accommodated at a time. There were no statutory funds to provide the much-needed rehabilitation facilities. Help the Aged has raised sufficient money to build and equip a large rehabilitation unit which will accommodate 50 in-patients and 70 out-patients and, when completed, this unit will be the responsibility of the regional health authority. In other words, the statutory sector is benefiting directly from the fund raising activity in the voluntary sector.
I agree that the Government should give careful consideration to ways of encouraging fund raising. It might be done by offering to match voluntary contributions pound for pound for specific projects, as is done in the case of overseas aid, or it might be done by tax concessions as recommended by the Goodman Committee on Charity Law, to which reference has already been made. If all gifts to charity were tax deductible, many people who are not used to the idea of covenanting might be appealed to with success.
Moving away from fund raising, I wish to refer to three matters affecting voluntary organisations which are dealt with in the report. First, there is the need to avoid overlapping in the voluntary sector: a balance must be maintained between the maximum choice on the one hand and the avoidance of waste and needless duplication on the other. In some areas, there seems to be a proliferation of organisations with very similar aims.
Secondly, there is the need to give consideration to client satisfaction. On page 156 of the report, the authors say they feel that this is not always sufficiently
112
considered, and of course client satisfaction is linked to the need to provide for client participation, and I wish that theme had had wider treatment in the report. Today's self-help and mutual help movement is an implicit criticism that existing bodies are not always sufficiently in touch with the grass roots. Thirdly, there is a suggestion that every voluntary organisation should apply a five-year review to itself when it would take stock of what it was doing and whether it was using its resources in the most useful and effective way possible.
The noble Baroness referred to the Voluntary Service Unit and the question as to where it should be placed within the Government machine. The report is clear that it should remain within the Government machine and not become a statutory body. But should it remain within a spending Department—at present it is the Home Office—and should it have a Minister at Cabinet level with no Departmental responsibilities? I am well aware that, if every interest which felt it should have its affairs looked after by a Cabinet Minister devoid of other responsibilities got its way, the Cabinet would have as many members as your Lordships' House. However, I should be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he replies, what the Government say to the criticism that the Voluntary Service Unit itself should be independent of any spending Department.
The report appeals to the Government, as the central strategic makers of social policy, urgently to take the initiative in working out with the variety of agencies a collaborative social plan, a plan which will make the optimum and maximum use of resources. What is the Government response to that? The report makes no attempt to offer any guidance as to the outline of such a plan and that is perhaps a pity. It would have to be, as the report hints, something in the nature of a set of guidelines and goals together with a forecast. It could not be a rigid, detailed blueprint but, if rightly conceived, it would indicate the hoped for lines of development, the aids to be provided to that end and the undoubtedly large and growing part to be played by the voluntary sector.
3.26 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, when I looked at the list of speakers today I was a little disconcerted to find my name near the top as I am proposing to talk about only two of the many issues covered by this wide-ranging report. However, as the two previous speakers have managed between them to touch on nearly all the points I had intended to raise, I realise that if my name had come much lower down I should have had nothing to say at all.

In view of the comments about the jargon of the social scientists, which I have made on an earlier occasion on this House, I wish to say in adding my welcome to this report what a pleasure it is to have a document on social issues which is so easy to read. This is hardly surprising in the report of a Committee chaired by the noble Lord; it is none the less very acceptable and worthy of comment. I had to look up one or two words in the dictionary but, as not always happens on these occasions, I actually found them there.
The noble Lord knows me too well to think that I shall go on to hand out unmitigated praise for the report. I wish to express my uneasiness about the point to which both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred, namely the suggestion tucked away in the body of the report about the Voluntary Service Unit and the proposal that it should be taken from the Home Office and put under the control of a Cabinet Minister without Departmental responsibility.
I have read in this context the interesting views which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, expressed in his book, Politics in Practice, to which the noble Baroness referred, but I should like to make a comment myself. I am not stating that the Home Office is necessarily the right Department, although it probably is. However, in my experience, it is wise to hesitate for a very long time indeed before settling on a form of organisation which involves a Minister without Portfolio and therefore without the backing of a large Department taking responsibility on a long-term basis for a piece of executive Government machinery.
But enough of that, my Lords. My main purpose in speaking very briefly
114
today is to make two points about money. As I see the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, looking rather severely in my direction, perhaps I ought to say that, in this context, I am in no sense speaking as a former Treasury official. Indeed, it will soon become clear that my views are not likely to make any immediate appeal to that great Department.
I see no reason to question the Committee's assumptions (which I hope I am summarising fairly) that the next 25 years are unlikely to see public expenditure on social and environmental services growing as fast as it has done in the last 25 years; that, at the same time, it is unlikely that there will be any lessening in the rate at which additional services will be expected; and that the strategy governing the long-term relationship between Government and the voluntary sector in the supply of those services is therefore ripe for a new examination.
It seems to me that, in the kind of future envisaged by the Committee, more will have to be done if the resources of voluntary organisations at the local level are to be fully mobilised; and I go along with the Committee when they identify as having a key role in bringing this about the entities which they describe as "intermediary bodies", or, to give flesh and blood to what is a slightly for bidding phrase, local bodies such as Councils for Voluntary Services and Rural Community Councils. One sees the role of these intermediary bodies, national as well as local, as being crucial in a number of ways—as has just been said, in identifying needs which are not being met and in trying to see that they are met; in providing services, such as training, for other organisations; and in articulating views and, perhaps, exerting pressure for change. But the trouble is that these are functions which do not have very much popular appeal. The public, very naturally, prefers to give its money to bodies which directly help individuals, rather than to organisations in the background which help to provide the means to achieve this end. So money will have to be found, in part, elsewhere.
I do not think for a moment that it is necessary to attempt to lay down any strict hierarchial structure, or to provide for relationships with central or local government, on one universal and unvaried

115
pattern; but I think that, at the end of the day, so far as money is concerned, central Government is bound to be involved. I am not here talking of very large sums. The calculations made by the Committee, to which reference has been made, showed that, in the personal social service and environmental fields, the total income of the voluntary organisations in 1976–77 came to around £1,000 million. (Incidentally, I suppose I shall, with great reluctance, have to get used to calling this a billion, but I leave that on one side). Then they totted up the grants from central Government to a very much more modest total—between £35 million and £36 million. No one is urging a dramatic increase in this latter figure, but there is a pretty powerful case for some further help from Government sources if the notion of partnership between Government and the voluntary bodies is to be made more effective and if, in particular, these intermediary bodies, like Councils of Voluntary Services, are not to be further racked by financial hardship in such a way as to handicap the momentum which they are able to provide to the development of the voluntary sector as a whole. On the arguments put forward in the Committee's report, which carry a good deal of conviction, there is reason for supposing that central Government would in the end find it a pretty good bargain.
Nothing in what I have been saying would in any way diminish the importance, or independence, of the voluntary organisations which raise their own funds to provide services which simply would not be there if those who needed them had to rely solely on national or local government sources. This leads me to my second main point, reinforcing what the previous speakers have already said. I would put in a plea that the issues raised by the Goodman Committee Report on Charity Law about possible fiscal concessions for giving to charity should not be overlooked in the present discussions. I myself attach rather more significance to such concessions than perhaps the Wolfenden Committee were inclined to do. They might not make such a vast difference to the problem of financing the voluntary sector taken as a whole, but they would make a great difference to individual organisations, like Help the Aged, to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks,
116
referred, which depend directly on charitable giving.
For example, I think that there are quite persuasive arguments for altering the present somewhat illogical arrangements for these seven-year covenants entered into by individuals, leaving aside for a moment the question whether seven years is the right period. One possibility might be to permit covenanted donations to be allowable against the higher rates of income tax, subject, perhaps, to a maximum limit. Then, although I personally doubt if the tax-deductible system in other countries would fit our circumstances just as it stands, perhaps some thought could be given to permitting individuals an allowance of tax, up to a reasonable amount, for uncovenanted donations supported by receipts. Similarly, there is perhaps a case for enabling companies to give uncovenanted donations allowable for tax up to a limited percentage of profits, so that in a particularly prosperous year there could be more charitable giving. These are just one or two thoughts about possible steps which might be taken to encourage further giving, but my main purpose is to underline the desirability of looking afresh, following both the Goodman and the Wolfenden Committee reports, at the whole system of tax concessions to charities in the light of current economic conditions and changes in the distribution of wealth.
As we discuss these issues today, I cannot help thinking back to the days when the Beveridge Report was being implemented. It seemed to me then, as it seemed to some others, that, with the Welfare State about to take care of us from the cradle to the grave, it was a bit dubious what role would be left for voluntary effort: perhaps the various charitable bodies would simply wither away. I have known for a long time now how wrong we were, but the Wolfenden Committee report has, if I may say so, performed a special service in bringing out so vividly both the vitality of the voluntary sector today and also its opportunities for a future of even greater value to the community.
3.40 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I, too, should like immediately to thank the noble

117
Baroness for raising this issue and commenting so excellently upon the report which promotes this discussion. I think it is a most important document. It is comprehensive in its analysis, and if, as the noble Baroness rather suggested, it is stronger on diagnosis than prognosis, it is nevertheless the kind of document upon which any future programme must be founded if it is to be effective. I cannot fault this document in any way in the overall sense it gives of the problem it discusses.
Perhaps the most significant part of the report is what is concealed, almost, within its pages but is explicit in the total impact it makes. The voluntary services are indispensable. They may have to be modified; they are modifying, but as part of a civilised community they are inseparable from the good life which is to be enjoyed by its majority of subjects. In one place—and I join with the noble Lord who has just sat down—I found it an agreeable document to read. On page 191 it gave specific encouragement to the permanence of the voluntary associations because it bids us to be "eternally vigilant". I found that comforting, for it sets the whole business within the frame of immortality, and I feel that is not by any means an over-statement.
I entered this kind of work ecclesiastically many years ago, and I will not dilate upon the ecclesiastical associations of voluntary work, because two of my ecclesiastical friends will no doubt be able to do that very much better than I can. Within the 52 years in which I have been engaged in voluntary work I have noticed two specific changes that have taken place. They are referred to among others, but inasmuch as they come within my own personal experience I should like to select them and say something about them because on these two changes I believe the prospects for voluntary associations and services must depend.
Obviously within the framework of the Church a great many of the voluntary associations with which I have been concerned are in themselves concerned with the souls of men as well as their bodies, and in some cases in the past the condition of physical welfare has been associated with the prospect of conversion. Indeed there is a great deal to be said for the kind of voluntary service which springs
118
from a deep sense of religious conviction. But over the last 50 years there has been a progressive change towards a more secular attitude to voluntary work and the welfare of the community. This change has taken place not only because there has been a diminution in religious fervour but because, partly through that religious fervour, there has been an access of recognition that we live in a world in which we have an obligation to care for those who are under-privileged. That sense of obligation has taken very practical forms and has energised many of the more narrowly based evangelical as well as philanthropic institutions in which I began more than 50 years ago.
This is a changeover from a more or less (in the Church at least) evangelically based kind of social work to the social work which does not depend on a religious faith in the first sense but on the conviction that we are members one of another and it is our responsibility to care for one another. That is an immeasurable advantage though it carries with it certain objections or limitations, perhaps in a lack of fervour or personal dedication. Nevertheless, it is change which is unmistakable.
The other great change is the emergence of the Welfare State—an institution which in my judgment is the most Christian thing which has happened in my lifetime, although with many imperfections, with much that still needs to be done. But for the first time it sets the voluntary organisations within an organised alternative; and therefore, in any attempt to look forward to the kind of world in which the voluntary associations of today are going to have a viable future, I believe it is necessary in all cases to see them in context with the Welfare State.
It is upon three aspects of that voluntary association within the Welfare State that I am going to delay your Lordships now. If there is one supreme justification for a voluntary association, a voluntary piece of social service, it is that in so many respects it can be a pioneer effort, a pathway trodden by individuals which later can become a broad highway of civic responsibility. May I give two illustrations? The first crèche ever to be established in London was set up in the West London Mission in 1875 by a group of evangelically minded Methodists. Out

119
of that voluntary innovation has come a system of civic crèches which is part and parcel of the intelligent and civilised responsibility of local authorities today all over London, and indeed England. Those who belong to the voluntary communities have, under the sense of direction and vocation, this opportunity of beginning things which later on can be taken over, and sometimes vastly improved, by public expenditure and public responsibility.
Also, not only can they become pioneers for those jobs which are necessary but they can much more quickly and effectively stop doing those things which are not. Some 15 years ago, in association with the Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, I felt it desirable to set up a home for pregnant girls who were no longer tolerated in the homes from which they had come, who were bereft of counsel and help and in great desperation in the social climate which, 15 years ago, was very different from today's. For a time that house was filled. It is somewhat disagreeable but nevertheless true to say that such a house is no longer required. The social climate is so changed that the girl who once was turned out of the front door into the snow, so to speak, is no longer regarded with the same repugnance; and that innovation which at the time was merited and worth while has now become redundant.
Furthermore, pioneering in the field of alcoholism, of which I have some knowledge, provides a further illustration of this truth. We in the voluntary sector have learnt a great deal which, in the awakened sense of need that is represented by the Government in their various statements of recent days, I believe is now going to be implemented. I think it is not out of place if I remind myself that when we began we pioneered with drugs, which I knew nothing about but which were calculated to improve the drunkard and to give the alcoholic a sense of such repugnance for alcohol that he would soon be able to emancipate himself from the scourge of intemperance. It did not work that way at all. We have discovered a kind of three-stage care of the alcoholic whereby he is first, so to speak, "dried out" and thereafter is set within a new environment in which he can be partially rehabilitated, and finally set within the
120
framework of some sort of protected housing wherein he is safe from a relapse so long as he has that measure of protection. I offer this as part of the development of a voluntary approach to the problem of alcoholism, necessary now for any civilised and corporate attempt to deal with this growing and very serious menace.
In the second place, I believe that there must in the foreseeable future be a marriage between voluntary associations and the State, whether represented by central Government or by local authorities. There are many ways in which this is desirable; there are some in which it is imperative. So long as human beings have a measure of what is not entirely sinful pride there will be a marked difference between that which they regard as something given to them by the State and something offered to them in affection by their fellow creatures. It is an unreal division, but we are not very rational animals and, because of a lack of that kind of perception, we have no right to impose all kinds of hardships on people who could be much helped if they believed that the kind of assistance which they are given the opportunity of receiving is that kind of assistance which does not carry with it this stain of what they call charity. It is in this regard that the marriage of the voluntary associations with the statutory obligations is, I think, a way forward. Although I, personally, did not find as much encouragement in the pluralistic argument, for it seemed to me that only in the rarest of cases was there much option, I believe, as a Socialist, that one of the answers to those who would regard Socialism as a totalitarian, disciplinarian régime, is that the more the work of social amenity, the work of social redemption, can be carried on as a marriage between those organised as a community to do it and those who voluntarily seek to do it as their contribution to that community, the more it is infinitely worth while.
There is one other remark to be made about that. It is that there is a reservoir of volunteer work within the voluntary organisations. I would commend to your Lordships the immense advantage of having a voluntary association or voluntary work such as this in direct touch with fellowships, religious or otherwise; and here I find an exact reference. I am the superintendent of a Methodist

121
mission and I am also the chairman of Shelter. I find that one of the differences between those two vocations is that, with regard to the superintendency, there is a well of good intention and of possible help which is something to counteract the increasing division that has set its mark on our social conditions, particularly with regard to the family.
On page 189 of the report, the compilers venture into a Christmas carol and invite us to believe that Good King Wenceslas invited those who subscribed to his views to a heaven of blessings. I do not think that the compilers of this report can have been singing that carol. It has nothing to do with heaven; it has much more to do with the almost contractual value of doing good to others:
"They who first will bless the poor shall themselves find blessing".
That is how the carol runs. I believe there is a vast opportunity today for people to see that, alongside the Welfare State, there is the opportunity of benefiting themselves by involving themselves much more radically in the world of other people's troubles.
There is a final point. It is set within the pages of this report that small is beautiful, as in some respects it is, and that the voluntary organisations are likely to cover the needs of the one sheep when the nine and ninety are being cared for elsewhere. Some years ago when I was in Leningrad, I had the opportunity of an interview with the social services, so called, of that great city. In the course of the conversation I asked what they did about enuretics—surely the most lamentable outcasts in our community. There are not many of them; but it is almost intolerable to have them in hostels. They are as pariah-like as the confirmed spirit drinker.
I shall never forget the reply of that well-intentioned commissar, or whatever he was, who said that there are very few of them and they could not take them into account. That may be so. It may have been remedied since. But one of the great opportunities of the voluntary organisations is to distinguish between the quality and quantity of social deprivation. If 1,000 people have toothache, then the pain is not 1,000 times greater than the pain of one sufferer. In one
122
sense, the extent of a public injury to the welfare of the community is larger than that confined to the individual but if I may say so in theological terms, or in moral terms, I believe that the one who suffers is as precious, or should be as precious, in the community's sight as the 1,000. It is one of the supreme arguments for the voluntary services that it can personally and individually seek out those who are in need, for their need is qualitatively as great as of those in thousands and tens of thousands who are deprived.
Two very simple final words. We want more money. I was delighted to hear some of the suggestions offered about how we might get it. A great many of the organisations for which I am responsible and of which I have knowledge are themselves in grave financial difficulty. I hope that the Minister will help us. We shall offer in return what I believe is his right and certain due. Many voluntary organisations are inefficient and ll-equipped; there is too much emotion, sometimes, and not enough common sense. For that reason, I believe that it would be only right for the voluntary associations to accept a far greater measure of discipline, discipline in technical matters, discipline in the quality of service. I believe that they are required and would immeasurably help the voluntary services to do a far better job than they are now doing; but that they must continue so to work is, I believe, part of the civilised society. It is for that reason that I once again am particularly glad that the noble Baroness has brought this to occur minds today.
3.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of SAINT ALBANS: My Lords, I join in welcoming this report, the clarity of its analysis in a complex field and the wide debate already so ably started by the noble Baroness and the speakers who have preceded me. I look forward to the maiden speeches of my Hertfordshire neighbour, the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, and of my ecclesiastical neighbour, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. In 1973, the late Richard Crossman delivered the Sidney Ball Memorial Lecture at Oxford on the Role of the Volunteer in the Modern Social Services. It does not get a mention in the bibliography of this report, but it

123
argued the case of the report with some passion and the liveliness of indiscreet illustration. He said:
"Our country will only recover from its social sickness by giving the suppressed altruism, not of a privileged few but of millions, the means of continuous expression in community service".
It was a forthright plea that we should cease to regard self-interest as the sole driving dynamic of our society. The report is tidier and more responsible than that lecture but I suggest that its understandable desire to reduce the question to manageable proportions inevitably prompts the critic to focus on the gaps.
My Lords, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to two of them, the first briefly, the second in a more substantial way. The report pays surprisingly little attention to the question of handling and directing the enormous increase in volunteers that are around today. Ten years ago there were 10 volunteer bureaux. Now, I am told, there are something like 180. Volunteer recruitment programmes on radio and television are a phenomenon of our times. I instance Granada's "Reports Action "and Capital Radio's "Helpline" which bring into relationship need and volunteer in ways that may not fit into existing patterns. They may sometimes raise anxiety about expectations and adequate back-up to handle the response locally or individually; but the mixture of social, consumer, environmental and disability issues produces a rich bundle of human experience for mutual and self-help which illustrates the difficulty of labelling and the possibilities of reciprocal exchange of caring. Those who criticise television for its trivialising should not react grudgingly when it attempts to break new ground with programmes which say, "Get up, switch off, go out and do something!" I hope that the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association will give this due credit.
My second and more substantial concern is to question with due modesty the report's wisdom in excluding the Church from their definition of a voluntary organisation. I remember that one of Richard Crossman's illustrations was of the social work of the Church in the Netherlands in integrating with Government funding their Indonesian immigrants after the war.
124
When the sociologist Leslie Paul produced a critical report on the Church of England in the 1960s, he was nevertheless able to say some encouraging things. For instance, that it was the largest organiser of youth in the country—a point taken by the Albemarle Report on the Youth Services. Sometimes the Church is concerned, and rightly, at its falling membership, but Dr. Paul reminded us that the Church of England is a larger group than any other organisation which depends for its existence on the regular attendance of its members at a place of meeting, their participation in a variety of voluntary activities and their voluntary contributions. I do not wish this to be a bleat for recognition, but to suggest that a report which does not include the Churches in its definition of what a voluntary organisation is may be leaving out a great deal of its purview, and to suggest that had the report included the Churches, certain of its conclusions would have been underlined and certain important and indeed crucial issues faced more sharply than the report does.
First, when everything has been said about the evils of parochialism, it has to be said that the parish is at least local. Chesterton said "for anything to be real it must be local". I suggest that one of the best things the Church has been able to do in the past—and it is a sadness to me it may not be able to continue to do it—has been to put a paid full-time organiser, so to speak, in every locality it could; to house him so that when all have fled at night time or at weekends to a better area (as often is the case with inner city parishes) he will remain; to encourage him to have independence of mind and speech; and to give him as at least part of his brief the responsibility of becoming aware of the most pressing needs of that locality, and to see what could be done to meet them.
I am well aware of how that hope and potential has often not been realised; but I would be untrue to my experience if I did not claim it has often been fulfilled. At this moment there are 12,000 such organisers, paid, full-time in the Church of England alone. It has surprised me that the report has not taken locality more seriously—the changing pattern of local community. A report on the future of voluntary organisations needs

125
to be tested on a much wider variety of communities, urban, suburban, rural, than the locality studies described in Chapter III.
The sensitive but crucial question of the relation of voluntary organisations to neighbourhoods of different social class is hardly touched at depth. Within the voluntary organisation of the Church we discover that work in different social areas is almost a different job. Harpenden, in my diocese, has over 150 voluntary organisations in addition to the Churches. Inner Luton, six miles away and several times the size of population, has only a fraction of that number.
So much for locality. Let me turn now to the more sensitive question of motivation in voluntary organisations. The Committee would not want to say it had grasped this nettle. It gets two overt mentions in the report. One sympathises with reluctance to pursue such an intractable subject. But it is not only sensitive, it is critical; and if the Churches had been brought within the definition of voluntary organisations, I doubt whether it could have been left out.
I put it to you, my Lords, that if the field of voluntary effort is, for intance, the most disadvantaged families which the Family Service Unit describe in the report as a fairly low priority in local authority departments (that means the handicapped and elderly attract more sympathy), or if the field of voluntary effort is something like Dr. Cicely Saunders' remarkable pioneering St. Christopher's Hospice for the terminally ill; or if the field is some cause which, just because of its unpopularity, could not be undertaken by a statutory body—perhaps because of its political character or international links; and Amnesty International and World Development Movement spring to mind—then I think the question of motivation for voluntary organisations is inescapably highlighted.
I am not claiming for voluntary organisations—still less for the Churches—any monopoly of motivation or innovation; but I think the inclusion of the Churches as voluntary bodies might at least have caused the question to be raised, and I would be denying my own experience if I did not say that voluntary work in society which many Church members do (often
126
without any label) is related to the motivation they receive, and the support they receive from their Church membership. The future of voluntary organisations in an affluent society—one that may be moving to a four day working week—raises questions about the sustained springs of selflessness which ought to be tackled, not avoided, in a report on the future of voluntary organisations.
As to pioneering new services, I hope that the Church's past record, its local base, international links, recruitment and fund raising capacity—and, above all, its emphasis on humane motivation—will be put to use. I am well aware that some more recent pioneering springs from disenchantment at the institutional Church. The Samaritans is a case in point. It was founded by the Reverend Chad Varah because he knew that people would not necessarily turn to the institutional Church in their moment of need.
But in many places in recent years—and this is why this point is so critical at the moment—the Church has handed over much of its traditional work—of which the last speaker spoke so movingly—convinced that it is often better handled by statutory bodies; for example, adoption, and support for one-parent families; but now has available human resources and even structures to cope with new forms of support just at time when official bodies are aware of new problems and opportunities coming up from our society which they hardly dare explore for fear of their extent and demand. Alcoholism, bereavement counselling and victim support groups are a few examples of new fields where there is already co-operation in my own experience. But if you get, on the part of statutory authorities, dogmatic suspicion of "sectarian interests" or, on the part of the Church, reluctance to be enabler and supporter rather than controller, the results are fatal.
These are sprawling remarks on a tidy report; but the serious gaps in the report make it look as if management rather than encouragement is the urgent problem. The ability of the voluntary sector to make the most of its contribution is absolutely dependent on encouragement and support from central and local authorities. The allocation of more funds is rightly considered, though once again, as has been pointed out, the role of the

127
fund-raising organisations is under-estimated—another possibly untidy patch.
I doubt whether we are yet ready for the synoptic view, which is referred to at the end of the report and is a phrase which could conceal a multitude of civil servants. I look for this general debate to provoke attention to special areas for policy-making by Government—the Youth Service seems to me to be an early candidate. But I return to my beginning. Richard Crossman brought his prophetic lecture to a close by saying
"Important as it is to get the institutions right, what is even more important is a revolution in attitudes".
I believe we are in the midst of such a revolution. It deserves encouragement rather than premature management. It gives the lie to some doleful accounts of our society, and we should all be grateful to the noble Lord and his colleagues for forcing it on our attention.
4.11 p.m.
Viscount KNUTSFORD: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships today, I crave the customary indulgence given by the House to maiden speakers. I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his Committee for their report which, though without a summary, has at least the advantage of making one read it in full. It is a real tour de force. A great debt of gratitude is owed to the Committee and to their sponsors. I am in the happy position, especially in my present circumstances, of agreeing with practically everything that the report has to say. I believe that everyone connected with voluntary organisations will have received encouragement from it and certainly will have been given much food for thought. There are many proposals on which action needs to be taken, and I should like to pick out four.
First, there is the matter of the responsibility of voluntary organisations to their supporting public, to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already referred, and their responsibility to stand back and look at themselves—five year intervals are suggested—to ensure that they are still filling the gap they originally set out to fill and to discover whether changes should be made and how far the gap has
128
in the interim been provided for by statutory services. I have known of two voluntary organisations which attached great importance to such rules. As a result, one of them decided that its original function had been covered by the developing social services and went into voluntary liquidation—a process which caused some fluttering in the dovecotes of the Charity Commissioners because at that time such a thing had not been done before. The other organisation changed its rôle after a similar review, because the gap it had been filling had begun to be plugged by the appropriate statutory department. That organisation turned its energies and resources to filling a new gap, which led to its receiving substantial support from the European Social Fund for its new activity. I mention these two examples to show how essential and, in the latter case, how profitable such reviews can be, in the hope that others will be encouraged to adopt the same practice.
Secondly, the report has a great deal to say about planning and makes important suggestions as to what central and local government ought to do. I am sure it is common experience that there is almost no planning at all and that the lack of it, especially at local level, is a major problem and handicap for all voluntary organisations. It bears with it also the danger of wasting precious resources. Not many Directors of Social Services that I come across are interested in what voluntary organisations are doing in their areas. Some do not even know; and, for their part, voluntary organisations seldom make much contact with local authorities unless they are after money. There is no getting together at all in the majority of cases and certainly no joint planning for the future. It is to be hoped that, as a result of this report, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will later on be able to suggest that some action can be taken, both centrally and locally, on the lines set out by the report in order to encourage better communications—because, without that, the future contributions that voluntary organisations can make, and which the report shows could be so greatly increased, will never be able to develop as they should.
Thirdly, the report suggests that there is no longer a large pool of untapped resources from which money can be

129
raised. I believe this to be so and I would also suggest that the traditional pool which voluntary organisations have tapped up to date is diminishing. With the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I, too, find it a little disappointing that the report has so little to say about any reassessment of the system of tax concessions to charities, because that could, at least to some degree, counter this development. However that may be, and whether the pool is static or diminishing, in this context we are all competing for slices of a cake of limited size, and it cannot therefore be anything but a matter for concern to existing voluntary organisations, and a strain on their ability to raise enough funds to do the jobs they do, when a new voluntary organisation is created with Government sponsorship to fill a gap that has hitherto been covered by Government provision, and to find in the Press notice issued about it that it is to appeal to the public for funds and not merely to the large corporations.
I refer, of course, to Motability, which has already been referred to, and which is under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Its birth, given the circumstances surrounding its conception, is wholeheartedly to be welcomed. But filling gaps, which is frequently referred to in the report—and of course that is a major role of the voluntary bodies—has been a question of filling gaps that, for a variety of reasons, usually financial, have never been filled by statutory bodies. Motability, in addition to adding a new word to our language, is to fill an entirely new sort of gap—a gap caused by the withdrawal of a Government provision and its replacement by a different one, albeit covering a greater number of people but in a different sort of way. That decision of the Government was made with the best intentions and it is certainly not for me, at any rate on this occasion, to make any criticism of it. Nevertheless, the effect of this action has been to create a hitherto non-existent gap, which is now to be filled by a voluntary organisation which is to appeal for public funds. It is to be hoped that this sort of gap-forming will not become as contagious as that other innovation, the referendum, seems likely to become. If it does, there will be a little less cake available for those voluntary organizations
130
which are filling what, with perhaps too great temerity, I would call "genuine gaps".
Finally, my Lords, the only part of the report with which I found myself unable to agree is where it speaks of the increasing variety of employers who are prepared to let members of their staff have time off work to work for voluntary organisations. Most of the members of the governing bodies of the charities and statutory bodies of which I have first-hand experience are as long in the tooth as I am; and some are even longer. They are all suffering, apart from their teeth, from the same problem: that, although the young are willing and keen to help, their bosses will not let them have time off. I do wonder where the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, found these co-operative employers because they do not seem to be very thick on the ground in London.
The report refers to the relatively large untapped potential among the recently retired. I would be the first to acknowledge the invaluable contribution that the retired make, but I would suggest that it is not desirable for the health and the development of any organisation for the majority of those who run it to be retired. We do need the young in responsible positions, with their particular approach to problems. We do need the young to take over from us. This report is of unique importance, and all concerned with voluntary organisations owe a debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this debate this afternoon.
4.20 p.m.
Lord SEEBOHM: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, on his speech, and say how particularly glad I am that he should have chosen this subject on which to make it. It is a subject with which I have been involved all my life, and I was very pleased indeed to hear what he said and to listen with great interest. I am also very glad, as chairman of one of the two trusts that sponsored this inquiry, to have this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his team for the great effort, time and care which they gave to preparing this report, and also of congratulating them on producing a report of such importance both to the voluntary movement and the

131
statutory bodies alike. It has already been read by a great number of people and I can highly commend it to those who have not yet done so, as it is eminently readable and anyone would find it interesting.
The report does not claim to forecast what will happen in the next 25 years and, to use the Committee's own words,
"We did not waste time pondering the imponderable".
What it has done is to analyse the present situation, explode a number of myths, produce facts which have not been brought together before and indicate lines of action which appear to me to be practical and realistic, although some of the recommendations must be argued further.
Some noble Lords who have spoken today lamented the fact that there were certain gaps in the report with which they wished the noble Lord had dealt. But I think I should tell your Lordships that, when the two trusts got together to discuss whether to sponsor this inquiry, some of us were very doubtful whether it was possible to produce a report on this very broad subject that would be readable and sufficiently short. I should like to say here that, having decided to go ahead, the way in which the noble Lord defined his objects was extremely well done. If the report had been spread much wider, it would have been effective in no direction. But, in concentrating on the points which particularly interested the two trusts, he has been able to look at that section of the voluntary movement in depth and to produce a report which, I repeat, I have found practical and realistic.
The first point which I wish to make—and, today, I am dealing only with those points in which I am particularly interested, since there are a lot of other speakers—is that, as I believe somebody has already said, there was a theory that the Welfare State would make the voluntary movement unnecessary and, I heard some people say, undesirable. Again, I think that this has been completely exploded by the report, and the Committee discovered that between 20 and 30 per cent. of the organisations about which they obtained information had been started between 1970 and 1976. In their view, the role of organisations as a medium
132
through which people can come together to take initiatives, whether long- or short-term, is of inestimable value and very much alive.
This brings me on to my second point, which is about "participation". This is a principle which has been generally accepted as highly desirable in our society, but nobody has produced a very convincing answer to the method of implementation, particularly in local government and the social services. It is clear that a further development of the voluntary movement, perhaps more particularly in the encouragement of what the report calls the "informal system"—which I take to be neighbourhood groups, good neighbour schemes, mutual aid associations and so on—at one end, and reinforcing the "intermediary organisations", such as the Council of Social Service and the Council of Voluntary Service at the other. This would do more than anything else to make participation a reality.
A very important point made in the report, which has already been referred to, is that the next 25 years will not show a similar growth in the social and environmental services to that which has taken place in the last 25 years. At the same time the Committee do not see any falling off in the expectations and demands for these services. They therefore strongly urge the development of a new long-term strategy by a new examination of the potential contributions of the statutory, voluntary and informal sectors and their inter-relationship. They call for a Government initiative of a new kind, based on an explicit recognition of the contribution which the voluntary organisations, both corporately and individually, are in a position to make.
Naturally, the description of the activities of the voluntary organisations was not solely eulogistic. The unevenness of the services offered over the country as a whole, the duplication of effort, the lack at times of administrative efficiency are mentioned. And even the National Council of Social Service comes in for some critical examination, but not of course belittling its importance in the scheme of things and its great potentiality, particularly within the EEC.
I found that the chapter on independence, responsibility and effectiveness

133
demanded very careful study. I was particularly interested in the problem of reconciling the independence of voluntary organisations with a measure of control by whoever funds them, whether it be public funds, trusts or any other major donor. There seems to be no easy answer to this, except that there must be mutual knowledge and understanding.
This brings me on to the problem of finance, about which many people have already talked. It is a problem with which I have been concerned all my life. It is 45 years since I was first made treasurer of the Sheffield Council of Social Service, and I held that position until the war. When I came back from the war, I was made treasurer of the York Community Council. Ever since then, I have been connected with bodies of this kind and have been responsible for fund raising. I found this a very difficult task.
The Committee did not believe that the voluntary movement was in any danger of imminent collapse, though many organisations have no doubt modified their activities for financial reasons. My own view is that the high personal taxation of those whose incomes in the past enabled them to give generously has had a major effect on private giving. There is no real diminution in the desire to give financial help, but there is no longer room in most people's personal budgets for maintaining their donations in real terms. Similarly, the corporate sector has become far more discriminating and has allocated a higher proportion of its charitable subscriptions to environmental and educational appeals than to the social welfare sector. I give as an example the large sums which are required, and which have been provided by the City of London, for St. Paul's Cathedral, York Minster, cathedrals and churches around the country and so on.
The report points out the comparative ease with which money is raised for national disasters and the more emotional appeals for children's problems—and, I would add, homes for dogs and cats. I suppose that I have spent as much time as I could, when I was not in banking, in begging. But I would not say that I compete in any way with a previous Lord Knutsford who, in my youth, was known as the Prince of Beggars. Nevertheless,
134
I have found, as I have said, that to raise money for what the noble Lord calls the intermediary system is the most difficult of all. I believe that the remarks and recommendations made on the need for public support, from both central government and local government, for the intermediary system are absolutely right and absolutely necessary, if those bodies are really to get on with the job of development and new initiatives.
I had on my desk this morning a cri de coeur from York Community Council, asking me whether I could possibly mention in my speech the question of the intermediary system and its need for financial help. The Association of Directors of Social Services told the Committee that local authorities have neither the money nor the other resources to provide all the services which the volume of legislation has imposed upon them as duties. But they can help to mobilise whatever resources are available and, where they think it necessary, encourage the voluntary sector in particular tasks. The report, however, points out the large divergence in the scale of financial support given by local authorities, varying from over £7 per head of the population in Islington—and a very close runner up is Camden—to others which give only a matter of a few pence. This shows how uneven is the use made of, and encouragement given to, the voluntary movement between different local authorities.
The remit of the committee was "The Future of Voluntary Organisations", and although they stress the impossibility of making any clear division between the work of individuals and organisations I would urge the Government to give equal and simultaneous thought to the expansion of the volunteer effort and to give every encouragement to the Volunteer Centre and the numerous volunteer bureaux throughout the country. This is the sure way of increasing the effectiveness of the informal system on which the report lays so much stress.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to the firm opinion of the committee that there will be an important and continuing role for voluntary organisations that act as alternatives to statutory services. While admitting that this cannot apply to all services—for instance, to

135
the provision of hospitals—in a number of situations, notably in the residential and day care fields, voluntary provision does already to some extent, and could to a greater extent in the future, offer clients a choice, particularly where the voluntary sector possesses advantages by way of specialist knowledge and skills and flexibility.
In this connection, a reappraisal of attitudes to the extension of statutory provision is needed because of the problems of bureaucracy and scale and because we cannot be so confident in future about the availability of resources. In the past, development of social welfare provision has progressed along with economic growth, and the committee points out, with which I agree, that we cannot be so sure that this will continue at a comparable pace in the future. As we pointed out in the Seebohm Report, an increased emphasis must be given to helping people to help themselves, or, as the report uses Lincoln's famous words, encouraging service of the people, by the people, for the people. There are many other points which could be made—about, for instance, the excellent and imaginative role of the Voluntary Service Unit, the Family Fund and so forth—but it is all in the book for anyone who wishes to read.
May I end by saying once again how delighted I am that the committee has produced such an excellent report which for once is bound to result in action which could add greatly to the quality of life in our country.
4.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of TRURO: My Lords, I, too, must begin by asking for the indulgence of the House as I face your Lordships for the first time. I feel that I have a particular reason for doing so, in that but a short time has passed since my introduction to this House, during which I have been unavoidably prevented from being able to benefit from listening to your Lordships in debate, as it would have been seemly for me to do.
I speak today for three reasons. First, for many years I have been concerned with voluntary organisations of various kinds, including service as a paid officer,
136
and I would suggest that to serve an organisation as a paid officer gives one a rather different insight from that which is obtained from serving on the controlling body. Secondly, I am Chairman of the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England, which gave evidence to the Wolfenden Committee. I am glad to have this opportunity to express personally the appreciation of the board for this report. Thirdly, I speak because I am personally convinced of the vital and increasing importance of the voluntary sector in the life of our nation. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the report supports the voluntary sector in its own right as providing a continuing and necessary element in the provision of care which our society shows towards those in need. The report sees it as making a specific contribution of its own and not merely as a means of filling gaps where at any one time statutory provision is not made.
Attention has already been drawn in this debate to the three ways in which this contribution can be made: the extension of the scope of existing provision; the improvement of the standards of existing provision; and the offering of services to meet needs for which little or nothing is provided by the State. While these three ways are all important, I believe that it is the fourth way, to which the report draws attention in the section on the voluntary system and pluralism, which is, in the long run, the most significant. It is so, whatever may be the nature or extent of the particular service which is provided, for that fourth way concerns the effect of the voluntary sector in playing a part in determining the pattern of our national and social life, simply by its very existence.
I believe that one of the most urgent needs in our national life today is that people should be encouraged to take responsibility and to accept the consequences of their own decisions when they have made them. The voluntary element can, I suggest to your Lordships, play a most important part towards this end. It can do so, first by stimulating people to take the initiative to meet specific needs, of which they themselves may be the first people to become really aware. But, just as important, it can also encourage those in need to co-operate with help that is offered rather than

137
expect everything to be provided without response on their part. I believe that that is much more likely to happen when voluntary help is provided rather than when it is given by the State. Also, as the report itself points out, the voluntary sector can give people a greater opportunity to have a part in the shaping of our society than they would otherwise have.
I do not think that anyone has yet drawn attention to the fact that this debate itself owes its very existence to the voluntary sector. We should not be taking part in it had not two voluntary organisations taken the initiative and provided the means for this report to be produced.
Although the report is concerned with the future of voluntary organisations, it recognises and supports what it describes as the informal system of caring. I live in an area where informal social help is much in evidence. The Cornish do not readily send their aged relations into a home, nor are they reluctant to care for their handicapped children at home. On my pastoral visits to the parishes, which include visiting the elderly and the housebound, I am impressed and encouraged by the way in which regular help from neighbours enables old people to continue living in their own homes, often alone, and to do so happily and with safety. Facilities such as day centres, whether for the aged or for the handicapped, are welcomed as enabling those who are responsible for such people to continue to care for them within the family.
I am greatly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her kind reference to the day centre at Newquay. I am glad that she was so impressed by it. I was there myself just under a week ago and I know with what enormous pleasure they looked forward to her visit and I have no doubt whatever that when I return to Cornwall I shall hear that their expectations were fulfilled in ample measure. As the noble Baroness told your Lordships, that day centre was a very remarkable effort, initiated and carried through by voluntary work.
Such informal efforts can be encouraged and guided by intermediate organisations, the importance of which is recognised in the report. Such organisations can help in two ways: first, they can give the necessary and desirable degree of autonomy
138
to local efforts which can otherwise easily become swamped by local authorities. Secondly, they can serve as a means of encouraging local initiatives to meet new needs and prevent inflexibility. I know, from my experience as chairman of the Board for Social Responsibility in trying to assist the dioceses of the Church of England to meet the new situation in social work created by the implementation of the Seebohm Report, that it is often the wholly local autonomous concern which can be the most inflexible and the least able to adapt to a new need. An intermediate organisation can play a very important part in assisting such local concerns to look into the future and to do so constructively. It is mainly for this reason, my Lords, that I hope you will support the proposal of the report that grant aid should be given at the intermediate level. The recognition of the strategic place of intermediate bodies is, I believe, a distinctive feature of the report.
Such bodies can also play an essential part in the process of self-criticism to which the report rightly says the voluntary organisations must regularly subject them-selves. If a local authority attempts to assist in such self-criticism it can easily be misinterpreted as an attempt to gain control and to determine policy. Wise advice and direction from a national or regional voluntary body with the same aims is likely to be much more readily accepted. Also, such a national or regional body may be more aware of changing needs and opportunities through its relationship to central Government and its knowledge of public as opposed to purely local opinion.
I know that your Lordships appreciate that, if the proposals of the report are to be put into effect, it is necessary that continuous encouragement should be given to people to volunteer, and that the right people should volunteer. The Church of England is sensitive to this need. As a result of a debate in the July group of sessions of the General Synod of the Church of England, my Board was asked to initiate further study into ways in which—and I quote the resolution—
"dioceses may promote efforts for citizen participation in the social services".
Steps have been taken to this end and a document will shortly be published to encourage the dioceses to survey the

139
needs and opportunities for voluntary service in the community, to make them known to Church people and to assist where practicable in the recruitment of volunteers. It will also press for schemes of lay training in the Church of England to include an adequate section on training for service in the community. It will also urge that serious consideration should be given to the provision of resources of money and manpower within the Church to carry out work in the community which would strengthen local caring groups, and I would hope that other voluntary bodies might take similar steps to encourage a steady flow of volunteers.
There are practical reasons why I believe it is right for your Lordships to support this report. Now that people are living longer and with ever increasing expectations of what the State will provide, it is unrealistic to suppose that social service departments can meet the full burden of social needs, particularly at a time of economic stringency. However, I believe that such practical considerations are secondary, however cogent they may be. The essential reason, I suggest to your Lordships, is one of principle: the principle that voluntary participation is conducive to good social organisation and encourages sound social growth. It is also, I believe, the way in which corporate recognition by the State of human need can be accompanied by the acceptance of individual responsibility, both being ways in which we discharge the duty to love our neighbour.
4.46 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate who, like the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, speaks with so much authority on these matters and has made such a deep impression on the House. I feel sure that he will often speak again, and he will always be listened to with close attention. I must apologise for the state of my throat, but I have taken the precaution of stationing myself beside my medical adviser, who is always ready to render voluntary service to noble Lords in difficulties.
We are all grateful to the noble Baroness and, if she will allow me to say so, we are still more grateful to the noble Lord,
140
Lord Wolfenden, for this classical report and for the debate that has followed it. It is rather more than 20 years ago since I initiated a debate in this House supporting the report with which the noble Lord's name has hitherto been associated. Like myself, it may not have been the association he would have chosen but undoubtedly he will go down in history for his connection with that subject, unless this one supersedes it. At any rate I was bold enough to support him a year before anyone would touch it in the House of Commons. Today, it is much less risky to support the noble Lord; indeed, it would seem to be lèse-majesté to do anything else and I am not going to differ from the general consensus of approval.
With regard to voluntary action, in 1950 I had my say in this House on behalf of the Attlee Government. I made the first major post-war statement on behalf of voluntary action at that time. That was a moment when it was thought by many that the Labour Party and all those concerned with the Welfare State might be hostile to voluntary action, but I will not repeat what I said then. It has all been developed much more elaborately and eloquently in the report which is before us. I will deal today with microcosmic aspects of particular projects rather than the macrocosmic issues, and I will deal with the particular rather than the general. Like many noble Lords, I have been associated with a whole number of voluntary organisations. Looking across at the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, I think she might hold the record, although I am not sure. There is strong competition in this House and I have been concerned with founding more than one such body.
I shall be saying a few words from the point of view of three organisations which, on the whole, have considerable reason to express gratitude—not uncritical gratitude—to the public authorities, central and local, for their support, and from the point of view of one body which has very little reason to be grateful. I will not make a further plea for financial assistance on behalf of the first three, although that would come from the heart; but I wish to say something in relation to a remark that fell from the

141
lips of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, about mutual aid. The three organisations I am speaking about are the New Horizon youth centre, started for young people with problems living in the Soho area; the Melting Pot, started for young black people in Brixton and the New Bridge, a society for helping ex-prisoners. In none of these cases can you talk of mutual aid in quite the sense in which the noble Lord was using the expression, but in each case there is a considerable connection between the people who are trying to do the helping and the people who are being helped. In New Horizon from the beginning we have had the slogan, "The young can help the young"; the people helping them, the social workers, have been very young people, in their twenties, helping people who are in their late 'teens or early twenties. That has been part of the inspiration from the beginning, though older people—not to mention very old people like myself—have been prominent on the council and so on.
Then, in regard to Melting Pot, black people on the whole are helping black people, and in a sense I do not think anybody but black people could help the blacks in Brixton in quite the way it is being done. But, of course, white people are helping black people to help the blacks, and the black people who are helping the blacks are not the same age—they are not adolescents—as the people being helped, but there is that link. In the case of New Bridge for ex-prisoners, the problem is rather more complex. One cannot quite coin the phrase that only delinquents can help delinquents. When we started New Bridge nearly 20 years ago we had in mind some comparison perhaps with Alcoholics Anonymous. It has not quite worked out in that way, though some who have been in prison have given much help with the society. But, to put it bluntly from the point of view of the public authorities, I do not know how much financial help they would give to a society which was mainly run by delinquents to help delinquents. That is one of the problems involved when we talk about mutual aid. However, I offer those thoughts in passing about the problems of participation.
I come to an aspect of this topic where I cannot speak with any kind of gratitude towards the authorities, central and local;
142
I am referring to the Chiswick Women's Aid. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, in his excellent report has referred quite a lot to the Chiswick Women's Aid. They are treated as quite a good example of pioneering. I do not know whether, the noble Lord when he wrote that report, knew quite how badly they have in fact been treated by the authorities. You would not gather it from the report, and the noble Lord was probably not aware of it, but that is the position. People are coming from all over the world. In the last six years this small group has focussed and enlightened consciences throughout the world. Correspondence and visitors come from everywhere—from the United States, from Turkey, from New Zealand, from Canada, from Africa, and every European country. The Berlin Government closely studied Mrs. Pizzey's centre before setting up its own. So it h AS been a fine example of pioneering, but it is not pioneering which has received much goodwill here.
I am bound to labour the point, and I would speak at greater length, but your Lordships will be glad to hear that my voice is too bad to allow that to be possible. One is bound to ask why this one small poverty-stricken organisation has attracted such world-wide interest, and, on the other hand, aroused what one can only call cold-hearted indifference—one could use stronger and more unpleasant words—from the authorities, local and national, in our own country. Why do these women flee from every quarter of the British Isles to this centre? Why do social workers, the police, the Samaritans and other societies, even from the other refuges for battered wives, send families to this overcrowded refuge? It is possible that there is a lesson to be learned, that these people have discovered certain secrets or are on the way to discovering secrets which are still somewhat unpalatable in our present age. The not ion that marital violence is a result of early childhood experience in the family and results in a crippled or non-existent ability to make complete relationships without violence—it may be this which is unacceptable. However, the fact exists. Here is this body arousing all this interest, praised, in so far as it is referred to, by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden. He picks it out as an example of a need which has been recognised only recently; but, unless

143
I am mistaken, the future of assistance for this centre from the public and local authorities is dark indeed.
I do not want to end on that note, but I must repeat that it is complacent if we have a debate here on the voluntary societies and assume that all goes well, smoothly, and that with a little oil in the machine it will go forward more smoothly still. It is perfectly possible for a great social experiment to be frustrated, and it may be sabotaged, through lack of understanding by public bodies. Although there may be many people here who are reluctant to admit this for a number of reasons, these are the facts as I understand them. However, I will return to a pleasanter note. I think we must all feel that this report is a masterly description of voluntary action today. I have been over that ground in the past both in theory and in practice, and I cannot imagine it being better done. I still cherish the hope that the noble Lord, when he speaks today—after all, I hope he is speaking as a human being and not just as a chairman of a committee—will be able to tell us more clearly than he was allowed to by this large and distinguished gathering of his, what he thinks ought to be done to assist us in the future.
4.57 p.m.
Lord WOLFENDEN: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my thanks to those which have already been expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this debate, and for the eloquent and elegant way in which she did so. I would offer my thanks also to all those noble Lords who have already richly and generously contributed to the debate out of their own knowledge and experience. We have also heard two exemplary maiden speeches which lead us to hope that we may hear those voices many times in the future.
My Lords, I suppose I ought to declare an interest, as being responsible, with my nine colleagues, for the report which is the subject, or object, of this discussion. Obviously, and I think naturally and properly, I have an interest, not, I hasten to say, in the proceeds of the sales of the report, but in the judgments which are passed on it, and, much more important, in any effect that it may have on public policy over the next 25 years.
144
It seems to me that there are two distinct distinguishable levels on which this debate might be conducted; and indeed we have already seen signs this afternoon of this dichotomy. One level, to my mind the lower and more ephemeral, is that of discussion and criticism of the report itself. The other, to me much more important, is the level of discussion of the principles and problems with which the report attempts to deal. May I mention very briefly indeed two or three topics on each level, several of which have in fact already been touched upon this after-noon. I should hate to give the impression of being so arrogant as to presume to sum up the debate, still less to reply to it, though a certain number of observations have been made which I should love to answer and argue about. I would simply like to try to emphasise what seem to me to be important points on these two distinct levels.
First, on the report itself. In the comments that I have heard today and in the comments that I have seen, and I do not claim to have seen them all, the criticism most frequently made—and it has been echoed here this afternoon—is that we have not given a positive enough lead about the future of the voluntary organisations. We are told, "You have collected quite a lot of useful information about the present state of things, some of which has never been assembled before; but why didn't you go on to do the job you were supposed to be doing, plot a course for the future? Why so timid?" My reply is that we were not being timid or gutless; we were being modest and realistic and perceptive. We did not produce a blueprint for the future, or even a number of alternative scenarios (as the fashionable words are), partly because we did not reckon ourselves omniscient prophets, but partly for another reason. The voluntary organisations and their members are essentially voluntary. It is not part of their nature that they should be ordered about, or pushed around or told to do what they are told. Indeed, I have an idea that to attempt to regiment them or organise them too tidily could very well be counter-productive, damaging rather than increasing their contribution to our total social picture.
A second, related, criticism bears this out. We have proposed a governmental

145
initiative in the working out of a comprehensive overall pattern of social provision in which the voluntary, the statutory, the informal and the commercial elements should all have their place. This suggestion, or challenge, has been received in some quarters with anxiety and misgiving, on the grounds that the initiative is being taken away from the voluntary sector and that Government intervention inevitably means Government control. Perhaps our critics have overlooked one crucial adjective in our proposal. We plainly said that it is for the Government
"to take, urgently, the initiative in working out, with the variety of agencies which are now operating in this field, a collaborative social plan which will make the optimum and maximum use of resources."
If I may say so in parenthesis, I deliberately used the words "maximum" and "optimum", one as I understand it being quantitative and the other qualitative. "Collaborative" is the key word. Verily, my Lords, you cannot win. If you do not produce a blueprint you are being gutless; if you suggest collaboration, under Government auspices, to produce a social plan you are handing the voluntary organisations over to Government control.
Now I should like to be a little more positive and set my foot on the ladder which leads from one level of debate to the other. There was no doubt whatever in our minds that there is indeed a future for voluntary organisations. Indeed, I was constantly reminded of the debate in your Lordships' House some two and a half years ago when speaker after speaker affirmed precisely that. Throughout the report we have asserted what we have called the "pluralist" position, as distinct from what we have called a "monolithic" one. I think I need not take your Lordships' time in rehearsing all the arguments for this view; they are familiar enough. But if they are accepted at least three corollaries seem to me to result.
The first is closely connected with my earlier point about a collaborative pattern of social provision. There is no doubt at all that there are gaps and deficiencies in that provision today. Some of the gaps are simply geographical. In some places up and down the United Kingdom there are whole kinds of need which are not met. This is more true perhaps in scattered rural communities than in the
146
more accessible and compact urban or suburban areas, but there are a surprisingly large number of those more thickly populated areas where services which other places take for granted simply do not exist. However, besides these geographical gaps there are, in no matter what area, whole classes of persons who are uncared for because they belong to "unpopular" categories. I am thinking, for instance, of ex-prisoners, alcoholics, drug addicts and others who are regarded by many of their fellow citizens with disapproval. Something must be done, my Lords, to close these gaps, whether they be topographical or conceptual. Whether this operation can best be performed by a voluntary or by a statutory agency is precisely the kind of problem we should hope to see faced in the collaborative social plan we advocate.
That leads me to my second corollary of the pluralist position. We have emphasised the importance, both at national and especially at local level, of what we call the "intermediary bodies". We deliberately avoided the word "co-ordination", because to some people that has become almost a dirty word, being taken to mean time-consuming chattering with no effective result Perhaps the best known and most respected examples of what we have in mind are the rural community councils, which cover practically all the non-metropolitan counties of England and Wales, and provide a wide range of services to their member bodies. Their urban counterparts, Councils of Social Service or Councils of Voluntary Service, differ inter se much more than do the rural community councils, and their coverage is less complete. We believe that urgent efforts should be made to bring more of them into existence and to strengthen the work of all of them. This means, in most cases, more money; but the total of £2·5 million a year, which we have suggested, from central Government, seems to us to be very little compared with the increased scope and effectiveness of provision which would result. Here again, we have deliberately abstained from putting forward a model constitution to be uniformly and universally adopted.
The histories and circumstances of different towns and cities differ enormously. Some have a long tradition of voluntary service, some have very little. In some the

147
initiative has come, and will come, from the statutory side, in others from the voluntary. A tidy uniformity is not the ideal. What is needed is a recognition of the problems of a particular place, an appreciation of the functions which need to be carried out in that particular place by its local intermediary body and then the construction of an agency designed to carry out those functions. The crucial objective is planned and collaborative deployment of all the resources, statutory and voluntary, in a continuing, comprehensive and coherent provision. Of national intermediary bodies there is no need for me to say anything after the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, until lately chairman of the National Council of Social Service.
My third corollary is that if the voluntary organisations are to play their proper part in all this there is need for them to undertake some self-examination and self-criticism. Nobody questions the magnificent work they have done in the past or the almost immeasurable contribution they are making in the present. But that is not enough. There are various aspects of their work, collectively and individually, which would be none the worse for some self-examination—I am thinking of such areas as straightforward efficiency in the use of money and of voluntary effort, accountability to their supporters, and sometimes redefinition of aims in the light of changed and changing circumstances. I am not, of course, making charges of gross inefficiency, still less of financial improprieties. But in the world of the present, and, a fortiori, of the future, to have done splendid work in the past is not enough. Certainly it will not be enough to satisfy those young people who are increasingly becoming the contributors of man-hours and woman-hours in places where they are needed most.
My Lords, I have almost finished. I have not tried to provide a summary of our report—I see no reason why I should save your Lordships the trouble of reading it for yourselves. I have simply tried to indicate half-a-dozen main areas of concern as we saw them. There are dozens more that I might have pursued, but that would have tried your Lordships' patience more than I have tried it already. And now, as I have listened to the earlier
148
speeches in an attitude of humble attentiveness I shall resume my seat and resume that same attitude for the remainder of this fascinating debate.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I have great compassion for your Lordships' House in having to listen to my speech following the absolutely outstanding one made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden. I join with others in congratulating the noble Lord on his report and thank my noble friend Lady Young for initiating this debate. I must also apologise to your Lordships' House because if the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, found that all he was going to say had been said by the time the second speaker had spoken, then by the eleventh speech everything has been said—I have been crossing out paragraph after paragraph. My speech will be short, but it will be very scrappy as it will lack continuity.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, for his maiden speech. As a former director of social services I listened with sorrow and dismay when lie said that some directors of social services do not know the voluntary organisations in their areas. With humility, I would say that I think I knew all my organisations, but I am quite sure that my former colleagues will take note of what the noble Viscount said. I was going to refer to the fact that the Church had been excluded, but naturally with such eminent a speaker as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro that paragraph has been scored out.
The Wolfenden Report has skilfully and realistically opened up a debate not only in your Lordships' House, but throughout the country. Such a debate is timely—timely, because the voluntary sector is growing. My noble friend Lady Young quoted the figures and, therefore, I shall omit them. Timely also because the:
"Voluntary giving has fallen behind the average rise in incomes".
Here again I shall not give the figures as they have already been given.
The Committee wisely set themselves limits, confining themselves to consideration of the social and environmental

149
services. We have sympathy with education, health, probation, after-care and the innumerable other areas omitted, but I think the Committee know that it would have been impossible to have included them all. In the two areas covered, however, I would not go so far as to say that the members of the Committee have left undone those things which they ought to have done. What they omitted they did so advisedly, with thought. Strangely, the Committee's research seems to have ranged wider than the areas to which the Committee confined themselves.
What is left out is as important as what is contained in the report, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, will forgive me if I refer to the omissions. The four categories referred to—the informal (meaning the family, the neigh-bourhood and the community), the commercial, the statutory services and the voluntary sector—are assisted by volunteers. Volunteers were not covered in the report because they were so ably covered in the Aves Report. Nevertheless, the volunteer movement should not pass without comment in this debate. There will be future discussions and perhaps we should note what the volunteers are and have been doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred to the Volunteer Centre at Berkhamsted, which came into being as a result of the Aves Report. I should like to mention that the local authorities are paying volunteers; I wonder whether this will blur the boundaries between the role of volunteers and paid staff. Perhaps this matter could be considered at future discussions. Volunteers can be an integral part of a voluntary organisation and a local authority. Perhaps I could mention the Channel Scheme of voluntary family counsellors in Liverpool, which was initiated by Dr. Barnardo's, where, supported by qualified social workers, voluntary counsellors enter into a partnership with families facing difficulties of an emotional, mental and social nature. May I also mention the 57,470 Guiders running companies for 763,939 girls. That is an enormous piece of social work. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, may I suggest that we pay tribute to those thousands of voluntary workers who raise money.
150
The raising of money also invokes in the community an interest, knowledge and sense of responsibility for and compassion in the project or organisation to which the volunteers devote their energies. I think of money being raised by Dr. Barnardo's at the pithead in the bleak early morning when the miners come off duty at 4 o'clock; I think of the taxicab drivers and the firemen in Oxford raising money for what they called "their Church Army Hostel for men".
As proof of their viability, voluntary organisations should surely raise a proportion of their income using businesslike methods; the same should apply to how they spend the money. It is acknowledged that there are some necessary but unpopular causes which require financial help. As other noble Lords have mentioned, the report makes no mention of the self-help groups. The individuals in such groups help and support each other and often need technical advice and funding. No mention is made of the voluntary work done under the auspices of the Community Relations Committees throughout the country.
I should like, briefly, to comment upon the relationship between central Government and voluntary organisations. To what extent does the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, consider that the voluntary sector should be involved in planning services both in the area of broad policies and in detail? For example, the National Children's Homes and Dr. Bernardo's, to quote only two of the child care organisations, do not serve on the Regional Planning Committees throughout the country, although 10 per cent. of the children in care are looked after by voluntary organisations. I was glad that only last week the Minister for Health and Social Security in another place announced several nominations for voluntary organisations to serve on the Personal Social Services Council. So perhaps that is a step in the direction of the involvement of the voluntary sector in planning. It is encouraging because the Government document, The Way Forward, issued by the Personal Social Services Council, did not refer to the role of the voluntary sector as much as it might have done.
In the area of training of social workers, I understand that 10 per cent., probably

151
more, field and residential social workers, by agreement, are trained on the same courses as social workers and the statutory services, and yet no representative of the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations is a member of the Council for Training and Education in Social Work. Indeed, of the 67 members, only four are from the voluntary sector, and those four do not employ qualified social workers. I should indeed be grateful if the Minister could comment on that point.
Turning to the relationship between local authorities and voluntary organisations, I agree with the noble Viscount that the development is uneven over the country. Some local authorities, for instance, use the WRVS; some do not; some use the Red Cross and some do not. Doubtless the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, has knowledge of this. There may be reasons on both sides why there is not an interweaving partnership. However, it should be said that if a London Borough such as Islington, facing problems of an inner-city area, can encourage and assist voluntary organisations and volunteers towards obtaining their objectives, such a policy must be a practicable proposition. Another such authority is the East Sussex County Council.
On the question of intermediary bodies, I would wish to see a more detailed plan than is in the report. On the position with regard to funding, I support the Voluntary Service Unit, but I understand and appreciate the difficulties which have been outlined by the noble Baroness. I also support funding through individual Government Departments to projects which fall within the orbit of that Department. Any Department other than the Department of Health and Social Security, for instance, would find it difficult to understand the rôle of the Adoption Resource Exchange.
What the Committee has purposely not done—and I shall leave out the next chunk of my speech because it has already been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden—was to supply an exact definition. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether he can inform your Lordships' House in his reply what is now to be the next stage of the Wolfenden Report? May I here point out that on
152
the Wolfenden Committee were no representatives of voluntary organisations responsible, through their social workers, for day-to-day work in the field of social work. The reasons for this were stated clearly on Page 9.
With the greatest deference to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, it might have been helpful if there had been a sub-committee of representatives of voluntary organisations monitoring the evidence of the 120 reports of evidence reviewed. Perhaps this point could be borne in mind at the next stage of the Wolfenden Report. May I say that the Wolfenden Report, the Goodman Report, the Boyle Report and the Ayes Report constitute a four-course meal requiring a very good digestion. In making future firm policy recommendations, may I suggest that these reports should be considered and looked at together.
Finally, may I say that, while paying tribute to the work of voluntary organisations and volunteers, a sense of balance should be preserved and we should also pay tribute in this debate to the statutory services who, at the end of the day, must be the last ditch. Only if both sectors carry out work of a high quality, and complementing each other, is there likely to be a sound partnership providing a balanced and all-embracing social and environmental service in this country.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, may I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this debate and giving us the opportunity of discussing the Wolfenden Report today. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the conclusion of the Wolfenden Report that voluntary work and voluntary organisations are necessary; in fact that they are a good thing, and that there is a place for both statutory and voluntary service. It should always be remembered that the statutory services work defined, regular hours, five days a week, but that those who need help are not necessarily ill or lonely within these hours. That is where the voluntary sector is so important, and much of their work needs no grant at all and is just a splendid example of befriending.
I welcome the Committee's view that local authorities should provide grants to

153
voluntary organisations for all services undertaken by them which are complementary or additional to the statutory services, but care must always be taken by the voluntary organisations not to come under the influence of the pressure groups, or they would then be in danger of losing their independence.
The report does not condemn all overlapping of voluntary services, which is interesting, because although in some cases there can be a waste of funds and of personnel it can also raise the standard of service by being competitive and thereby giving the consumer a choice. Also the supporters of any particular organization—dare I say "charity"?—may have a personal reason for doing so. We in the larger charities—and I must declare my Red Cross interest here—are very conscious of our financial responsibilities, and we have to spend a lot of money on professional staff to deal with this. Therefore, we readily accept that we should be fully accountable. But in the Red Cross we feel that accountability should be thought of in terms much wider than financial; that the voluntary organisations should be accountable for their actions and for their services. We agree with the Save the Children Fund that great emphasis should be placed on accountability, since the good reputations of voluntary societies would inevitably suffer should the misuse of funds by even one defaulter hit the headlines in the mass media, and we certainly cannot afford to be tarred with that unpleasant brush.
This report is only about the personal social services, but it is difficult to separate them from the voluntary sector in the Health Service. I should like an assurance from the Government that they accept the need for voluntary help in both the personal social services and the Health Service, as the voluntary aid societies have a very important part allotted to them in the Home Defence Circular on the preparation and organisation of the Health Service in war, and also in the Health Service Circular on the arrangements for dealing with major accidents. Both circulars refer to liaison with local authorities and the social services departments. In emergencies the unexpected pretty well always happens, and it would be absolutely absurd if the voluntary organisations were debarred from giving their help.
154
Finally, it is of some concern to us that the report sees a need for more intermediary bodies. Surely if the National Council of Social Service and their local councils of social service are doing the work they were originally intended to do, there would not be room for other intermediary bodies, which would only cost more money which could be better spent. I should be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister could comment on this, and also on accountability.
5.30 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I must at the outset apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for not being in my place to hear her speech; I am sure I missed a great deal, though I will read it carefully in tomorrow's Hansard. The price one pays for being a GP is that one's time is not one's own, and of course this is the period of coughs and colds and one's surgery takes much longer than usual. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for having initiated this debate and I join with others in thanking her. I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and the members of his team for the thorough way in which they carried out the work they were invited to do.
I wish to concentrate specifically on one observation they make, one recommendation with which I agree; namely, that in view of the way in which things are developing in this country today it will be necessary for more funding to be done by statutory authorities, central and local government. It is my view that that will happen and I wish to use my own experience to point out some of the difficulties that will arise as a consequence of this happening. As most noble Lords will know, I was for nine years, from 1968 to 1977, deputy chairman of the Community Relations Commission, and I was chairman of its field work committee, the body responsible for developing and establishing the local community relations councils. Therefore my responsibility during the whole of those nine years was to chair a committee which was concerned with establishing and strengthening local community relations councils. It is that experience on which I am drawing in pointing out that there could be problems if we have to rely particularly on local authorities for funding.

155
I am sure that most noble Lords know about the community relations councils, though perhaps not as much as I would like them to know. These community relations councils have several functions. For example, they are expected to assess the community relations needs of their areas and monitor the State's race relations policy. From that assessment they are expected to devise a strategy for action and make recommendations to local statutory and voluntary agencies and professional workers; I am speaking of people like teachers, social workers, both sides of industry, the police and so on.
They are also expected to take part in public education, and for that they have to use local radio and newspapers and aim to influence attitudes and provide factual information. They also have to help to organise social and cultural activities designed to establish the multi-cultural character of our society. It is obvious that in doing those things they often have to take on a campaigning role, and therefore they have a dual function which one must always recognise. They also spend much of their time organising community projects and assisting other organisations in their project work. I am talking about things like multi-racial playgroups, advice services, holiday projects and youth provision, and they play quite an important part in helping local organisations to make applications to the urban programme.
They are also expected to work for the effective development of community groups and minority group organisations. This is important because they need to encourage the ethnic minorities in self help activities. That is a very important part of their job. In addition to the functions I have mentioned, they must spend some of their time on individual casework because it is inevitable that there will be individuals with problems with which they think only the community relations officer can deal. It is not always true that nobody else can do it but they think that only the CRO can advise them and therefore they must do a lot of casework. Wherever possible, however, they try to involve local agencies rather than do it themselves.
In discharging these functions, CRCs have traditionally worked from a tripartite
156
base; that is, the local authority through the involvement of councillors and working in close contact with local authority departments in respect of financial assistance, which brings me nearer to the purpose of my remarks. The second element in this tripartite base is the central Government represented by the Commission, which finances most of the staff of the CRCs and, as I said earlier, plays some part through the urban programme.
The third is the harnessing of local voluntary effort, an extremely important part of the job. This is done by bringing together all sorts of local statutory and voluntary services and organisations. I am talking not only about local government but the local offices of central Government Departments, the police, councils of voluntary service, neighbourhood groups, religious organisations, political Parties, trades councils, minority and group organisations and so on. We have endeavoured to restrict individual membership to a quarter, otherwise one can get a committee which is swamped by people who want to use it as a pressure group, and then its real usefulness can be lost.
Under the new Race Relations Act, as I see it, these local councils will have much greater responsibility and a much more difficult task. As your Lordships will remember, the new Race Relations Act makes it incumbent on local authorities to pursue their policies in a way calculated to remove racial discrimination and provide equality of opportunity. Noble Lords may remember that when the Act was going through this House I tried to get the House to include an Amendment which would have made it incumbent on local authorities to work with the Commission for racial equality, and I had good reason for that. I can envisage local councils—remember, I am speaking with nine years' experience—providing a liaison officer to work with the immigrant organisations claiming payment for it under Section 11 and insisting that they are doing their duty in terms of the Act. I am fairly certain that we will find several of them doing that.
I want to take up a few minutes of your Lordships' time to point out the difference in the grants that local councils

157
have been making to their community relations councils. We start with Camden, which in 1976–77 gave them £86,000 and which undertakes to give them £96,000 in the year 1977–78. There are other good councils making similar grants, such as Hammersmith, which gave £30,000 last year and is giving £31,000 this year; Lambeth, which gave £39,000 last year and is giving £55,000 this year; and Lewisham, which gave £30,000 last year and is giving £30,000 again this year. There are several such good councils, but there are also several councils which make what are in fact merely nominal grants to their community relations councils. The worst is Medway and Gillingham, which gives £30; but they may not in fact need to make a big grant. There are much more critical areas where big grants are needed, such as Tower Hamlets, for example, which gave only £2,360 last year and has promised to give only £1,400 this year. Contrast that with Camden, which is giving £96,000. There is a marked difference. Or Westminster—and do not forget that when we are talking about the City of Westminister we are talking about Paddington. They gave £8,000 last year and are to give £10,000 this year. Again, contrast that with Camden's £96,000 or Lambeth's £55,000. Or Islington, which has a good record in terms of its grants to voluntary bodies but which gives its community relations council only £11,000. In fact, it gave it £17,000 last year and reduced it this year to £11,000. Or take Ealing—and, again, remember that when we are talking about Ealing we are talking about Southall. Their grant was £11,000 last year and it will be £12,500 this year.
So we have these very unbalanced contributions from local authorities; and, therefore, if we are to rely on funding from local authorities we are in fact going to be relying on a real patchwork quilt in terms of services, because what I have used the community relations councils to demonstrate is not different from what the report has demonstrated as to the imbalance in the grants which are being made to other voluntary bodies. That is one piece of my experience that I wanted to pass on to your Lordships, which I suggest calls for a little thought in terms of how much one can count on local authorities for contributions.
158
I am now going to recount to your Lordships another of my experiences, which in some respects is worse. It relates entirely to Islington, and it is to do with a project called the Harambee project. The Harambee project is aimed at the rehabilitation of deprived black adolescents. At present it provides them with some sort of overnight accommodation and tries to help to rehabilitate them and get them back into the community. The process of rehabilitation which it adopts is a continuous one. For example, if one of these youngsters is arrested there is an attempt from that moment to make contact with him, to keep the contact while he is in custody, to keep the contact while he is serving his sentence if he has to go to a detention centre or prison, and then, when he is out of custody, to continue the work of rehabilitation, trying to provide him with skill as well as self-confidence. For example, if a chap has been to borstal he will certainly have begun to learn a trade there. Therefore, in effect, the rehabilitation involves continuing with that work until he acquires the skill, at the same time providing him with a secure form of accommodation.
It was clear that the demand far exceeded the ability of Harambee to provide, and therefore an application was made to the Government for urban aid. The Government gladly agreed to an urban aid grant, and, to indicate how much the Government were satisfied that this was a useful piece of work, the urban aid grant was £281,000. It is one of the biggest. That was in the financial year 1974–75. To this day that project has not come to fruition because the local authority and Harambee have been disagreeing with each other as to how it should be controlled. I give your Lord-ships these examples because it is my view that, while one can say quite readily, "Yes, there is need for more central Government finance for voluntary bodies", one must recognise that there will be difficulties, and one must think of how some of these difficulties can be overcome.
I want to make three suggestions to the Government, one of which is actually in the report. That is the one relating to the Development Commission—that it should function in inner city areas as well as rural areas, and that there should be two sub-committees: one to deal with

159
the rural areas and one to deal with the inner cities. I think that is sensible. I am going to make two other suggestions. One is that the Commission for Racial Equality should be given a lot more finance so that it can provide the balance (much as it is the intention of the Regional Fund in the EEC to provide a balance) between the unequal contributions which are being made by local authorities to their various community relations councils. If it is to do that, it must have a lot more finance than it now has, and this is one of the recommendations I want to make to the Government, and make very seriously.
The second recommendation I want to make to the Government, equally seriously, is that the urban aid programme should be modified in two ways. The first is that the Government percentage of urban aid grant should be higher than 75 per cent. I suggest 90 per cent. The second—this is probably more controversial, but I think equally important—is that all applications for urban aid should go to the Government with, of course, recommendations from the local authority as to those it is prepared to support; and that where there is an urban aid project which the local authority does not recommend but which the Government think is worth supporting, then an urban aid grant should be given to that project on condition that the local people, the people who are running the project, raise the other 10 per cent. I am sure that that modification of the urban aid programme would enable it to be much more useful, because, as I said at the beginning—and I am ending right where I started—I agree that we have to think that in the future much of the funding will have to come from Government, whether central or local, but we must recognise that there will be problems and we must think of ways to get round them.
The two recommendations I have suggested will help. I am sure that many other ways could be thought of, but I want everybody concerned with this matter to recognise that the independence of these voluntary organisations is important, and that the fact of central or local government funding should not be allowed to interfere with this independence. It is a fact that local governments
160
vary considerably in their attitudes to various things, particularly to voluntary organisations.
5.50 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her introduction to this important debate. I also seek her indulgence if I go a little wider than the parameters to which she worked. We can but sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his hard-working Committee when early in their investigations they discovered what a bewildering variety of activities fall within the untidy boundaries of the words as commonly used. They found they had to draw boundaries, and in producing a report they made the focus of it the voluntary organisations which deal with the personal social services. They have thus excluded the voluntary organisations for youth which, in view of the fact that the sponsor, the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, has done such a tremendous amount of work for youth for so many years past, I find a little surprising.
For many years the organisations for youth have been influencing the lives of young persons throughout the land and they have shown considerable adaptability to the changing circumstances of the years. In this connection we should remember and pay tribute to the work of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme which has given a great impetus to these organisations in helping them to become more forward-looking and also, by associating them together and with the schools, in breaking down social barriers and those natural jealousies of youth which are inherent in pride in their own organisation, but which can be carried too far. In recent years the Duke of Edinburgh's Scheme has been substantially reinforced by the Army youth teams. The withdrawal of these teams will be acutely felt by certain organisations—to my mind a serious casualty of the defence cuts.
I have heard it said that there are too many organisations for youth. I should like to refute that; there is a virtue in the multiplicity of them. In this land the conditions under which youth grows up are many and varied, and many and varied are the characteristics of the individual boy or girl. The voluntary principle

161
requires that youth should be free to choose the kind of organisation they want to join and therefore within limits the more of these organisations there are the better. There is virtue in diversity.
This report discusses at some length the problem of fund raising. This is of special importance to voluntary youth organisations, for by and large they are utterly dependent on the funds they raise themselves from friends and charitable trusts. I would therefore ask the Government to give serious consideration to the recommendation in the Goodman Report that convenanted donations should be allowable against the higher value of income tax. In this respect, I strongly support the plea of my noble friend Lady Young. I should like to go further to a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, of which the Goodman Committee took a poor view. It is that as in the United States of America and other enlightened countries all charitable gifts are tax deductible. The Wolfenden Committee does not see this as a solution to the financial problems of the voluntary sector. I hesitate to disagree with the Committee, but so far as voluntary youth organisations are concerned it would be near disaster if they had to rely on statutory funding.
I must admit that the modest grants which the State presently gives to youth organisations are very acceptable, and more significant perhaps are the grants from local authorities. But do the former balance what the State extracts by VAT on sales of equipment, uniforms and so forth, and do the grants by local authorities normally exceed what the youth organisations themselves are paying by way of rates? I was greatly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said about this. I consider it was a notable contribution to our debate. I do not suggest that our system of tax covenants should be done away with. But for them our churches and youth organisations would be bankrupt and the State would have to go to their aid with all the disadvantages and bureaucracy that would necessarily follow.
On this question of finance for voluntary organisations, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a peculiar anomaly. It concerns amateur sports. Charitable
162
trusts are discouraged from helping amateurs either in clubs or individually; for example, in training for Olympic or Commonwealth games. If a charitable trust should make a grant, say, to a rugby football club to enable it to purchase and lay out a field on which to play, that charitable trust will receive from the Inland Revenue a demand to pay to them a sum of about half the grant they have made. Indeed the Inland Revenue may hint to them that they must not make any such grant in the future.
Amateur sport is surely a priority for the youth of the land. Amateur clubs are financed mainly by their members past and present. Why do we put very real difficulties in their way? The objection may be raised that the law cannot define what constitutes amateur status. If such objection can be justified, I would suggest an easy way of overcoming it in respect of such grants and of private donations as well. The State has set up sports councils and they are doing a very good job and are in touch with amateur sport. Let them be asked to certify that a specific voluntary organisation is bona fide amateur. Such a certificate should satisfy the Inland Revenue. This anomaly has been going on for some time, but the magnitude of it has only recently been generally appreciated. I wonder whether the Minister for Sport is aware of this; and, if not, whether he would give the matter his urgent consideration.
There is one final point. There is more to the voluntary youth organisations than just their good effect upon the youth of the nation. There is very much more. It is the effect that the youth organisations have on their leaders: how the leaders develop their characters through voluntary service to a quite phenomenal degree; how they develop a sense of duty, a sense of unselfishness and, in certain organisations, a deepening of their faith. This was the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans. I was glad to hear him make it. This benefit is not exclusive to the voluntary organisations, but you will find it in far greater degree in the leaders than almost anywhere else in our society. The benefits that the voluntary organisations give to their leaders is nothing new. It is more than 80 years since a wise Scotsman said of the pioneer of these

163
youth organisations that the Boys' Brigade was worth founding if only for its effect upon its officers.
6.1 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, of course one is only too happy to do what one can to support voluntary organisations. The Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust and the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust are greatly to be congratulated for making public the results of the work of the committee which they set up to study the role and functions of voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom during the next 25 years. It is understandable that they wanted information of a general kind that could help them in the allocation of their own funds and in their relation to statutory bodies; but such questions are more often treated internally and confidentially. We are in their debt for making their study public.
In some ways this debate might be said to be premature. It could, perhaps, have been delayed for a month for I understand that the National Council of Social Service is shortly to have a one-day seminar on the report; although some organisations are glad that it has come before your Lordships' House so quickly. Others that I have consulted feel that they have hardly had time to read and discuss it with all the carefulness it deserves. They have also found the report difficult to procure. It would certainly have made debate easier if the professionals had had their say first. I say "professionals" because one must regard the organisers of voluntary organisations as professionals, since in most cases they do genuinely develop an expertise in their fields.
I listened with great attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, and I agree with almost everything she said. But when one reads that 120,000 charities were registered with the Charity Commission in 1975, and then that this committee interviewed a total of 320 bodies—well, there does seem to be rather a gap; although to have interviewed all of them would be beyond the capacity of a Hercules.
I agree warmly with the report where it suggests that voluntary organisations need
164
to look at themselves critically at regular intervals of, say, five years. I think that on such occasions they need to look to the future as this committee has done. One point that has been put to me very strongly concerns the admirable work of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association. They have developed great expertise; but is there any reason why this expertise should not also become available to civilian limbless? This particular institution has been invaluable in its service during the past half-century or so but, surely, by now, it is a gradually dying concern because Britain has not had to engage in a major war—thank Heaven! we have to say—for more than 30 years; with the inevitable result that the number of limbless ex-Servicemen is dwindling. The need for a separate society or association for Servicemen in particular is certainly not the same today as it was in 1919 or, for that matter, in 1945. I give this example only because it seems to me an excellent one of how a valuable organisation may need to change its face and to adapt its aims to changed circumstances, and also that the expertise that it has acquired should not be lost but rather be made available to the statutory and other bodies engaged in parallel work.
My Lords, in certain respects one must regard this report as little more than hors d'oeuvres to what is obviously a vast subject. With about a thousand new voluntary organisations being registered every year, with the Charity Commission, it is plainly impossible to set bounds to a subject which by Statute ranges all the way from what is purely social welfare to archaelogy. So far as archaeology is concerned, it seemed a little strange that neither the British Academy nor the Society of Antiquaries were consulted. As an old fan of Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Rik Wheeler, I felt this with particular force; he would have been much put about. The terms of reference of the voluntary organisations are as broad as humanity itself.
My Lords, in a pluralistic society it is surely good that the voluntary sector should expand and that it and the statutory bodies should agree with each other to avoid unnecessary duplication. Each week when I am at home during the Recess of your Lordships' House, I see Meals-on-Wheels being taken to neighbours nearby, and I reflect what an enormous cost it

165
would be to the Government if this wonderful service were not undertaken voluntarily. I see people who happily give up a few hours one day a week, and some not so often, to help their neighbours. Surely there are areas which are best left to private endeavour and in which Government, like the angels, should avoid treading.
At the same time it seems to me of the highest importance that Government funds should, so far as they are available, concentrate upon intermediary bodies and especially in the provision of paid organisers; because it is upon the organisers that continuity depends. Under the old Colonial Development and Welfare Act, grants were made available for as much as five years at a time. I see no particular reason why positions such as I have described should depend upon only annual grants-in-aid voted to particular organisations, and should not statutorily be available for longer periods. I do not see how efficient continuity can be secured other than by the creation of paid posts for organisers in any but the smallest organisations. It is only through these intermediary bodies that Government can find out and judge whether money is to be suitably and well spent. In particular I would hope that organisations that set out to persuade persons to help themselves—and I am thinking, in particular, of the Gingerbread groups—should continue to receive their grants from the Government as well as any monies received from local authorities for their local groups because of the importance of their co-ordinating and campaigning work from their central office.
All the same, I am eager, indeed anxious, that all charities, even when grant-aided by Government or local authorities, should be allowed to continue to have the right to criticise constructively the actions or non-actions of Government. The National Council for One-Parent Families, for instance, values its independence although it receives substantial Government support. This sort of relationship is unique to our country. In our democratic system the right to criticise within reason without fear of the consequences is an essential element; and everyone knows in their private capacity that, as one grows older, constructive criticism becomes harder and harder to come by.
166
I am particularly taken by some remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made in the House on 2nd February, 1977. Her words related particularly to people helping themselves. I believe that our social policies must be designed primarily to help the retired to help themselves—what used to be known as the doctrine of enlightened self-interest; which today means, for us, that by encouraging the retired to help themselves they indirectly help us all. For me, in that sentence, the noble Baroness drew a very accurate boundary between what can be expected from the State and what should be expected from the individual: for ultimately everything depends on the good disposition of the individual. As Edmund Burke once said in another place, for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.
My Lords, there is another point that I would make to which several noble Lords have referred. In the United States' system of taxation, tax relief is allowed on all gifts to charities, even on what one puts into the church collection. This is an encouragement to the donor because it lowers his tax threshold; but it is really because Americans believe that spontaneous giving is worthy of encouragement. I do not speak in ignorance of the United States; I have lived there for three and a half years.
It is not always realised that many people who would give most reality find themselves in an income bracket where they can be nervous of donating to charity because of the weight of taxation. Within my knowledge, both many organisers and people in general have no idea of the concept of a covenant which makes it possible for the donee to recover the tax paid. I have personal recollections of a parish priest whose parish council obstinately refused to believe that they would gain a rebate of income tax from a covenant of annual payments for seven years; they simply did not believe it. Surely, having recognised the principle, the Government should encourage such donors.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I must apologise to the House and, in particular to the noble Baroness, because I could not be here at the beginning of the debate to listen to her speech.

167
There was a clash of business and the committee on agriculture in the EEC, of which I am an active member, met this afternoon (it generally meets in the mornings) and I had to divide my time. I apologise to the noble Baroness, and I shall read everything she said with the greatest interest.
There is not much that one can say after so many speeches and after so long a time. I particularly want to take part in this debate because the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and I are not only great friends but we both served on the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and it was the Carnegie Trust and the Rowntree Trust which inaugurated this inquiry. I think it is a most valuable document and everyone to whom I have listened in this debate has paid tribute to the excellence of the report. The only fault that they could find is that it does not have everything in it; but it has much more in it than most people could possibly have managed if it had not been for the skill of the chairman and his devoted work in attending so many meetings and organising so many interviews and inquiries throughout the whole country. We are extremely grateful to him.
I can never resist taking part in debates on voluntary organisations because they have been my interest for all my working life. I have always been associated with voluntary organisations. Next Tuesday I shall attend the 50th anniversary of the first club that I started in Hackney in the 1920s. So that is a reminder that one has had a long association with many of these organisations.
The report gives a very encouraging account and build-up of the work of the voluntary organisations. Five million people take part voluntarily in this work every year, and that is a tremendous contribution. Some £1,000 million of voluntary money is contributed to voluntary organisations, in addition to whatever money is donated by the Government or by local authorities. This is a splendid fact and we should be extremely proud in this country of this situation. There are two aspects of the report that I should like to talk about: the experiments and the initiative for new work which voluntary organisations provide every year. I have always thought that
168
it is one of the important things that voluntary organisations can do, they can start a new job or a new piece of research and attempt to get it on its feet. If it fails—which it sometimes does—that is also an answer because it is much easier and less costly for a voluntary organisation to start something and discover that it is not what is needed than it is for a Government to start something and then have to give it up. The proposition of trying out new ideas is one that the voluntary organisations must continue to do because they are the pioneers in this. It is very important that it does not involve public funds but does involve experiments, and experiments are always worth trying.
One of the new developments—and I am talking now from long experience of voluntary organisations—is that of the mutual aid organisation springing up spontaneously to meet new needs. I can readily think of the ones that I know best: the pre-school play groups, which have not been in existence for very long, are a tremendous success. They involve the mothers of small children and it makes a community relationship of the greatest value. I pay great tribute to their work.
The National Council for One Parent Families and the organisation called Gingerbread—which the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned—are new organisations which are springing up because, unfortunately, there are things happening in the world today which require this kind of service. There are the organisations for battered wives. It seems to me a most horrible description, but, alas, it is all too true. The organisations helping these unfortunate cases are very important indeed.
The National Society for Autistic Children, which I helped to start some eight years ago, is doing a marvellous job. Nearly everyone who belongs to it has an autistic child. They are doing the work themselves; they are the people who are pioneering and are getting help from the professionals. The National Council for the Single Woman and Her Dependants—I believe this has already been mentioned—is another of the mutual aid groups which are cropping up and are so very important. In the country, where I live, there is the organisation for riding

169
for the disabled which started only a short time ago. Although it is mostly confined to country areas it has been a tremendous success. This is largely due to mutual aid; the organisation is provided by people living in country areas. All these organisations are springing up spontaneously out of need and are started by people who are involved themselves. They are a new development which I hope will continue in the future.
The other aspect that I wanted to mention is the relationship between the voluntary and statutory organisations, between local authorities and voluntary organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, gave some figures which were startling in so far as they were so diverse and so different. I suppose if one went to the county areas of the United Kingdom one would find many differences. Speaking personally, I have not found it difficult to enlist the support of the voluntary organisations. In the area, where I was chairman of first the children's committee and then the social work committee, by insisting—with no difficulties—that social workers kept in close touch with the voluntary organisations. We had a conference of all the voluntary organisations in the area. We discussed with them the actions they could take to supplement what was a very small group of professional workers in not a very large area.
As has been mentioned before, we received tremendous help from the WRVS, Meals-on-Wheels, CAB work, play groups and from the club activities for adolescents. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has spoken about youth organisations. I found that if one asked youth organisations to visit day centres for old people, or carry out any social work in the evenings, they were only too delighted to do so. There was a real liaison between young people and old people because it was very much like visiting a friendly granny; and it worked extremely well. Those liaisons between the voluntary and statutory authorities require only a little contact and encouragement. A tremendous amount of work can be carried out in that way.
This is important and saves local authorities any amount of money. It is much easier and much cheaper to get additional help; but that is not the reason that one wanted to do it, but because the
170
voluntary organisations could make their contribution, and they were first class. It was that contribution that one wanted to enlist.
There are chapters in the report on fund raising; but of course it was not their remit to discuss fund raising. I should like to support very much those people who have talked about the American system. I am sure we ought to look into this more closely. Inevitably it is more difficult for voluntary funds to be subscribed since the very high taxation in this country puts a "stopper" on the generosity of many people. I pay tremendous tribute to those organisations who do manage to raise millions of pounds every year—organisations like the Red Cross and St. John, Dr. Barnardo's, Help the Aged, Oxfam, Save the Children, and so on. It is fantastic what they raise and it is another way of involving people in social work, because there are a certain number of people who love raising money. It is one of the things they are good at and it is a contribution they can make. It is extremely important to encourage that as much as possible, because that is their contribution; whereas other people simply hate raising money and will not touch it. Their contribution is their own personal service and work.
So I think we should enlist the enthusiasm of people to embark on fund raising. It is a wonderful example of self-sacrifice and of caring for other people. As I say, even children enjoy raising money for local events and local work. This is something which I believe we can certainly encourage and it is also something which the Government can encourage. Having been on a local authority for many years, I can well imagine how difficult it is for those in authority to be able to give money where they want. On the other hand, it is so much better if you can say: "It's a pound for a pound. If they raise all that money, we can give so much". In that case, the justification is there and I would urge the Government to look at this not only as an obligation but as something which would get support from the public in their help for the voluntary organisations. I know that a tremendous amount of money is given because I have had a lot of money from Governments for various activities in which I have been engaged during my life.

171
The report points out the increase in grant-aid from the Government organisations, which has risen from £19 million in 1974 to £35 million in 1977. With inflation, that does not seem to me such a big figure but I am glad it is there because it shows that the Government appreciate the difficulties of voluntary organisations. But I think if one makes comparisons with the voluntary funds that are raised one would find that there is quite as large an increase in the amount being raised from that side as well. I would stress again something which I have always felt very strongly—which is that as much money as possible should go to the actual organisation and to the recipient, and that as little as possible should be spent on administration. Of course administration is necessary and it has to be jolly good. I would support those people who say that sometimes voluntary organisations have not as good an administration as they should have. That is perfectly true, but let us cut the administration down to as low a level as we can, with efficiency and care, and let us give as much money as possible direct to the recipient or to the person who is really going to be helped.
I hope that the report will underline for many people the enormous amount of voluntary work which is done today. It is widespread throughout the whole country; it is shared by all sections of the community and it is needed as much today as in any other period in the past. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, will feel, having listened to this debate, that those of us who know and understand what he had done and what the Committee have given in the way of service, deeply appreciate the efforts that have been made. I hope it will spread all over the country and that the copies of the report which cannot be procured here today will be available in the future and that the voluntary organisations will recruit as many more assistants and help as they have done in the past, because this is today a vital service to our country.
6.25 p.m.
Lord CHITNIS: My Lords, like all the noble Lords who have already spoken, I should like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to discuss this report so soon after its publication, and to the
172
noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, his Committee and the two trusts which sponsored the report. I should perhaps mention that, while I am a director of a Rowntree Trust, I am not associated with the Rowntree Memorial Trust, of which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is chairman and which is one of the joint sponsoring bodies. I am associated with the Rowntree Social Service Trust, which is almost unique in this country in that it is a non-charitable, tax-paying, grant-giving body, so structured as to be able to support those voluntary organisations which cannot, as the law at present stands, qualify for charitable status. It is about them primarily that I wish to speak. Therefore, I shall not detain your Lordships for long because these are a very small part of the whole world of voluntarism which the report covers. But I think they deserve an advocate in this debate because the report does not make the assumption which I realise is only too easy to make—that all voluntary organisations are charitable organisations.
I do not wish to dwell particularly on the main conclusion of the report, which is that more public funding may be needed for voluntary organisations. I would only say, from my limited experience of the Voluntary Service Unit, as one example of Government as philanthropist, that it has shown a considerable degree of tolerance, understanding and imagination, and credit is due to all those who are associated with it. But there is a danger that, however willing the Unit, applicants to it, as long as it is an integral part of the Home Office, will be suspicious of it—however unfairly—and to that extent will exercise self-censorship in making applications to it and in their own activities, as long as they are in receipt of, or hoping for, grants from it.
I do not think that the members of the Voluntary Service Unit and those concerned with Government funding will try to exercise control over things, but the danger is that, because of the selfcensorship, people feel they have to apply State funding, which can have a deadening effect, however beneficient the State. At some time in the future, and realising that the gain in doing so might be more psychological than real, it might be appropriate if the Unit could be hived off as part of a Ministry and set up as a body

173
more akin to a grant-in-aid organisation, perhaps incorporating the grant-making functions of other Departments. I shared some of my years on the Community Relations Commission with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. Heaven knows that some people were a bit suspicious of us, but I feel that a number of people who rightly approached us for money would not have dreamt of doing so had we merely been a Department of the Home Office.
But the one group which probably suffers most from the disease to which the report calls attention, the fall-off in private funds, and is least likely to benefit from the cure, public funds, concerns those voluntary organisations which are pressure groups whose activities do not qualify them for charitable status. In particular, I am concerned about national groups of this kind, since local groups are often able to raise funds for a finite purpose and for the time necessary from the excitement generated by the issue on which they are campaigning.
Not surprisingly, the report tells of suspicion of pressure groups by both Government Departments and local authorities. It would be too much to expect such bodies to welcome whole-heartedly the activities of pressure groups, and indeed I think it would be unhealthy if they did. But it follows from this that if more public funds were made available at national or local level, it is unlikely that the non-charitable pressure groups would benefit. Indeed, it is probably unwise that they should, for all the reasons spelt out in the report. Why should the taxpayers' or ratepayers' money be used to support causes to which they are opposed? But while business and trade unions, though evidently happy to give money to political Parties, generally confine their non-Party political giving to charities, while the individual philanthropist is a dying breed and while taxpaying trusts unrestricted by charity law are so rare, then increasingly it is going to become difficult for these groups to start and survive.
But I think they are useful. I believe that the existence of a tradition of vigorous dissent is an integral part of our national life, though I suppose there could be two opinions about that. But surely there could only be one that, on occasion,
174
pressure groups do useful public work which is, by any standard, for the general good. For example, recently there has been an inquiry into the development of the fast breeder reactor at Windscale. The inquiry has been described as being one of the most important of our time, dealing with issues which have immense implications for future generations. Basically there were two opposing cases to be put to this inquiry. One was put forward by British Nuclear Fuels Limited, whose legal advisers were funded by its own—and therefore, in effect, public—funds. The main opponents of their case were the Friends of the Earth, a non-charitable pressure group, whose legal advisers had to be paid out of funds raised by the group in all the tedious ways such fund raising involves, and totalling £50,000. It seems to me that, whatever side one takes in the nuclear debate—and I do not myself pretend to understand it—it is incontrovertible that it was useful for the Inspector to be able to hear both sides of the case presented properly and that therefore it was a general public service that Friends of the Earth were represented at the inquiry.
Again, to take a local case where the funds needed exceed the capacity of the local community to raise them, objectors at motorway inquiries not only perform a self-interested function in appearing at these inquiries to put alternatives to the Ministry's road building plans: they also provide a general service in publicly querying the Department's plans; and, indeed, as one gathers from the Leitch Report, it is just as well that they have been doing so. But, to take one example, the action group opposing the building of the M3—Winchester link had to raise £20,000 to pay for their consultant's fees.
I believe, in general, that the present legal definition of "charity" needs revising. But even if it were revised, to allow many organisations which cannot at present get charitable status to get it, and to allow many existing charities to engage in the kind of activities from which they are at present debarred, many organisations, including perhaps the Friends of the Earth and ad hoc groups of environmental protesters, would rightly fall outside it. I suspect that no revision of charity law can be acceptably made so wide that the general propagandist activities of highly committed pressure groups

175
could fall within it. I wonder, though, whether such organisations could, on an occasion such as the Windscale inquiry, in particular, be granted special licence on that occasion to raise untaxed charitable funds for that specific purpose only.
I do not believe that such a scheme would be difficult either to administer or to police, if only because applications worth considering would probably not be very numerous. I suggest that the Charity Commissioners would be empowered to issue such licences, since the decision required—what is or is not for the general good—is one which they are well used to making. The submission of separate, audited accounts would prevent abuse.
I realise that such a scheme would not solve the problem, which I think may become urgent, of keeping alive constructive dissent in this country. Nor would it totally eliminate the present disparity of resources between official proposers and private objectors. To do that would require a more radical proposal, to which I suspect I know the answer were I to propose it today. But, at least, it would, on those occasions when a particular scheme or activity by a pressure group was clearly in the general public interest, make it easier for them to raise funds. That is because they would then, for example, be able to be funded from among the thousands of charitable trusts which can give money only to legally recognised charity, even though, of course, covenanting would not be appropriate for the kind of case that I have described. I certainly hope, in the continuing debate which I trust will go on after today, about the future of voluntary organisations and the reform of charity law, that the problems of these groups will not be forgotten, and that some such scheme as the one I have described will be considered.
6.33 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I start by congratulating both maiden speakers, the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, on making concise and clear contributions founded on a depth of experience, and limited to a span of time which augurs very well for the days when, their maiden speeches behind them, they can launch themselves unafraid upon the
176
waters of controversy. I look forward to the launching with enthusiasm.
This report is not, and its author told us that it is not, intended to be a plain man's guide to the social services in their relation to the voluntary effort. It has, however, concentrated a great deal of attention upon an area in which that attention was badly needed. It has lit a bonfire which has illuminated not only a great many trees, but also a great deal of the wood itself. It has chiefly concentrated its attention on the personal social services and has therefore, as has been remarked, excluded the vast majority of voluntary work which it terms the "informal sector". Of course it is that informal sector, let us not forget, which, by acting as the cement within the family and within the community, holds the whole fabric of society together and, to some extent, the organisations, both voluntary and statutory, are not required until it is necessary to repair a breakage where that cement has failed; they supplement it as well.
It is a feature of the voluntary sector that it draws out of the community and applies to it those very strengths and skills needed to bind it together. Whether we are talking about housing associations, self-help organisations, Mealson-on-Wheels, adult literacy tutors or hospital visitors, what we are discussing is the organised application of the fund of service and goodwill within a community to the needs of that community; and in the process, as the committee has rightly observed, a good deal is done to stimulate the self-awareness of the community within which the volunteers work. That may sound platitudinous, but I think it is not, because this phenomenon is taking place at a juncture in our history when it is of extreme importance.
In the rural areas in particular the sense of community is suffering an attrition more rapid and dangerous than we have ever known before. The situation in countless villages is this. The decline and, sometimes, the end of public transport has made individuals dependent upon private vehicles. This has coincided with a steady reduction of employment in agriculture, and a growing tendency for more and more people to commute to work, living all their most creative hours outside the community

177
where they live. The next result is the closure of the village shop, under pressure of competition with the city supermarkets. The shop was one nerve centre of the village communications system; another, for three parts of the year, was the twice-daily meeting of mothers at the gates of the village school. All too often now that, too, has been closed down in favour of a larger, more cost efficient and, some think, more impersonal school some miles away. If the building is sold, then a central meeting place is lost as well.
Concurrently, the Church of England is rationalising the deployment of its clergy made necessary by the short-fall of manpower. All too often, again, this results in the amalgamation of parishes, the sale of the vicarage or rectory and a schedule of visiting to which no pastor can fully adhere. This third vital link in the community life passes, and those who remain often have to contend also with a pattern of services which are not only often experimental in form, but also irregular in time. In these circumstances, the involvement of some individual members of the community in serving its needs is not merely desirable, it is vital to its survival; and the survival of communities on this very human scale is, I think, vital to the balance of our anxious and stressful society.
All human beings ought to live and work within organisations of a scale that enable them to retain their identity, their individuality and their dignity. Instead we are, and have been, building factories where men become extensions of machines, tower blocks where families are pigeon-holed and commuter systems between the two in which workers are served up like toothpaste or sardines. This dehumanising element of scale necessarily occurs to some extent in our social services as well, since we have, of necessity, developed very large organisations to deliver services that are essentially intimate and personal in nature. You have only to take a small child to a large hospital to see what I mean. The larger the organisation and the wider the range of services it provides, the more baffling is it likely to be to the consumer whom it is designed to benefit. The very language developed by those who work within it may prove impenetrable to those who stand most in need of its help. And which of your Lordships has not
178
wrestled despairingly with Government forms, with the benefit of an education much greater than that of those who normally turn to the social and welfare services for help?
Most people turn to social services only when they are in some kind of distress, and less than usually able to cope with the unfamiliar. If they once find themselves in a totally social service environment—if I may put it so, without intending any hostile comment—whether it be a prison, a remand home or a hospital, they very often stand in desperate need of reassurance of a kind which cannot be given by warders or nurses, simply because the waders and nurses themselves constitute part of the environment by which they are threatened. What is needed, then, is someone from the world outside, a visitor but, somebody familiar with the ropes, someone who is not "them", even if he is not entirely "us" either.
I do not want to imply by that that the social services, or any of the organisations to which I have referred, are inhumane. But I am saying that the fact of organisation itself often, for reasons of scale and efficiency, results in a dehumanising factor, and it is this which leads me to listen with great reservation to the marriage, which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, proposed in general terms, between the State and the voluntary sector. The effect of the voluntary worker in the circumstances I have described is hugely enhanced, simply because he works voluntarily or is the paid servant of a voluntary organisation.
Enough has been said about the pioneer role of the voluntary services for me not to expand upon it. I think that I should quickly pick up a point made in the Seebohm Report about the valuable service which the voluntary services play in producing a critique and yardstick to be applied to the statutory service, and vice versa. As it is the anniversary, (is it not?) of the publication of the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, I think that he should be felicitated upon it and that that point should be underscored.
The value of the voluntary worker is very hard to assess, but when we see the Wolfenden Report's indication that some 5 million individuals are active in voluntary organisations in the relatively small

179
area covered by its inquiry and that they contribute an effort equivalent to that of 400,000 full-time workers, your Lordships will agree that their contribution is very significant indeed in financial and work terms, quite apart from the fact that it is unique and could not be reproduced by other means.
Some 5 million workers are involved part-time. The adult literacy campaign alone accounts for over 40,000, and across the board I believe that more, not fewer workers will be needed as our society develops across the whole spectrum of need for voluntary provision. With the expected increase in the amount of leisure time available over the next decade, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans referred in an admirable contribution, this need should be easily supplied, and the benefit will be not only to those served but also to those serving, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, so ably illustrated.
It is clear from the report that the task of relating these vast resources to the infinitely various needs to which they can be applied is very formidable and that it will grow as the sector grows. Allied to this task is the function of integrating the efforts of voluntary workers with the planned activities of the authorities or organisations with which they are to co-operate. However, both of these functions are the duties of a new and very valuable kind of professional—the Voluntary Help Organisers or Voluntary Service Co-ordinators. I commend to your Lordships the report called Pivot which was published in March 1976 and sponsored by the King Edward VII Hospital Fund for London and the Volunteer Centre under the chairmanship of Geraldine Aves. This report has been referred to and it covers an important area; it represents a valuable supplement to the report which we are now considering and should be read with it.
We come to the question of finance and funding, possibly through intermediary organisations which were an interesting and important facet of the report and to which both the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro gave their support. They may well provide an element in the marriage
180
to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred in general terms. Your Lordships will have noticed that throughout I have spoken, wherever possible, about the voluntary worker, not about the voluntary organisation. I regret that the terms of reference under which the committee worked were phrased so that the emphasis was on the organisation and not on the individual. I say that because I think this is the crux of the matter.
As I said before, organisation tends to be dehumanising. If we think simply in terms of what is the best organisation we can make, we are not necessarily going to make the best use of the people who are going to work within it. We have to determine, first, what are the problems; second, who are the people who can best tackle them; and, third, what organisation can we fit around them, not what can we fit them into. It is an important emphasis of approach and I hope that it will not be lost sight of when Government committees take up this review, because it is precisely against excessive organisation, uniformity and dirigisme that the voluntary worker is most effective.
The voluntary worker needs, first, to be effective—to see that what he does has effect, to feel fulfilled. It is important that he should be recognised and that his work should be recognised, and that he should be permitted to co-operate with professionals on something approaching equal terms. There are some areas in which he is better able to work than the professional and this should be recognised, as he should recognise the expertise which he, not being a professional, cannot command. He needs to be able and also to be expected, I believe, to work to high standards, though whether these should be enforced by a Government body I doubt. However, my limited experience in the Territorial Army and in other voluntary activities is that the expectation of the people at whose bidding or with whose assistance one is working is a very considerable stimulus to a high standard of work—as much so as the act of service itself in some cases. In many cases this will mean training, which again has to be funded.
The importance of what the voluntary worker does must be recognised, and I shall return to that point very briefly in a moment. However, all of this service

181
costs money. Since so much has been said on the subject of funding, I would merely ask your Lordships to read again what has been said by noble Lords on all sides of the House about the importance of making available adequate funds—about the belief, which I share, that this spring is not running dry and that if less of it is syphoned off into the Exchequer, more than proportionately more will be made available to the voluntary services. I should like them to investigate the suggested reform of the taxation provisions for charities and, indeed, the suggested pound for pound or the 50p for £1 subvention from Government, possibly through an intervening body.
There has been some mention of the location of the Voluntary Service Unit, and there has been mention also of ministerial responsibility, about which there has been a certain amount of disagreement. Here we come upon something rather important, because the feeling seems to be that there should be a Minister with responsibility for social services. Some people would like him to have Cabinet rank. Others feel that since he has no portfolio he will have no considerable staff to back him up and, therefore, his voice will be piping against the wind. However, there was until recently a Minister in the Cabinet with responsibilities which overlapped in this area. They overlapped, it is true, in areas of voluntary work overseas. (Let us not forget the valuable work done for refugees and for world development in our concentration upon what is going on in this Kingdom, because I have seen very fine work done by young British people abroad in both services.) However, the Minister for Overseas Development, who was until recently a Cabinet Minister and who has a portfolio, could pick up this portfolio and might return, thus suitably loaded with additional luggage, to the Cabinet from whence he came.
We already have experience, and it is still going on, of the Minister working in conjunction with voluntary organisations, until recently through the body called VOCAD and now through two bodies: the Council for International Development and the Committee on Development Education. These, under either a ministerial chairman or an independent chairman, would do a great deal to foster
182
voluntary activities with Government support but without too much steering from above. Allied with the intermediary sector interposing between them and local efforts, this may well be the marriage for which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, is looking, robbed of the impersonality which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro fears, and providing a channel for the Government funding asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and again by the right reverend Prelate. Whether it will overcome the difficulties of finance alluded to in such very moving detail and passion by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, I am not sufficiently expert to say.
I shall not weary your Lordships much longer. I should like to turn to just one other aspect which the report, quite rightly, did not touch on, but it is voluntary service and it illustrates how a voluntary service can contribute very largely to social welfare and save enormous sums of money. I refer to the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve. It costs only 3 per cent. of the Army vote or 1·1 per cent. of the entire Defence budget, yet it provides 30 per cent. of the Army when mobilised for war. I have seen at first hand the way in which it has taken people, who would almost certainly within six months have been wrecking telephone kiosks or fighting on football pitches for want of a constructive outlet for their entirely proper social energies, and turned them into model and creative citizens who have gone on to help others in the same path. This is exactly the sort of injection we want into our society and it also saves some millions of pounds on defence. This needs to be recognised, and it needs to be recognised loudly because, like the rest of the voluntary agencies, the Territorial Army has to contend with employers who are competing for their services.
In conclusion, I must thank my noble friend Lady Young for introducing this debate, though with some reservation because it is not a joyful task to speak at the end of such a distinguished list!—and I say that with no mock humility at all. Those who read this debate and who do not have a copy of Who's Who beside them should know that we have heard a member of the Council of the British Red Cross and president of the London branch; we have had a chairman of the

183
Field Work Committee of the Community Relations Commission; we have had a trustee of the Carnegie Trust; we have had the chairman of the Rowntree Trust and we have had the chief executive of the Rowntree Social Service Trust. I take those at random but there are many more. I cannot neglect to mention a maiden speaker, the chairman of the Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of England. This is a very distinguished list and it does much to support the claim of your Lordships' House that it is able to produce an unparalleled range of expertise on any subject to which it addresses itself. It is a great intimidation to those unqualified, like myself, who are expected to pipe against the wind at the end.
I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, for his unremitting toil and great success in producing this report and precipitating this debate, and I think we ought also to thank the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust and the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust for showing, in such an exemplary manner, that charitable funds can be put to constructive work. That is all I have to say, except to thank all of your Lordships for contributing to a highly constructive debate.
6.53 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I should like to begin by stating three propositions which I think will carry the general approval of the House. The first is to express my thanks and the thanks of everybody else to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has initiated this debate and provided us with the opportunity to have a debate with remarkable speed after the publication of the report we have been discussing, and providing us with the opportunity of hearing the chairman of the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, who has also been able to speak so vigorously today. Lastly, our thanks are due to the two maiden speakers, the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. Both made impressive maiden speeches and I know that we very much look forward to hearing them on subsequent occasions.
184
I am sure the House will recall that we discussed this issue some two and a half years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, gave us what was in fact an interim report on the work of his Committee which had been established in the preceding year. While I do not now hold the direct ministerial responsibility for the Voluntary Services Unit which I held at the time of that debate, I speak not only for myself but for my colleagues in the Home Office and in other Departments in stressing once again that the Government are committed to the support of the voluntary sector and to the encouragement of voluntary effort. The Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, addressed itself in the main to three principal audiences: to central Government, to local government and to the voluntary bodies. So far as the Government are concerned, a question was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and as a first step the report of the noble Lord and his Committee is now being studied by an interdepartmental group of officials representing the principal Departments involved. I can assure the House that they will take careful note of what has been said in this debate this evening, and indeed of any representations that may be made to us generally about the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his colleagues.
The report acknowledges that the Committee did not attempt to draw up a detailed programme for the development of the voluntary organisations over the next 25 years or so; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, nor did it present us with the conventional summary of specific recommendations which are common in reports of this kind. If I may say so, I do not find the report any the less satisfactory for that reason and I spring to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, on this point at least. But the Committee have promised a further instalment of the detailed research which was undertaken on behalf of the Committee and which is to be published later. I look forward to the results of this research with great interest, as I am sure does everybody else who has taken part in this debate today.
Meanwhile we have before us a very careful examination of the many issues which confront those who seek to think

185
systematically in this field, a rather limited number of specific recommendations, and a wide-ranging call to examine our policies over this whole field. It will inevitably take some time for the Government to consider the conclusions of the Committee and I know that in this evening's debate noble Lords will not expect me to bring forward final or definitive proposals on behalf of the Government. Indeed it would be remarkable were I to attempt to do so, given the very limited amount of time we have had since the publication of the report of the Committee.
The Wolfenden Report acknowledges that individual Departments need to develop their own policies in respect of the voluntary organisations in the areas for which they are responsible, and certainly, as has been made clear in this debate, the Home Office has an important—indeed a central role. But out of expenditure of somewhere in the region of £35·5 million in 1976–77 on Government grants for voluntary organisations only £4·5 million was channelled through the Voluntary Services Unit in the Home Office. Nevertheless, at the same time the noble Lord's Committee would like us to go further in developing a comprehensive Government policy towards the voluntary sector which should take account of central Government, local authorities and the voluntary bodies themselves in some form of integrated strategy.
I should like to spend a few moments discussing the issues involved in developing just such a strategy. First, let me take a fairly obvious point. There is a great diversity of individuals and organisations in what is loosely called "the voluntary sector". There were 120,000 organisations registered as charities in 1975. And some research reported by the Committee showed that in the City of Birmingham alone over 4,000 different voluntary organisations are active. There are co-ordinating or intermediary bodies. There are groups based on special interests for special types of clients. There are advice services. There are local projects of many different kinds. In addition to the voluntary organisations, there are also the vast number of individual volunteers.
While the noble Lord's Committee may have properly omitted this aspect of work from its terms of reference, I do not think it would have been appropriate for us to
186
have this debate today without discussing the role of the individual volunteer. Indeed, that has been done widely throughout the course of this debate. Through funding bodies like the Volunteer Centre, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Community Service Volunteers, the Government are already doing a great deal to promote the use and deployment of individual volunteers in suitable placements. But, in addition, there is a great deal of spontaneous voluntary, service, and these groups in particular could regard with some measure of suspicion any suggestion of a detailed overall strategy. I think it is right to recognise the existence of that problem.

It is not for Government to decree how groups which are by definition outside Government should precisely organise themselves. The Wolfenden Committee saw the main national bodies, the Councils of Social Service in the four parts of the United Kingdom, as developing a representative role, and this may be indeed the way forward. There are undoubtedly many ways in which the National Council of Social Service has represented a very large number of voluntary organisations. At the same time the National Council is reported as having said to the Wolfenden Committee that views stated by them are not always based upon a consensus. And there is this problem. Clearly a large number of organisations are not affiliated to any of the national bodies. I put that particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, who raised that point in her speech. It may be that time is required to see what direction evolution within the voluntary sector itself will take. But I hope it will be conceded that in answering the very reasonable request for a development of Government policy we cannot easily avoid the question of defining the group or groups towards whom that policy is to be directed. This is one of the matters on which we ourselves should welcome the views of the voluntary organisations.
There is another point upon which we would welcome the views of voluntary bodies. That concerns the functions of local intermediary bodies—this is a point particularly touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm—particularly their development rôle in partnership with local authorities. The Committee pointed out that the functions of intermediary

187
bodies hold little popular appeal, and that because they could not exist solely by charging fees to the organisations which they served most of their funding could come only either from central Government or from local government. The Committee recognised that there were some difficult issues involved in deciding the criteria by which the funding of intermediary bodies should be defined. This again is an issue which the Government need to consider very carefully, taking account of the views of the voluntary bodies themselves.
I should like now to look a little more generally at the work of voluntary organisations. I think everyone recognises that voluntary organisations of the kind we have been discussing today have a crucial rôle to play in our society, and that the special and distinctive contribution of the voluntary sector can never be replaced by the yet further expansion of the statutory services. There will always be elements of need which are far more appropriately dealt with by voluntary effort. It is against this background that the Government have over many years supported the voluntary sector by various forms of grant aiding. This, as I have indicated, goes far wider than the Voluntary Services Unit and the Home Office.
Perhaps, before I go any further into this question of the Voluntary Services Unit, I should deal with a number of points which have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised the question, which indeed is raised in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, as to whether the Voluntary Services Unit is appropriately sited within the Home Office. Well, this is clearly an arguable proposition. I have, if I may say so, no clearly defined trade union views on this point. If I may speak for a moment as a person who had ministerial responsibility for this for two years, I am not wholly persuaded that taking this Unit out of the Home Office would necessarily be as advantageous as some people consider, and largely for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I am by no means persuaded that simple changes in the
188
machinery of Government, the involvement of a non-departmental Minister, are necessarily to the advantage of voluntary organisations. Nevertheless, this is not a matter for a mere Minister of State; this is a matter for the Prime Minister. I am sure he will take note of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his Committee and consider this matter.
Having dealt with that general question of the machinery of Government in relation to the Voluntary Services Unit, let me discuss for a moment the present activities of that Unit, and indeed the activities of the Unit in the two and a half years since we had our last debate on this particular issue. I think that one of the most important areas of work in which the Unit has been involved is the work of the Volunteer Centre. As noble Lords will no doubt recall, this was established in 1973 following a recommendation by a joint committee of the National Council of Social Service and the National Institute for Social Work Training to inquire into the rôle of voluntary workers in the social services. Since its formation the Volunteer Centre has expanded its rôle of developing new opportunities for individual volunteers, voluntary organiisations and community groups working with the statutory services.
For example, last February a development officer was appointed to assist the work of volunteer bureaux in recruiting and placing volunteers. Projects have also been established on such urgent issues as the relationship between volunteers and paid workers, and media initiatives in encouraging community involvement. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans referred to the work of volunteer workers in association with the Granada television service. I think this is a very good example. If there are going to be substantial appeals for large numbers of volunteers to come forward and these are transmitted over the whole independent television network, it is obviously important to think this matter through in very considerable detail. I think this gives one a very good illustration of the way in which the Volunteer Centre, supported by the Voluntary Services Unit, has been doing its work. Again in the past year the Centre has run four national conferences,

189
numerous seminars, and eight residential training conferences.
The noble Lord's Committee, as I have indicated, concerned itself very much with the question of intermediary bodies, both national and local. The Voluntary Services Unit makes a substantial grant, as is, I think, generally known, to the National Council of Social Service. But in addition—this point was particularly touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford—when problems arose of developing appropriate relationships among voluntary organisations and local authorities in the wake of local government reorganisation, funds from the Voluntary Services Unit were used to help to support development officer posts in each of the six metropolitan counties, excluding London. The functions of these officers are to help overcome those problems and to stimulate the development of councils of voluntary service in these areas. I think it will be recognised that this has been an initiative of great importance, particularly in regard to all the problems involved in the reorganisation of local government.
Yet another example of work which the Voluntary Services Unit continues to support on a significant scale is that of the Community Projects Foundation, until recently the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. The recent change of name reflects the increasing emphasis on the Foundation's involvement in community development work. As a national agency, it works through local projects to stimulate activity, and to help these bodies deal more effectively with the institutions which affect their day-to-day affairs. We also hope that with the change of emphasis a means will increasingly be found of making the Foundation's wide experience in this field available to other groups.
One last point about the Voluntary Services Unit. It has been much involved in the establishment of resource centres. These are now situated in Glasgow, Gateshead, London, Manchester and Merthyr Tydfil. Two of these have been developed in association with the Community Projects Foundation and one with the Gulbenkian Foundation. The centres seek to provide resources of information and expertise to assist community groups to develop schemes on their own initiative.
190
The venture is also, I think, of considerable interest because half the funding of three of the centres is provided under the Anti-Poverty Programme of the European Commission. EEC funds similarly contribute to another experiment again funded by the Voluntary Services Unit, in which six family day centres are tackling in different ways the problems of the poorest families in urban areas.
So much for the work of the voluntary Services Unit. But there are other areas in which the Government are looking for partnership with the voluntary organisations at local level. Let me mention two. First, the urban programme, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords in the course of the debate. From its beginning grants have been made available for schemes devised by voluntary organisations. These arrangements have now been extended to give additional help to the inner city areas.
From 1979–80 the Urban Programme will be increased to £125 million—a fourfold increase in its size. At the same time, the range of projects eligible for assistance will be extended to include economic and environmental schemes, as well as the social projects which made up the bulk of the traditional Urban Programme. It is inevitably too early to say how much of this additional money will go to the voluntary bodies under these new arrangements. But there will certainly be substantial new scope for voluntary projects in inner cities, particularly in the seven partnership areas which will receive the majority of the new resources which will be made available. But the rôle of the voluntary sector in inner cities will not be confined to undertaking specific projects. The Inner Cities White Paper recognised the need for the partnerships to draw on the ideas of local residents, to discover their priorities, and to enable them to play a practical rôle in the revival of their areas. Given the close relationship which many voluntary bodies have with the communities in which they work, they will undoubtedly have an important part to play in helping to bring this about.
The second important example I should like to give of the Government seeking to enlist the help of voluntary organisations relates to the work of the Job Creation Programme, and the new plan now being

191
implemented under the Youth Opportunities Programme and the Special Temporary Employment Programme for Unemployed Adults. One-third of all the schemes under the Job Creation Programme have been promoted by voluntary organisations.
Under the new programmes, the Manpower Services Commission will again be relying upon schemes sponsored by existing organisations in which the voluntary sector will, of course, be widely represented. The Youth Opportunities Programme is not a Job Creation Scheme, but rather a programme which aims to try to provide a variety of opportunities for training and work experience for young people aged 18 and under. Among the types of programme envisaged are those with an emphasis on community service and training workshops. And these in particular will, I believe, attract the interest of the voluntary sector. The programme will provide a flat rate training allowance for young people who take part in these schemes. The Manpower Services Commission will also provide for sponsors to employ adults who may be recruited from those out of work to act as supervisors, managers and development officers. I believe that imaginative schemes of the character I have just outlined will be of substantial help to many young men and women who are, at present, unhappily out of work. I believe, again, that voluntary organisations will have a vital part to play in this particular development.
A number of detailed questions have been put to me by those who have spoken in the debate and I shall, if I may, now deal with some of those questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised a point about the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations and asked why it does not have a member on the Council for Training and Education in Social Work and why only four out of, I think, the 67 members of that body represent voluntary organisations. I point out to the noble Baroness that a Working Party has been set up and is now considering the constitution of the Council. I shall certainly make sure that it is, of course, informed of what the noble Baroness has said, although I should like to make one matter clear. The present organisation is 67 strong. There is a
192
general feeling that perhaps an organisation of slightly more modest numbers might be able to achieve a happy result. So, as I have indicated, the Working Party is, at present, at work, on this point, but there is a general feeling that there should be some diminution of the numbers in the particular organisation.
My noble friend Lord Longford raised the question of Chiswick Women's Aid. He will, I am sure, recognise that I do not want to go into detail about the most recent events, all the more so as there may conceivably, I understand, be a case before the courts. Chiswick Women's Aid was, in fact, the first refuge, as far as I am aware, for battered wives. Let me make it clear that the Government consider that Mrs. Pizzey who founded the refuge in 1972 deserves a great deal of credit for this pioneering achievement. No one, recognising the scale of the problem, can do other than admire her for her persistence. I reassure my noble friend that there is absolutely no question—I took his words down—of "cold-hearted indifference" as far as the Government are concerned. Indeed, the situation is that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of refuges of this kind. There are now over 120 of them in existence in Great Britain and urban aid of somewhere in the region of £350,000 is being made available for 51 local refuges this year. There is additional assistance from the Job Creation Programme. Therefore, I repeat that there is no question of any cold-hearted indifference so far as we are concerned.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will explain why the Chiswick Women's Aid does not itself receive any of this assistance today?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I shall gladly make sure that my noble friend Lord Longford is made aware of the sitution as we see it. It is a long, detailed and complicated story as I am sure he recognises. What I have said to him indicates a dramatic increase in the number of refuges of this kind and therefore there can be no question of there being any indifference so far as the Government are concerned on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, raised a question about sport. He asked whether my right honourable friend the Minister

193
for Sport is aware of the particular problem which he outlined. He will not be surprised to know that my right honourable friend is indeed aware of this particular problem, the view of the sports bodies and their desire to have the law changed on this matter. However, these particular questions are at present being considered within the Government in the light of the report on charities by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and it will be in that particular context that the matter will be reviewed.
My noble friend Lord Soper and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised a more general point. It is one which interested me in particular, for a reason with which I shall deal later. It is that, as they saw it—and I rather agree with their analysis—there are many respects in which the voluntary bodies can do pioneering, innovative work which would not necessarily be inappropriate for a statutory body, but which a statutory body might well approach with a fairly considerable degree of caution. I believe that that is true.
I have given one indication of pioneering work of this kind which has led to a very substantial investment of public funds. They said that there were circumstances in which the voluntary body could do the innovative work and then the statutory bodies could come in afterwards. That will, indeed, often be so. It will often be the case that after the pioneering work has been done central or local Government may take the project over, but, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will agree, that would not necessarily be so in all cases. In many respects I should be very happy for the voluntary organisations to continue their work after the initial period.
Let me give just one example—namely, probation hostels. There are a significant number of probation hostels run by voluntary organisations; there are also probation hostels which are run by probation and after-care committees. I do not favour a policy of widespread municipalisation, if I may use that term without it causing any offence in any direction. I believe that in some cases it will be necessary for probation and after-care committees to take over voluntarily run hostels for a number of reasons, some of them financial. But in many other cases it will be absolutely right for the voluntary
194
organisation to continue work in that particular direction. Indeed, I took a recent opportunity of making it clear, to a representative of the voluntary organisation which is responsible for that, that that is the Government's policy.
My noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead raised the Urban Aid Programme and a number of questions about the structure of the programme. Certainly I shall draw what he said to the attention of my right honourable friend. I am sure that he does not expect me to announce this evening a dramatic change in the Government's approach to the Urban Aid Programme. Nevertheless, he made a formidable speech and, as I have indicated, I shall make quite sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is made aware of it.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, raised a problem which I believe is common to many voluntary organisations—that is, an anxiety that if they take financial support from the Government, there is some danger that they are in some way putting themselves at risk if their make controversial statements or speeches or take up positions. That is a very understandable fear. However, I am glad to say that it is not one of which I have had any particular experience.
Let me give one example. The Home Office itself makes a substantial amount of money available to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—NACRO. I have seen several NACRO projects, not least some extremely interesting work which it has recently been doing in Manchester. As a result of its work in these particular projects, it receives a fairly substantial sum of public money. On the other hand, NACRO constantly and consistently criticises Government prison policy. Sometimes, one is bound to say, one is mildly irritated by what it says; but, on the other hand, it is very good for Ministers to be irritated—it makes them rather more active in some respects. Therefore, I believe that this is a good example of where the Home Office, in fact, provides a form of loyal opposition. It is a very good idea indeed that we, in fact, have an organisation which is doing useful work on the ground, but which is also arguing, discussing and sometimes criticising us quite sharply for what it regards as mistaken polices.

195
I have dealt, inevitably, with only some of the speeches that were made in the course of this debate. I apologise to those noble Lords with whose points I have not dealt. I hope that I have indicated in the broadest terms our initial response to the report of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden. I have given an indication of the high priority that the Government continue to give to their relationship with voluntary organisations.
We emphatically do not believe that every problem facing our society can be dealt with exclusively—or even primarily—by central or local Government. Quite apart from the fact that this is not economically possible, neither is it desirable; in many important areas I believe it is of great advantage to be able to rely upon the work of voluntary organisations. That being so, it is clearly essential that the Government should do everything possible to assist them in their work. But the emphasis, I must repeat, is on the word "assist"; it cannot possibly be "direct". I believe that we have already done a substantial amount to assist the voluntary sector. But there are not the slightest grounds for any complacency. We can and should do a great deal more, and we are determined to do so.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I, too, should like to take the opportunity to thank all those who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. I should like to thank especially the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden. It is not every parent, no matter how proud they are of their baby, who wishes to submit it to a public debate and discussion. On listening to the debate—and, I have no doubt, reading it—I hope that he will feel that this afternoon's debate has been worthwhile.
We have been very fortunate in the number of noble Lords who have been willing and able to take part. I know that they have had to give up their time in the midst of very busy lives to come here today. This has been an opportunity not only to oblige us all to read the report, which is the first and most important thing, but I believe that every speaker has emphasised the importance and value
196
of the report. If there have been criticisms they have been of a constructive nature, and they have been criticisms by friends who are anxious to promote the same good cause.
May I also thank the two maiden speakers, the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. I hope that we shall hear from them on many occasions in the future. I should very much like to take this opportunity of placing on record my gratitude to the very many voluntary organisations which have taken the trouble both to talk and to write to me in preparation for this debate.
I recognise, as I said at the beginning, that we are debating the Wolfenden Report very shortly after its publication, and this inevitably creates difficulties for those who wish to prepare their thoughts upon it. But I raised this topic because I believe the subject matter to be of such enormous importance not only to the voluntary organisations but to the country as a whole, and I believe it is one of urgency. What is really important now is what happens next, and I should like, in conclusion, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his encouraging and helpful remarks. I am pleased indeed to hear that the voluntary organisations are going to be fully consulted and their views taken into account by the Government. What happens next must be for another day, and, on that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  FISH POACHING: PENALTIES
  FISH POACHING: PENALTIES
  HOMOSEXUALITY IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  HOMOSEXUALITY IN NORTHERN IRELAND