Sitting of 24 January 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Fire Service Dispute
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to date to his Department of the Fire Service dispute.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): It will take some time to compile the total extra costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence during the firemen's strike, and I am not yet in a position to give the House a firm figure.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister, even at this stage, give an estimate of the total cost and say what part of that total cost may fall on other bodies, including local authorities? Will he tell the House what contingency plans his Department may have, including the replacement of "green goddesses"?
    Dr. Gilbert: I think it would be premature of me to try to give my hon. Friend an estimate of total costs at this stage. Several legal claims are involved, and it is far too early to make an assessment of their outcome. As to where the ultimate burden of the cost would fall, we would expect to be able to reclaim our extra costs from the civil Depart-
    1154
    ments where it is reasonable and fair to do so.
    As my hon. Friend will recognise, the future of the "green goddesses" is a matter for the Home Secretary, but I understand that they are not now to be disposed of as was originally intended.
    Mr. Hooson: Should not the whole of the cost be recovered by the Defence Department from the Home Office or the local authorities, as it is an extra burden on the Defence Vote?
    Dr. Gilbert: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall not be backward in trying to see that no undue burden falls on the Defence Vote. I take his point.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Does not the right hon. Gentleman—to whom I offer my congratulations on his appointment as a Privy Councillor—agree that this would be an appropriate occasion for the House to express its gratitude to the Armed Forces for the way in which they carried out their duties during the strike?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remark.
    I do not think that we should let any occasion go by without expressing the gratitude of the House and the country as a whole. My right hon. Friend has done that on more than one occasion. It might be appropriate to let the House know that in today's issue of the London Gazette there is an announcement that a staff sergeant has been awarded the Queen's Commendation for Brave Conduct as a result of his actions during the strike.
    Mr. Pattie: Has the Minister made any attempt yet to assess the cost of the serious dislocation of training caused by Service men of all three Services having to be engaged in fire service duties?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question. It is a matter which has given us concern because of the impact on the individual men involved. We are taking steps as far as possible to ensure that, where training courses are interrupted and are then subsequently completed, increases in pay which result from completion of training will be back-dated, so that men do not

    1155
    suffer as a result of their participation in this activity.

    Expenditure
    Miss Maynardasked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he proposes to take to reduce the proportion of Great Britain's resources devoted to arms to the proportion of the other European NATO Governments.
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for Defence how the proposal to increase arms spending annually by 3 per cent. for five years relates to the Government's promise to reduce the proportion of the gross national product devoted to arms to the proportion of the other European NATO Governments.
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he proposes to take to reduce the proportion of Great Britain's resources devoted to arms expenditure to the level of the other European NATO Governments.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence how the proposal to increase arms spending annually by 3 per cent. for five years relates to the Government's promise to reduce the proportion of the gross national product devoted to arms to the proportion of the other European NATO Governments.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence how the proposal to increase arms spending annually by 3 per cent. for five years relates to the Government's promise to reduce the proportion of the gross national product devoted to arms to the proportion of the other European NATO Governments.
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence how the proposal to increase arms spending annually by 3 per cent. for five years relates to the Government's promise to reduce the proportion of the gross national product devoted to arms to the proportion of the other European NATO Governments.
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the magnitude of United Kingdom defence expenditure as a percentage of gross national product in the financial year 1978–79.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The defence budget estimates for 1978–79 which will shortly be presented to the House will represent about 4¾ per cent. of estimated gross domestic product at market prices, compared with the 5 per cent. in last year's Statement on the Defence Estimates for 1977–78.
    The Government have decided to increase the defence budget by 3 per cent. in real terms in 1979–80 over the revalued Cmnd. 6721 figure for 1978–79 and by a further 3 per cent. in 1980–81, subject in the latter case to review in the light of our economic circumstances. No decisions have been taken about subsequent years. Defence took its full share of the public expenditure cuts in 1976. Now that our economic prospects are improving, it is right that we should plan to contribute to the increase in NATO defence effort made necessary by the marked and continuing growth of Warsaw Pact military power.
    Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the grouping of Questions justifiable only if it is not used as a means of not answering some of the Questions? I wish to protest about that.
    Mr. Speaker: We shall see how we get along.
    Miss Maynard: Is my right hon. Friend really saying that we are encouraging multilateral disarmament by moving in the opposite direction and spending more of our resources on arms?
    Mr. Alan Clark: Unlike 1938.
    Mr. Mulley: I do not know that one can say that by increasing defence expenditure one assists the tremendous efforts that we and others are making to achieve multilateral decisions, but I am absolutely certain that if we were making unilateral reductions in defence there would be no incentive for others to seek a multilateral agreement.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Although seven Questions are being answered together, I propose to call first those whose Questions are being answered. Mr. James Lamond.
    Mr. Lamond: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the reduction to 4·75 per cent. which he has announced today. Does not the increase of 3 per cent. per annum again raise the percentage of our gross national product which we are spending? If that is so, are we not moving in a direction exactly opposite to that which we promised in our manifesto at the last General Election?
    Mr. Mulley: No. It should not be thought that 3 per cent. on total defence expenditure in real terms is 3 per cent. on the share of the gross domestic product. Of course, one has to make estimates of the growth of the economy because the percentage of defence expenditure of GDP depends on two factors—on defence expenditure on the one hand and on the economic state of the nation on the other. On the estimates that we have, the increased 3 per cent. will leave the figure roughly at 4¾ per cent.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if we were to have exactly cur equal proportion in relation to defence expenditure, it would release £1·8 billion, which could be far better used on the health, education and social services of the nation?
    Mr. Mulley: It would not be practicable to reduce the amount by the size that my hon. Friend suggests. It is worth pointing out that over the last five years defence expenditure in real terms has fallen by 4 per cent. while civil programmes have increased by 6½ per cent.
    Mr. Allaun: Instead of showing utter contempt for the British people and the Labour movement by flouting the election pledge to reduce arms spending and actually increasing it, will the Secretary of State tell Dr. Luns, the ever-demanding and propagandising head of NATO, to get stuffed?
    Mr. Mulley: With respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend would really wish a message of that sort to be conveyed.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend now answer my Question, which is No. 11? Is he aware that in not carrying out the party's election pledge he is driving a wedge between the party and the Government and that some of us on this side
    1158
    will not feel able to support the Government in this course?
    Mr. Mulley: The fact is that substantial reductions in defence have been made, as I have indicated. Some quarters have argued that too great a reduction has been made. My hon. Friend will know that from the long-term defence expenditure plans which we inherited very substantial reductions have been made. We have already moved from the position of around 5¼ per cent. of GDP to 4¾ per cent., and, as I have indicated, the other side of the equation was that in 1974 we perhaps did not anticipate the extent of the economic crisis that we inherited or the length and depth of the world recession which has been a continuing problem since then.
    Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said publicly that the Government intend to play a positive rôle coming United Nations deliberations on disarmament? Does he not realise that few people in the country will accept either the logic or the morality of piling armaments on armaments prior to such a conference in a world which is already over-armed?
    Mr. Mulley: I confirm that it is our intention to play a positive rôle in the United Nations defence and disarmament discussions, but I think that my hon. Friend is exaggerating when he talks about piling armaments on armaments. In fact, in real terms the defence budget that I shall be presenting later this year is the lowest to be presented by this Government.
    Mr. Viggers: Why is the Secretary of State so deferential to his hon. Friends? Will he not tell them that it is his duty to match our defence expenditure not with the expenditure of our allies but rather with the expenditure of our potential enemies?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. In an alliance, it is only right that all allies should play a proportionate part depending on their economic circumstances. I do not accept that it is necessary that we should bear a disproportionately large share.
    Mr. Hooson: Will the Secretary of State explain to some of his hon. Friends

    1159
    below the Gangway that if the Soviet Union, for example, were to reduce its huge nuclear submarine fleet—which seems to have no defensive rôle whatever—there would be a chance of the NATO countries taking the very desirable step of reducing their own defence expenditure?
    Mr. Mulley: No one would be more happy than I to be able to reduce defence expenditure as a result of a multilateral agreement which would lead to a reduction by the Warsaw Pact as well as by NATO and, indeed, in all parts of the world.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: To what extent does the 4¾ per cent. for 1979–80 compare with the known plans of our principal European allies, and to what extent does our decision to increase expenditure by 3 per cent. a year relate to a similar decision announced by the American Secretary for Defence?
    Mr. Mulley: As we announced our decision before the announcement by President Carter yesterday, obviously they cannot be directly related. But, as I have explained, the House will be familiar with the communiqué which the Defence Ministers made that all countries during 1979 should aim to increase their contributions by about 3 per cent. in real terms.
    Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: making his forecast for next year, has the Secretary of State allowed for the wages review for all our Services? He should tell that to his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Allaun: We agree with that.
    Colonel Sir H. Harrison: But hon. Members opposite are not saying it at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman might say to his hon. Friends that there is a big pay review to come and that he must allow for it.
    Mr. Mulley: As I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the practice of the House under successive Governments, not only in defence but in all aspects of public expenditure, is to allow for pay and price increases additional to the Estimates. The comparative figures that I have given are, in real terms, trying to take full account of pay and inflation increases. It is absolutely in no sense due to defence economy that restrictions
    1160
    have had to be placed in previous years on pay increases for the Forces. They have come directly from pay policy decisions.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Is it not the case that the balance of payments costs of our defence expenditure over the past couple of years have been almost equal to the amount loaned to us by the IMF which we had to crawl on our bellies to get and to make drastic cuts in public expenditure in order to achieve? What was the balance of payments cost of our defence expenditure in 1977?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot give a precise figure without notice. But it is not the case that our overseas defence expenditure was equal to the loan made available to us by the IMF.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Will not the Secretary of State explain to his anti-Western hon. Friends that the Russians are spending at least 13 per cent. of their gross national product on defence? Is it the case that what he said this afternoon, which is welcomed, entails the formal burial of at least the defence aspects of Labour's absurd programme for 1976?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think it appropriate to go into all these matters this afternoon. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the election manifesto, whenever that election may come, will be published after due deliberation at that time.

    Recruiting
    Mr. David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are his recruiting targets for each of the three Services for 1978; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): Recruiting targets are set at the level necessary to meet the overall manpower requirements of the Services. They are frequently revised during the year to take account of changes in these requirements and other factors, such as recruiting performance and projected rates of outflow. It is not, therefore, our practice to publish detailed statements of manpower requirements, but in the present financial year the Services are expecting to recruit some 40,000 men and women from civilian life.
    Mr. Price: I thank the Minister for that non-answer. Is he aware of the importance of offering comparable pay to Service men? Now that we have reached the voluntary stage of the Government's pay policy, will he say how many of the existing Service men are volunteers for stage 3 and how many are conscripts?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The whole population, taking a sensible, realistic and patriotic view of the economic circumstances of the country, are volunteers in support of the very successful policy put forward by the Government. It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman did not join us as a volunteer in the Lobby last night to put forward our general policy but instead pursued a policy that will lead to a further increase in the cost of living.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the Minister quote to the House again the high cost of recruiting individual members of the Armed Forces? Does he not agree that part of those high costs can be laid at the door of the prestige recruiting centres to be found in the middle of towns and that it would be far better to use such places as jobcentres to initiate recruiting?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I have told the House on a number of occasions that I am not satisfied with the level of costs in recruiting people to the Armed forces. Extensive reviews have taken place which have resulted in substantial savings in the current financial year. I am about to review again certain aspects of the recruiting service to see whether yet further improvements in efficiency and economies in costs can be brought about.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister satisfied with the recruitment of junior officers into the Army? If not, what does he intend to do about the situation?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: We are reasonably satisfied with recruitment to the Army, but I have some concern about recruitment of aircrew into the Royal Air Force.

    Armed Forces Pay Review Body
    Mr. Churchillasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek the opportunity of personally giving evidence to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body prior to the preparation of its report for the year 1978.
    Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. My Department has presented to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body a number of papers on all aspects of Armed Forces pay and allowances. I am satisfied that this evidence is full and comprehensive, and that all the relevant information will be available to the Review Body.
    Mr. Churchill: In the Secretary of State aware of the unprecedented crisis of morale in all three Armed Forces at present, particularly the crisis in recruitment on which his hon. Friend touched a moment ago, which will mean that the Royal Air Force strength will fall substantially below recruiting levels? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that pilots who have applied for premature voluntary retirement have been told that they cannot take that step for five years because there are so many other personnel behind them in the queue to leave? Will he personally represent these matters to the Chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body?
    Mr. Mulley: All the relevant factors have been sent to the Review Body and have been dealt with informally at meetings with senior personnel officers of all three Services and in visits to Service establishments in discussions with all ranks. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Review Body has been made aware of the feelings of the Forces on this matter. The Review Body takes note of what my ministerial colleagues and I say and also of observations made in the House.
    Mr. Litterick: Is it not the case that the level of labour turnover in all three Armed Services compares favourably with the level of labour turnover in the civilian economy?
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: They cannot get out.
    Mr. Litterick: With friends such as that, who needs enemies? I was about to ask whether this indicates that the assertion by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) about a crisis in morale in the Armed Services is ill-founded.
    Mr. Mulley: The exceptional ability of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) to exaggerate tends to cause him to use language which perhaps overstates the case. The main reason why

    1163
    pilots cannot be allowed premature release when they wish it arises from the extensive nature of pilot training. There is an understanding that they must complete a certain length of service before they can leave following the enormous amount of investment made on their behalf.
    Mr. Rathbone: Is the Secretary of State aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is in no way wrong in his contention, because even at a relatively low level of pay a senior Army sergeant is paid approximately £690 less than a sub-officer on the top rate for whose job he has been standing in while undertaking duties during the firemen's strike?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not for one moment wish to suggest that there is not great concern in the three Armed Services about all levels of pay and conditions. All the facts concerning this matter have been put to the Review Body. We must now await its report.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage change he anticipates in the level of arms expenditure over the next five years.
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated additional expenditure on arms in each of the next five years involved in the proposal of a 15 per cent. increase over this period.
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the expected trends in United Kingdom defence expenditure over the forthcoming five years.
    Mr. Mulley: The Government have decided to increase the defence budget by 3 per cent. in real terms in 1979–80 over the revalued Cmnd. 6721 figure for 1978–79 and by a further 3 per cent. in 1980–81, subject in the latter case to review in the light of our economic circumstances. No decisions have yet been taken about subsequent years, and the figure for 1981–82 which is shown in Cmnd. 7049 is, at this stage, simply a repeat of that for 1980–81.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In drawing up the Estimates, what account was taken of the possible success of the multilateral disarmament talks? It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could publish possible savings in the Defence Estimates as a result of the multilateral talks in order to increase enthusiasm for the success of those talks.
    Mr. Mulley: I think that there is great enthusiasm, at least on our part, for the successful outcome of those talks. In the hope that there may be substantial progress in that direction, the Government have thought fit not to go firm beyond next year and to leave the defence budgets for subsequent years for consideration in the light of this and the other economic factors which may arise.
    Mr. Roderick: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of GNP is contributed towards defence by each NATO member? Will he confirm that we pay more in that form of expenditure than any other European NATO member?
    Mr. Mulley: I can confirm, on last year's figures—the current NATO figures are not yet available—that there is only one European country with a higher percentage than ours and that, after the United States of America and Greece, we are third in the list on the basis of GDP.
    Mr. Adley: Is it not clear from the exchanges at Question Time that the "utter contempt" referred to by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is the view taken by the Tribune Group of the Secretary of State and particularly of his views on defence expenditure? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, if this question comes to a vote in the House, it will be regarded by the Government as a matter of confidence?
    Mr. Mulley: Such decisions are not matters for me, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that my ministerial colleagues and I shall vote for the proposals that we have put to the House.
    Mr. Clemitson: Is it not true that the increase posited for defence expenditure for the next two years, as shown in the White Paper, is proportionally greater

    1165
    than the increase posited for the National Health Service? How can my right hon. Friend justify that discrepancy?
    Mr. Mulley: Unusually, my hon. Friend has got his facts wrong. No increase is postulated for the next year, 1978–79. My hon. Friend will know that, as a result of the economic cut-back last year, there was a substantial reduction. The increase takes effect in 1979–80. I do not have the exact figures for the NHS, but over the period defence expenditure increases are substantially less than those for the civil programmes.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister of State that it is wrong to determine defence spending by an arbitrary mathematical formula based on a proportion of GNP?
    Mr. Mulley: It is wholly wrong to have any arbitrary criteria. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that the figures on which we have to settle are the outcome of a balance of a number of considerations. The Tribune Group did not pay the right hon. Gentleman a compliment for his substantial contribution to the reduction that I mentioned in the period from 1972–73 to 1978–79.

    Boarding Education (Service Personnel)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to relieve local education authorities of the cost of providing boarding education for Service personnel.
    Dr. Gilbert: Through the boarding school allowance, the Ministry of Defence already makes available financial assistance towards the cost of residential education of children of Service personnel.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend still not agree that a good deal of expenditure is borne by local education authorities and, therefore, by ratepayers? Should not this fall wholly on the defence budget?
    Dr. Gilbert: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. Grants made by local authorities are discretionary and are in the nature of topping-up grants to cover the gap between the boarding school allowance and the actual cost of board
    1166
    ing school education. Quite a lot of local authorities make no such grants.
    Mr. Viggers: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind his hon. Friend that boarding school education is available to the children of all ranks and is a necessary part of Service life?
    Dr. Gilbert: I quite agree.

    Pay
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of increasing concern over the low levels of Service men's pay, he will take steps to increase Service pay.
    Mr. Mulley: Service pay will be increased from 1st April next, after consideration of whatever recommendations the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay makes.
    Mr. Townsend: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent firemen's strike brought home to everyone the disgracefully low rates of pay of Service men, especially bearing in mind their technical ability, their long hours of work and their importance not only to the Government but to the country as a whole?
    Mr. Mulley: Awareness of the fact that the Services have slipped behind in comparability terms was underlined by recent events, although it was reported on by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in its report covering the previous two years. We cannot depart from the anniversary of the last pay award without breaching the 12-month rule, and, therefore, no pay increase is possible before 1st April.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable dissatisfaction about pay in far wider groups than merely the Services and that the method of setting this right is usually trade unions? Would he not agree, therefore, that it is time that the Armed Forces had trade unions and free collective bargaining?
    Mr. Mulley: As I have explained before, I do not think that trade union organisation of the Armed Forces would assist us in these problems. There are, of course, special circumstances in the Services which would lead to additional

    1167
    problems. My hon. Friend should understand that one of the reasons why the Services do not want trade unions is that many of those who advocate unions also advocate substantial reductions in defence expenditure, which would lead to redundancies in the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us who have a good deal of respect and affection for him regret his unwillingness to give evidence to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body? Is he aware that there are difficulties in the Services, as some of my hon. Friends and I have found out, and that large numbers of young married men who have served our country well are contemplating leaving the Services unless the Review Body's report gives them a fair deal? Will he put his personal authority, which I respect, behind the demand that our Armed Forces should be paid very much more than they are getting at present?
    Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his kind personal references. I know from the correspondence that we have had of the difficult financial circumstances of some of his Service constituents, but it would be wrong for me to seek an invitation from the Pay Review Body because it is an independent body. It was unfairly criticised in some quarters last year, and I do not wish to take any step which might make it appear that we are trying to interfere with its independence. The right time for ministerial intervention is when the Review Body has made its report.
    Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Armed Forces and the whole country will warmly welcome the fact that he has completely changed his previous mistaken position in regard to the desirability of trade unions in the Armed Forces? Will he give a personal undertaking that the Armed Forces will be treated no less favourably than the firemen for whom they stood in so courageously?
    Mr. Mulley: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have in no way changed my views about trade unions or trade union organisation of the Armed Forces. If he cares to compare my answer with that which I gave last time, he will see no substantial difference. On his second
    1168
    point, it would be unwise and certainly improper to anticipate the report of a body which has not yet formulated any recommendations.
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Defence by how much the pay of Service men and women has increased since February 1974; and how this compares with the average pay of people employed in civilian life.
    Mr. Mulley: Average earnings statistics are not a suitable basis for comparing Service and civilian pay. I did, nevertheless, provide information relating the pay of representative Service ranks to average earnings of full-time male workers for a reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on 1st December last and to which I would refer the hon. Lady.
    Miss Fookes: In the absence of actual figures this afternoon, may I impress upon the Secretary of State that the Services feel strongly that they are dropping far behind their civilian counterparts and are rapidly losing faith in the Armed Forces Pay Review Body?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that it would be unfair for them to criticise the Review Body, because it was not possible, in its view, to give detailed figures last year. I am sure the hon. Lady appreciates that the discrepancies will vary quite substantially as between different ranks and different trades. It is only by a comparison of the civil earnings of counterparts of Service men that we can learn the extent to which they have fallen behind. For that reason, average earnings could give a misleading picture.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: When my right hon. Friend is reviewing Service men's pay, will he consider giving a higher rise to the lower ranks, a lower rise to the higher ranks and no rise at all to the top ranks?
    Mr. Mulley: I think my hon. Friend will be aware that the top ranks in the Services, together with top civil servants and others, have been severely restricted. An indication is that the pay of Members of Parliament and Ministers has been restricted. It will be for the Review Body to consider that aspect along with the others.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The Secretary of State has referred to the Armed Forces

    1169
    Pay Review Body. As both he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of State have made it clear that the Review Body is bound by the Government's guidelines, will he say in what respect the Review Body is independent?
    Mr. Mulley: The Review Body is free to publish a report giving all the considerations that it deems relevant. It has been asked by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to pay regard to the Government's pay policy. It must be expected that any ministerial outcome must be within the pay guidelines.

    Equipment (Foreign Purchases)
    Mr. Hodgsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what inspection procedures his Department follows with respect to foreign suppliers of defence equipment.
    Dr. Gilbert: Where delegation of quality assurance is not practicable, as in the circumstances set out in my reply to the hon. Member of 6th December 1977, the Department's quality assurance staff make direct arrangements. If practicable, the goods are inspected on receipt. The procedures used are the same as those for home-produced supplies.
    Mr. Hodgson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that several British manufacturers of defence equipment have suggested that overseas inspection procedures are not adequate and have so complained to his Department? Does he not regret that his departmental policy, apart from possibly endangering the lives of British soldiers, is leading to increased unemployment in British industry?
    Dr. Gilbert: We see no reason to send teams abroad unless we are dissatisfied with the arrangements already being made. If the arrangements abroad were not satisfactory, we would inspect the goods in our own country. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any case, other than the self-seeking of firms which want contracts and have not got them, where these arrangements are unsatisfactory, I should be obliged if he would bring them to my attention.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: May I revert to imports and exports and congratulate the
    1170
    Government on the reversal of their decision to supply arms to E1 Salvador? I ask the Government to make it a rule not to sell arms to any of the poorest countries of the world.
    Dr. Gilbert: I do not think that that really arises from the Question, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

  COCOM
  Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to attend a meeting of COCOM.
  Dr. Gilbert: The United Kingdom is represented at official level at these discussions.
  Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the importance of COCOM responding to significant changes in world events, especially the relationship between the Soviet Union and China? Does he accept in that connection the importance of Mao Tse-Tung's remark "My enemy's enemy is my friend"? Will he give an asurance that the Government are prepared to consider the sale of certain arms to Governments, such as the Government of China, provided that they are not arms that can in any way be used against NATO Powers?
  Dr. Gilbert: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. As far as I know, we have had no requests for sales of arms to China. If any such requests came, they would be considered in the normal way.

  Hydrographic Strategic Review Body
  Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the exact date when the Hydrographic Strategic Review Body will next meet.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Whilst I cannot give the exact date, arrangements are being made for a meeting of the Hydrographic Strategic Review Body to be held shortly.
  Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that this body is supposed to meet once a year and that it did not meet at all in 1977? Is he further aware that there is some doubt whether the Hydrographer is being given the ships and resources

  1171
  that he needs to carry out his important duties, especially in the light of the extension of our 200-mile exclusive zone?
  Mr. Brown: I appreciate my hon. Friend's deep interest in this subject. That interest is reflected in my hon. Friend's intense questioning of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. I shall ensure that the matter that he has expressed is conveyed to my hon. Friend.

  NATO HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Roderickasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the Heads of Government of NATO member countries.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I will meet NATO Heads of Government collectively at the North Atlantic Council meeting to be held in Washington in May, although I expect to meet some of them on other occasions before then.
  Mr. Roderick: Will my right hon. Friend contact them before that meeting to ask them to justify asking us to pay more for defence, bearing in mind that there is only one European member of NATO which contributes more as a proportion of its gross national product than the United Kingdom?
  The Prime Minister: I constantly point that out, and I have to remind the Opposition that that is true too—namely, that we are the only country in NATO which contributes on all the major fronts. We have the largest European navy in the Eastern Atlantic, we contribute to the strategic weapon through the Polaris submarines, and we maintain an army on the mainland of Europe. That is a creditable performance.
  Mr. Blaker: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to yesterday's statement by the Tribune Group which calls for a policy of non-alignment and appears to be calling for closer talks between parties such as the Labour Party and the Communist Party? Will he tell his NATO colleagues that he totally repudiates that statement?
  The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for the Tribune Group.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the NATO Heads of Government or their staffs have ongoing consultations about problems in the Horn of Africa? If so, to what conclusions are they coming?
  The Prime Minister: The Horn of Africa is outside the area that the NATO group of countries takes into formal consideration, but there have been a number of discussions between certain members of NATO which have interests outside the normal boundaries of NATO. That will continue and, I hope, intensify in view of the adventurism that is now being shown in that area.
  Mr. Alan Clark: When the Prime Minister meets the heads of the NATO countries, will he think it appropriate to raise with them the way in which British jobs and technology have been casually discarded in the political wheeling and dealing that governs weapon procurement within the Alliance, of which the rejection of the British tank gun is the most recent example? Is the Prime Minister aware that at the time the Boeing AWAC was rejected the quid pro quo was the purchase by the United States of an inferior German gun? Were the two programmes properly evaluated in terms of jobs and expenditure?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Seretary of State for Defence has just concluded 45 minutes of answering Questions on these matters. Surely these detailed questions would be more appropriately put to my right hon. Friend. The arrangements for the purchase of a British or other tank gun are still being pursued by the British team. I believe that on merits we have a very good case.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 24th January.
  The Prime Minister: This morning I held ministerial meetings and attended the memorial service for Lady Spencer-Churchill. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues this

  1173
  afternoon. This evening I am looking forward to attending a reception in the consituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) to celebrate more than 32 years' service by him as the Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Roberts: No doubt in the course of his very full day the Prime Minister will not neglect to study the unemployment figures, which show an increase of 67,000 and are again above the 1½ million mark. When will he reduce the figures to the 600,000 that his Government inherited?
  The Prime Minister: The unemployment figures published today show little change on the seasonally-adjusted figures—namely. a fall of 1,000. One of the encouraging factors—I hope that the House will feel that this is useful—is that unfilled vacancies have increased: the corresponding seasonally-adjusted figure has risen by much more than normal. I hope that this portends the beginning of the upward turn in the economy that the boost which has been put into it by the Chancellor's tax measures and reductions over the past six months should portend. I believe that that is so, but it would be wrong to assume that in a period of world recession this country will be exempt from consequences that are felt elsewhere.
  Mrs. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend find time to meet the Prime Minister of Belize and assure him that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of agreeing to the carve-up of the territory of Belize against the wishes of her Government, her people, the United Nations and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be meeting the Premier of Belize. I assure the House that the Premier and the Opposition in Belize have attended all the discussions that have taken place with Guatemala on the future of Belize and its attempt to secure independence. Everything that has happened in those negotiations is known to them. I indicated to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the conference in London last June that no decision would be taken without the full consent of the people of Belize. There is no need for alarm on this matter, despite the alarmist and untruthful headline that has appeared in one newspaper.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to return to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). Will the Prime Minister explain why his policies have resulted not only in 1½ million people being out of work but in a large number of jobs for which skilled people are required but are not available? How has he managed to achieve the disastrous double of 1½ million unemployed and a shortage of skilled labour?
  The Prime Minister: The Conservative Party's document "The Right Approach", which I study with great care and frequency, told us that the fundamental weakness of the British economy in failing to be competitive was deep seated and could not be removed in less than a decade. Therefore, as the right hon. Lady knows perfectly well, it is sheer party politics to suggest that the unemployment that is sweeping the Western world is due to the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
  The right hon. Lady is misinformed about the last part of her question. I have had a number of inquiries made into the kind of statements made by the right hon. Lady about the shortage of skilled labour.
  Mr. Tebbit: My right hon. Friend is always right. The right hon. Gentleman is always wrong.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) should cease to be the right hon. Lady's lapdog.
  I have had a number of inquiries made into this matter. There have been specific examples of shortages of skilled men, but the result of the last inquiries that I made, which were literally only a week ago and were conducted on a pretty broad basis, is that, generally speaking, although there are specific shortages in a few areas, there is no overall shortage of skilled men. The Government's training programme—the largest such programme ever undertaken—is overhauling any specific shortages. That is one reason why the economy must be allowed to expand at a steady rate and not get into the spasm that we had during the early 1970's when we had the boom and bust. That is what I am determined to resist.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that, if our problems are deep-seated, one reason is that the Labour

  1175
  Party has been in power for 10 out of the last 13 years? Whatever excuses he may give, he cannot run away from the fact that our policies did not produce unemployment whereas his policies have. The right hon. Gentleman will go down in history as the Prime Minister of unemployment.
  The Prime Minister: I do not know where the right hon. Lady found that last phrase, but I am sure it will get a headline somewhere. However, it will not alter the fundamental appreciation of the British people of the realities of the situation. If it is of any comfort to the right hon. Lady, I should like to make a prophecy. I have a feeling that we shall be in power for the next 10 years too.
  Mr. Thorpe: I should like to revert to the Prime Minister's answer on Belize, to which the House listened with great interest. Is he able to go further and assert that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of ceding any part of existing Belizean territory either to Guatemala or to Mexico?
  The Prime Minister: I do not want to go as far as that at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We must pay some regard to the views of the Premier, as well as the Opposition, in Belize about its future. Therefore, it would be improper for the House of Commons to make a declaration on anything connected with this matter, except to say, as I have done and I repeat, that we want the agreement of the people of Belize before we take any action.
  The problem is very difficult and it is right that the Government should attempt to solve it. Belize wants independence. If it became independent without a guaranteed border and a proper peace treaty with Guatemala, in view of the disparate size of the two countries Belize would be in great trouble.
  Our objective is to try to bring that country to full independence as soon as we can in conditions that will guarantee its future. The Premier of Belize and his colleagues must consider and take their decision on those conditions. Clearly, it would be difficult to ask the House or the country to assume responsibility for the defence of Belize after it became independent. Therefore, we must try to secure its frontiers before it becomes independent.
  Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend take time to look at last year's trade figures, which in volume terms show that exports rose by 8 per cent. whereas imports rose by 14 per cent., thereby equalising the balance of payments gains from North Sea oil? Will he tell his Ministers this afternoon that much greater efforts must be made in import substitution if we are to reverse this trend?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that the figures rose on manufactured, not total, imports. In fact, there was a balance heavily in favour of an increase in the volume of exports during that period, but we need to continue to increase it.
  Mr. John Davies: I do not think that the Prime Minister's remarks about Belize entirely reassured the House. Will he categorically assure the House that there has been no negotiation to partition Belize among the neighbouring countries with the threat of refusing to defend that colony in the event of its not agreeing to such an arrangement?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the House will not be misled by the story which appeared in one newspaper this morning, part of which was totally untrue. The rest of it, when one read it carefully, was a sort of mood music piece. I have completely revealed to the House the discussions that are going on. the nature of the problem and the assurances that have been given. I ask the House to be satisfied with that.

TUC AND CBI
Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC and CBI.
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 10th November.
Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend meets the CBI and the TUC, will he spell out in some detail the contributions and sacrifices made by ordinary working people through their trade unions in the fight against inflation, in contrast to the Conservative Party by its vote last night and its attitude to the Prices Bill? Will he particularly challenge the CBI

1177
to state where it stands? The attitude of the Tory Party seems to be to punish working people by increased prices because they put the national interest first.
The Prime Minister: It is true that the decisions taken by the trade unions and their members over the past three years, including the 12-month rule that they voluntarily adopted this year, have helped to reduce inflation substantially, but have reduced the standard of life. I am glad to say that in the fourth quarter of 1977 the standard of life of the British people, for the first time for some time—[Interruption.]—since 1975—began to improve and will continue to improve. That will continue during 1978, so I shall certainly take the opportunity of spelling it out on every occasion.
We all know what the Tory attitude is. Indeed, I was wondering this morning whether I could possibly devise, in addition to the retail price index, the TPI—or Tory Party index—to be published every month to indicate the result of the Tory Party's vote last night.
Mr. Charles Morrison: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he explain one of the realities of the present unemployment situation—namely, that our unemployment is now worse, according to a recent parliamentary answer, than it is in France, West Germany, Italy and the United States? Can he say why that is?
The Prime Minister: If one went back a decade, one would find that unemployment in this country has usually been higher than that of the Federal Republic or of France because the causes are deep-seated. But we are now overcoming that. I am glad to say that the country has shed much of the belief that there is some magic key that can be turned to make this country competitive with others. I believe that both sides of industry now understand what needs to be done and, what is more, that they are turning their attention to doing what is necessary. I hope that I carry the Conservatives with me on that, because that is the way to overcome unemployment.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE)
Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter concerning the consideration by the House of European Economic Community documents. The Scrutiny Committee on European legislation recommended some time ago that the House should discuss, amongst other documents, Document R/2461/75—a report on an action programme for the aeronautical sector. On the Order Paper last night there was an order which enabled a discussion to take place.
However, the document concerned is entitled "A Commission Report to the Council on an Action Programme for the European Aeronautical Sector", whereas, according to the Order Paper, we were to discuss developments in the EEC civil aircraft sector on a motion in the name of the Prime Minister:
"That this House takes note of developments in the EEC Civil Aircraft sector as outlined in the Government's memorandum of 17th January 1978".
You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, the difference between the two matters. The document from the Community was on the whole of the aeronautical sector. The discussion last night on the Government's motion was on the civil sector. Hence, the Chair ruled that it was out of order to discuss any matters concerning military aviation. If one looks at the document from the Community one finds that pages 7 and 8 in particular and pages 6 and 7 of Annex 1 deal specifically with the military sector. In particular, there is a proposal to set up a European common procurement agency for military aircraft. [Interruption.] If the Liberals could go back to Blackpool for their discussion, I should be most grateful.
My point is that this sets a precedent by which the Government decide which parts of a European document should be discussed when the Scrutiny Committee has recommended that the whole of a document should be discussed. I should therefore be grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you might ask the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider how we should proceed and whether it would be proper to have a further discussion on this document so that we might cover

1179
those matters which were ruled out of order last night.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although the Chair has absolutely no control over what motion the Government choose to table, I suggest that the Chair might consider using its power not to put the Question at the conclusion of the debate, on the ground that the matter has been inadequately discussed, as a means of showing its disapproval of the Government endeavouring to restrict discussion on a document which a Committee of the House has suggested should be discussed in toto.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it would be as well if you ensured that others looked at the whole area of documents from the Common Market. Not only did we have this unsatisfactory state of affairs last night, but last week the Minister came to the Dispatch Box armed with certain documents. He did not know whether they came from the Commission or the Council. A debate took place for about one hour until approximately midnight, until my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who watches these matters closely—and even he missed the mistake until the debate had continued for an hour—found that the documents were false. Some of us, not including the two hon. Members who have just spoken, predicted that this situation might arise when Britain voted to go into the Common Market.
This whole matter should be examined to ensure that our affairs are conducted in a more satisfactory manner. But this can never be cleared up entirely until we get out of the Common Market.
Mr. Amery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) argued that the documents in question covered both civil and military aviation. From my own experience at the old Ministry of Aviation I can assure him that it is impossible to separate the two aspects of aviation. For example, the engine that powers Concorde today was originally designed for the TSR2. This situation occurs in one project after another. One cannot separate one from the other. It is 1180
illogical to try to limit a debate to one or other of the two aspects.
Mr. Pattie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I took part in the debate last night and it would be wrong for the House to get the impression that these documents were fully considered. The Chair had no alternative but to rule out of order debate on at least half of the documents.
Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for his courtesy in giving me notice that he wished to raise this point of order. If I had been in the Deputy Speaker's shoes last night I should have ruled exactly as he did. He was entirely right in his ruling. He was bound by the title of the motion which was before the House.
I have listened with great care to points of order from both sides of the House. I understand the feelings of hon. Members on the whole question of these documents. Naturally I shall give consideration to what has been said, but I give no undertaking to make a statement.
The matter raised by the hon. Member for Chingford is not a matter for me. It is one for the Government, who will no doubt take into consideration what he and other hon. Members have said when bringing forward any further motions of this sort for discussion.
Mr. Jay: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the fault last night lay not with the Chair but with the Government's motion. Surely that raises the point that if the Government are to be at liberty to exclude by their motion certain substantial issues contained in a document which the Scrutiny Committee has brought before the House, they would be breaching their basic undertaking not to allow matters to be decided in the EEC until this House has debated them. Therefore, should we not have an assurance from the Government that this device will not be used again?
Mr. Hooley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I recall the motion correctly, it referred explicity to the documents which the House was seeking to discuss, including the documents to which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has referred. Does your ruling imply that if, in tabling a motion,

1181
the Government refer quite correctly to the documents but do not spell out the precise titles of every one, the motion in some way becomes faulty?
Mr. Tebbit: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept that the Chair was correct in its ruling last night and was bound entirely by what was on the Order Paper. On the other hand, there are two long-standing traditions in this House. One is that the Leader of the House affords some protection to Back Benchers—and that is a tradition that we can now forget entirely. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows that is true and he said so last week—
Mr. Heffer: My criticism was wider than criticism of the Leader of the House. It was a different situation.
Mr. Tebbit: I shall not speculate on the possibility of a non-aggression pact with the hon. Gentleman.
The other long-standing tradition is that you, Mr. Speaker, protect the House against the monarchy, the collective monarchy, the Executive, or anyone else who tries to usurp our power or throttle discussion, even by the use of the Order Paper in the manner adopted last night. It was clear that a Select Committee of this House recommended that the document should be discussed. Equally clearly, that has not been done. I suggest that there is a role here for the Chair in ensuring that what the Select Committee says should be done is in fact done.
Mr. David Walder: As one who spoke last night in the debate and, I hope, kept within the rules of order as stated by the Chair, I feel that the basic problem is that for the full title of certain documents, especially those emanating from the EEC, to be set out might lead to a sentence of intolerable length. The problem for the Back Bencher is, I suggest, something on which you might exercise your mind, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps make a statement and give guidance at a later date. The problem concerns the extent to which the Chair can look at the content of the document and then allow the debate to continue relevant to that content.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of
1182
order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling, the Government will look at the matter and see whether we should make a statement to the House on how best we should proceed. Hon. Members who have attended our numerous debates about how we seek to carry out the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee will confirm I am sure, that we have sought to do so. The Committee itself has confirmed that on a number of occasions. In many respects we are seeking to deal with new matters and new difficulties often arise. But I will look into the matter in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, to see whether we can assist the House further in that.
Mr. Speaker: If I may be permitted to pass comment, may I say that that will please the House?

UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking your advice on how an hon. Member can register in the columns of Hansard the silence of several sections of this House. It will be within your recollection as a Member of this House, although you did not occupy the Chair at that time, that when unemployment passed the 1 million figure under the then Conservative Government, your predecessor had to abandon the proceedings of the House because of demonstrations by the Parliamentary Labour Party. Is any facility available to hon. Members, such as me, who would like to draw the country's attention to the fact that unemployment today passed the 1·5 million mark with scarcely a ripple of anxiety, concern or protest from the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour Party?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to continue, but I think that he knew that he was scoring a point rather than raising a point of order.
Later—
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, too seek your guidance? How can hon. Members who might want not only to make a ripple on the question of unemployment but to create a possible explosion do so if they

1183
consistently try to speak at Question Time but are not called?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not do badly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns something which I think will be of great interest to the entire House and it relates to tomorrow's business. I understand that no request has been made to you by my right hon. Friend the Lord President for any statement to be made today about a very important addition which is likely to be made to tomorrow's business.
I believe that the House would wish to know now of this addition to the business, which is to be considered tomorrow if present plans go forward. This will be business in the House, not in Committee, and it will concern alteration of the timetable motion on the Scotland Bill in order to divide up tomorrow's session in Committee into three sections. I must not go into the substance of that or protest about it at this stage, but it is extremely important that the House should know that it is coming up. If we are not told now, hon. Members will know nothing of it until they see tomorrow's Order Paper. I therefore ask you and, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Lord President, whether we may be told of the motion which it is proposed should be tabled.
It could be that an amendment which might otherwise have passed, and I believe has a good chance of doing so, and which is designed not to kill devolution but to give effect to the assertions of many hon. Members that the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people want devolution, would be prevented from being debated and voted upon. If new business is being added to tomorrow's Order Paper the Lord President should not wait for us to catch sight of it by accident on the Order Paper tomorrow. He should tell us now what he proposes to put down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no knowledge whatever of any change in the business. I have not been notified of such.
Later—
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take further points of order on unnamed business of which I know nothing. If I know nothing about it, how on earth can I rule on it?
Mr. Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I entirely understand your position and respect what you have just said, and I appreciate that the Lord President has not in any sense responded or sought to catch your eye in relation to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), it nevertheless appears that there is, to say the least, a rumour of some change which is to take place tomorrow, and I think that this may place the House in some difficulty.
Whether that rumour be well founded or not is not for me at this moment to say, but, clearly, there is a degree of anxiety. The Lord President has not sought to rise and respond, and I suggest that it might be helpful if he did.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Nobody knows better than does the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) what the normal procedures of the House in this matter are. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman does the way in which decisions of Business Committees are reported to the House. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman does what the Order Paper is for. In fact, what we are doing on this occasion is to follow exactly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—what we are doing is following exactly the procedures which have always have been followed by the House by which the decisions of the Business Committee are reported to the House.
Any suggestion that there is anything sinister or out of the ordinary here is an absolute misleading of the House. Nobody knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman does, and he ought to have the common honesty to get to his feet and say so.
Mr. Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the

1185
House knows perfectly well that I made no such allegation and made no suggestion at all of anything sinister. It is quite untrue and, I should have thought, completely out of order—certainly out of taste—for the Leader of the House to suggest otherwise, since in the remarks which I made, heard by the House? I said nothing of the kind. I was pointing out that he might have responded to his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there is nothing sinister, would it not have been a simple matter—indeed, a matter of courtesy—to report to you what the Business Committee is up to? Frankly, it seems to some of us—I choose my words carefully—that, if these rumours are true, there is a danger that the Business of the House, without Mr. Speaker's knowledge, is being manipulated in such a way[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—that votes which might have been taken and might have been embarrassing will not be taken. I suggest, therefore, that this is an issue on which you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, have a duty to protect the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to the House that if there is a motion to be put on the Order Paper, clearly, the House will have a chance tomorrow when it comes up. But since I am in total ignorance of what is proposed, there is no point in pursuing the matter now.
Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cunningham—to close the matter.
Mr. Cunningham: I understand your difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and your difficulty is as nothing compared to ours, if I may say so. I hope that the Government Front Bench, who are not prepared to stand up and say what they intend to do tomorrow, will realise that the House is in a difficult position. They can get rid of the problem immediately if they want to.
May I put this to you, Mr. Speaker, since this is a point of order? If tomorrow there were a business motion making a change in the business of the House, that, I understand, would be an undebatable motion so that there would not be a lot of time lost for debate, and it would be an opposable motion. Am I right in thinking that any time taken upon that motion would come out of whatever abbreviated allocation of time might be brought about by that motion for a clause of enormous importance—the referendum clause—in the Scotland Bill?
Mr. Speaker: The same is true today. These points of order are taking time from the time which is to follow under the guillotine.
Mr. Gow: On a new point of order. Mr. Speaker. Since the Lord President, when he first—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in any way going back to the last subject? That is finished now, and I can take no further points of order on it.

HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT)
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964.
Many right hon. and hon. Members with knowledge and seniority far greater than mine will recall that a former Conservative Member for Battersea, South, Mr. Ernest Partridge, piloted through the House in the 1963–64 Session of Parliament a Private Members' Bill which led to the establishment of the Hairdressing Council, with the added requirement that it should establish a register of qualified hairdressers and set up suitable training courses and qualifications for those wishing to enter the craft.
It was the original intention of that measure that all future entrants should be required successfully to complete an approved training course before setting up in business. Unfortunately, that mandatory aspect of the original Clause 3 of the Bill of 1964 was withdrawn by the promoter, since it was felt by some right hon. and hon. Members at the time, some of whom are still here, as well as by Ministers, I believe, to be unduly restrictive of the rights of the individual.
Fourteen years have elapsed since the passing of the Act, and experience gained in that time has convinced the Hairdressing Council—of which both the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and I are members—I declare that interest—and has convinced nearly everyone else in the hairdressing trade to whom I have spoken—I am sure that many hon. Members have received letters on the subject—of the need to rectify the situation.
There have, unhappily, been too many cases of non-registered inexperienced operators using chemicals and other substances of which they have no real practical knowledge, with quite disastrous results. Some of these cases have been amply reported in the Press, and all of them have reflected badly on the 20,000 or so registered operators in the trade.
The Hairdressing Council, can, I believe, be said to be doing a first-class job in improving standards. That is a
1188
fact which seems to be readily acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has attended the annual Student of the Year Award, as has the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), as well as my right hon. Friend the Leader of my party, the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel).
I believe it to be true that the Hairdressing Council has performed a very useful role, but it is powerless to act in such cases as those to which I have referred. Serious skin diseases which, if treated properly, can be cured or at least contained, are sometimes not recognised and in the worst cases can be transmitted to other customers.
Over the past 15 years, there has been an enormous boom in the whole hairdressing business, especially on the ladies' side—often to our own cost! To meet the demand, two-year courses have been established at no fewer than 150 local education authority technical colleges and colleges of further education throughout the country. Several high-class salons of world repute now run their own extensive apprenticeship courses. Vast sums of public money are being expended to ensure that those entering the trade have a thorough knowledge of their subject.
It therefore seems ridiculous not to give those people and the general public who use their services in vast numbers the protection from the inexperienced operator which they should surely have.
I urge that it is time that we joined most of our partners in the EEC as well as our colleagues in the United States of America and most Western countries and put our house in order, giving, incidentally at the same time, some protection to registered established hairdressers.
My Bill will be designed to cover five main points. First, all entrants should be required to take an approved course of training. Second, on completion of the course, they will be required to pass an approved examination or to have been assessed as satisfactory by their course tutors.
Third, registration in the statutory register of hairdressers on successful completion of training should be mandatory. Fourth, all persons wishing to open a hairdressing salon and to employ and

1189
train staff and apprentices should be required to possess a master craftsmen's diploma or to employ a manager who possesses such a diploma. Fifth, all those teaching at technical colleges or colleges of further education should hold the master craftsman's diploma.
The Farriers Registration Act, which was passed by the House in two stages last year and the year before, now rightly requires people who shoe horses to be properly qualified. Surely it is time that we applied a similar criterion to those who treat our hair. Major organisations representing both employers' and employees' interests support the need for this legislation, and I trust that the House will do the same.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I am not myself an advertisement for the craft which is the subject of the Bill, but many and various are the invisible earnings of the City of London and Westminster, South. The Department of Trade includes hairdressing as an invisible earning. The placid and sensible motion introduced with sweet reasonableness by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) conceals turbulent eddies of disunited opinion within the craft. If anybody doubts this, I ask him to consider why it has taken 14 years for this matter to be brought back to the House.
Of the 15 members of the Hairdressing Council who were appointed under the 1964 Act to which the hon. Member referred, two were appointed by the National Hairdressers Federation and two by the Incorporated Guild of Hairdressers, Wigmakers and Perfumers. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, as a member of the Hairdressing Council, will be aware that there has not always been sweetness and light between those two bodies during the past 14 years. The guild, in its open forum of September 1976, made a commendable effort to bring the whole craft together, but the National Hairdressers Federation would not attend on that occasion.
Outside the two bodies of the guild and the federation are the commercial schools, which are often part of a chain of hairdressing salons. These schools are not riding on the back of the two bodies to which I have referred, since
1190
registered hairdressers everywhere contribute to the funds and finances of the Hairdressing Council. The best of these schools are among the leaders of the craft in the world.
It should be a matter of pride to the House that, though in past years the centre of this craft world-wide has been either in Paris or in Germany, and it has been Frenchmen and Germans who have carried off the prizes at international competitions, those prizes are now won by citizens of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom has become the centre of this craft. The majority of the winners of those prizes come from the commercial schools to which I have just referred.
In the trailer to this Bill in the House magazine, the hon. Member mentioned our wives. The names that our wives would recognise as the good and great of this craft are those that come from the commercial schools. The World Federation of Supreme Hairdressing Schools, which operates in 20 countries with its headquarters in Rotterdam, has one member school in each country. It used to have eight in this country but now has four. That itself is an indication of the importance of these schools world-wide. It is significant that it was the schools themselves that pruned their numbers from eight to four.
In terms of the schools' role and the relationship of the schools to the rest of the craft, in 1974 as many as 1,000 students came in from the State colleges to attend a teach-in at one of the commercial schools. There are sessions held on Sundays at these commercial schools at the request of teachers and students from the State schools in order not to interfere with the State schools' curriculum. The Training Services Agency makes use of the commercial schools for its TOPS programme.
Some 75 per cent. of the students, at least of the schools in central London, come from abroad, wherein lies the problem. If the United Kingdom represents the centre and cream of the craft, and if the commercial schools contribute to that cream, why should not these schools and their qualifications be included in the registration? Other crafts and trades have approved private enterprise training and retraining. Why should not hairdressing do the same?

1191
First, the guild to which I referred recognises and approves the schools about which I am talking. But, second, the commercial schools approached the Hairdressing Council several years ago and asked it whether its examination would be acceptable as a qualification. The Hairdressing Council accepted it, thanked them and said that it would let them know. Nothing has been heard since.
The schools, 18 months ago, invited the National Hairdressers Federation to send two inspectors to have a look at the schools, and the schools said "If our standards are inadequate, of course we shall reform and revise them." The inspectors accepted the invitation. They came to look at the schools. They said that they would report back. Again, nothing has been heard from that day to this.
To be fair, there is a basis for disagreement. The Hairdressing Council would like to see a two-year full-time course or a three-year apprenticeship as the qualification for registration. The schools' course lasts seven and a half months and is, of course, more concentrated. It lasts 1,000 hours. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to the European experience. I should advise the House that 1,000 hours or thereabouts is the length of time required for registration in the various individual states of the United States of America, which has seperate regulations for each state. The time spent in private schools in the United States is counted towards those 1,000 hours.
The Hairdressing Council feels that the course should be protracted rather than concentrated and that time plays a rose in the training of hairdressers. I am in no position to argue this academic point. The critics of the State scheme point out that, being two-thirds theory and one-third practical, there is too much theory.
They say that a shorter, more practical course would achieve better results because students become bored with the amount of theory that they have to absorb.
I am reluctant to oppose this Bill because the aims concerning general registration and the master craftsman diploma are those which the commercial schools themselves applaud and approve, and they should commend themselves to the commonsense of the House. But the inclusion of the commercial schools and their qualifications, given their standing, frankly, should also commend itself to the commonsense of the House.
In all the 14 years since the Act was passed, the Hairdressing Council has done little to bring the commercial schools into the general fraternity of the craft. They have done nothing significant, in advance of the hon. Gentleman giving notice of the Bill this afternoon, to reach a compromise agreement on the qualifications that they offer.
If the hon. Gentleman would take his Bill away and reach agreement with the commercial schools, I should be happy to withdraw any opposition of mine. Indeed, if he would have my name on the Bill, I would be glad to give it. But, given the experience of the commercial schools during the past 14 years, I do not blame them for not giving the benefit of the doubt to the Hairdressing Council. Therefore, I feel obliged to oppose this Bill.
Mrs. Renée Short: What a lot of rubbish.
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 158, Noes 77.

Division No. 72]

AYES

[4.09 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Dalyell, Tam

Anderson, Donald

Campbell, Ian

Davidson, Arthur

Armstrong, Ernest

Canavan, Dennis

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Ashley, Jack

Carmichael, Neil

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

Ashton, Joe

Cartwright, John

Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Clemitson, Ivor

Dempsey, James

Bates, Alf

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Dormand, J. D.

Bean, R. E.

Cohen, Stanley

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Corbett, Robin

Eadie, Alex

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Crawshaw, Richard

English, Michael

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cryer, Bob

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Cunningham. Dr J. (Whiteh)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Sever, John

Evans, John (Newton)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lipton, Marcus

Sillars, James

Flannery, Martin

Litterick, Tom

Skinner, Dennis

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Freud, Clement

McCartney, Hugh

Spriggs, Leslie

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Stallard, A. W.

George, Bruce

McElhone, Frank

Steel, Rt Hon David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

Ginsburg, David

Madden, Max

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Golding, John

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Gould, Bryan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Graham, Ted

Mendelson, John

Thompson, George

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mikardo, Ian

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mitchell, Austin

Tinn, James

Grocott, Bruce

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Tomlinson, John

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Harper, Joseph

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Newens, Stanley

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

O'Halloran, Michael

Ward, Michael

Heffer, Eric S.

Palmer, Arthur

Wellbeloved, James

Hooley, Frank

Park, George

Welsh, Andrew

Hooson, Emiyn

Pavitt, Laurie

White, James (Pollok)

Huckfield. Les

Penhaligon, David

Whitehead, Phillip

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Perry, Ernest

Whitlock, William

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Price, William (Rugby)

Wigley, Dafydd

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Radice, Giles

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Hunter, Adam

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Rhodes James, R.

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Wise, Mrs Audrey

John, Brynmor

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Woodall, Alec

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Kelley, Richard

Roderick, Caerwyn

Young, David (Bolton E)

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Kinnock, Neil

Rooker, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lambie, David

Rose, Paul B.

Mr. Stephen Ross and

Lee, John

Rowlands, Ted

Mrs. Margaret Bain.

NOES

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Holland, Philip

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hordern, Peter

Pink, R. Bonner

Biggs-Davison, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Brotherton, Michael

Howell. Ralph (North Norfolk)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Buck, Antony

Hurd, Douglas

Rathbone, Tim

Budgen, Nick

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Burden, F. A.

Jopling, Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Cope, John

Lawson, Nigel

Skeet, T. H. H.

Costain, A. P.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lloyd, Ian

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Dunlop, John

Marten, Neil

Speed, Keith

Durant, Tony

Mates, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stanley, John

Eyre, Reginald

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Moate, Roger

Wakeham, John

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Molyneaux, James

Weatherill, Bernard

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Montgomery, Fergus

Wells, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Goodhew, Victor

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Wiggin, Jerry

Goodiad, Alastair

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Winterton, Nicholas

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mudd, David

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Gray, Hamish

Neave, Airey

Younger, Hon George

Grist, Ian

Nott, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Page, Richard (Workington)

Mr. Peter Brooke and

Hicks, Robert

Parkinson, Cecil

Mr. Robin Hodgson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen Ross, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Stanley Cohen, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mrs. Margaret Bain, Mr. Ernest G. Perry, Mr. William Molloy, and Mr. Cyril Smith.

HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Stephen Mr. Stephen Ross accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24th February and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND BILL
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th January]
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

  SCOTLAND BILL
    Clause 64

      STATUS AND REMUNERATION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AND SERVANTS
      4.19 p.m.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Murton. You have very helpfully had posted on the board your selection for tomorrow's amendments. May I ask you to reconsider your decision not to allow Amendment No. 556, in Clause 82, page 37, line 39, at end insert
      'but in the event of a General Election being announced before the holding of such referendum the latter shall not take place until a period of not less than three months from the polling date of the Election has elapsed'.
      The political editor of The Times, Fred Emery, wrote on 14th January:
      "Consideration is also being given to having election and referendum on the same day."
      There may be many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who want to give an opinion on what would be a totally new feature of British government—the notion of a referendum and election on the same day. Further, should the referendum be scrambled up with a General Election, many people would not be voting on the merits or otherwise of 150 Assemblymen or Assemblywomen in Edinburgh but would naturally react to party loyalties.
      The Government may care to give a categorical assurance that they would never contemplate such a thing as having an election and referendum on the same day, but in the absence of any such undertaking, I ask you to reconsider the amendment for selection, Mr. Murton.
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
      When I considered the amendment, it seemed to me that its substance would
      1196
      more appropriately be placed in Schedule 17 than in Clause 82. Therefore, I felt that on balance it was out of order as being offered at a wrong place in the Bill. Reference to that point is to be found on page 523 in "Erskine May".
      However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman received some advice from the authorities of the House about the terms of his amendment, and it may well be that his wishes regarding its position in the Bill were not completely understood.
      I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that Schedule 17 does not fall to be considered by the Committee until tomorrow. Although in general I am disinclined to select starred amendments, I think that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the circumstances I would not rule out on that ground alone, an orderly amendment in the right place.
      Mr. Dalyell: As usual, Mr. Murton, you have been very helpful. I should not like to cast any reflection on the distinguished Officer of the House who gave me advice. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding between us.
      The Chairman: I am sure that that is so.
      Mr. George Cunningham: The point that I was going to raise, Mr. Murton, I would have raised in any case, but it is particularly appropriate following the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
      You have already posted your provisional selection of amendments for tomorrow, Mr. Murton, and you did so at a time when the arrangement of the business tomorrow was as provided for in a previous business motion. You will have heard the exchanges in the House before we went into Committee, from which it is clear that there will be a proposal to alter the business tomorrow, cutting it up into different short sections.
      I do not seek any answer now, Mr. Murton, and I think that it would be improper for you to give me one now. but I put it to you that if there is an alteration of the guillotined sections you would be entitled and almost obliged at least to reconsider your selection of amendments, because the time available for the consideration of amendments is one of the

      1197
      factors that you must take into account in deciding whether to select an amendment.
      Therefore, Mr. Murton, I ask you to consider the point and see whether in the light of the new arrangements, as they will be, you will look again at your selection.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows my position in this matter. He also knows that the list of selections made by me is provisional, and I am always prepared to consider the matter in the light of all the circumstances prevailing at any particular time.
      Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 602, in page 30, line 13, leave out 'accordingly' and insert:
      'subject to the consent and approval of the Minister for the Civil Service and subject to such conditions as he may from time to time impose'.
      The amendment is of great importance, because it seeks to ensure, in a way that the Bill does not, that no separate Civil Service is created owing loyalties exclusively to a devolved Scottish Government, and controlled by them, and that all civil servants, whether working for the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Office or another United Kingdom Department, are clearly members of a service operating as a United Kingdom service, with appointments to it and within it made by the United Kingdom Government, subject to conditions determined by the United Kingdom Government.
      One of our fundamental objections to the Bill is that the creation of a separate Government for Scotland, and not merely an elected Assembly, puts at risk the maintenance of the United Kingdom. The attempt to create a separate Executive within a unitary State is an attempt to square the circle. The tremendous strains imposed upon the whole structure of the government of the United Kingdom brought about by the creation of a system of devolution of the kind set out in the Bill is nowhere made clearer than in the role of the Civil Service if and when a Scottish Executive, as well as a Scottish Assembly, is set up. The basic question can be summed up very simply: whose Civil Service will it be and who will control it?
      There are two alternative approaches if one starts out on the road of setting up
      1198
      an Executive for Scotland. The first, and in some ways the most logical, is to say "If we are having a Scottish Executive which is responsible to the Scottish Assembly, dependent on a majority in the Assembly for its existence, it is right that those who carry out the Executive's policy—the civil servants—should constitute a separate Civil Service for Scotland. That would be a logical resolution of the dilemma, but it has not been chosen by the Government. At least, they pretend that it has not.
      I suggest that there are two reasons why that approach has not been followed. First, the Civil Service would loathe that solution. It would not like the creation of a separate Civil Service for Scotland, which would impose upon it the difficult choice of deciding where its allegiances lay.
      Secondly—and I suspect that, sensitive as the Government are to the feelings of the Civil Service, this reason has been dominant in the decision—by creating overtly, clearly and expressly a separate Civil Service the Government would be taking a clear step on the path towards separation. With the creation of not only a separate Assembly and separate political Executive but a separate Civil Service, all the machinery, the infrastructure, of a separate Scottish State would be ready-made, available and at the disposal of Scotland. All that would be necessary would be a simple cut of the knot between the United Kingdom and Scotland for that separate Scottish State to come into existence. Therefore, the Government, claiming as they do that they believe in devolution and not in separatism, have eschewed that path, in form at least.
      The alternative that the Government believe in, as they have told us in previous debates on the Scottish Executive, is set out in the Bill. It is a single Civil Service serving both the Secretary of State for Scotland and a Scottish Executive, presumably with a common system of entrance, a common promotion ladder and a single system of switching about from one section of the Civil Service to the other. That is what the Government's path purports to be. It is easy to state that in theory.
      The purpose of this amendment is to illustrate, and to attempt to rectify, the fact that this solution of the problem of

      1199
      the loyalties of the Civil Service is full of unresolved questions and that in practice it consists of a series of extremely nasty and sharp hidden rocks which the Government seek to obscure with a few bland, legislative words.
      The realities of the situation keep creeping out. Given the unacceptable choices posed concerning what rôle the Civil Service should perform, we certainly prefer, if it were possible, that there should continue to be as a single Civil Service, loyal to the Assembly, the Executive and to the United Kingdom Government. I say, frankly, that I am doubtful whether the tremendous strains that would be imposed on such a Civil Service would make for a practicable and viable operation. At least let us make the necessary amendment to ensure that the Government's preferred solution, or the solution that the Government pretend to prefer, has some air of reality instead of being expressed in such gossamer-like threads which are obviously liable to break at the first strain.
      As the Bill stands, there is nominally a single Civil Service. In practice, it would be all too easy for a separate Civil Service to be built up with a loyalty to the Scottish Executive which would be the obvious precursor to the creation of an independent, separate Scottish State. This is not a purely theoretical question because the numbers are pretty considerable. If the Bill is to be believed, we are talking about a staff of 240 for the Scottish Assembly and 750 extra civil servants. Some of us have great doubts about the accuracy of those figures and suspect that when it comes to it there will be rather more than that. But if the Government are to be taken at face value, it is a question of 240 extra staff for the Assembly and 750 extra civil servants.
      At the moment we are loftily told by the Government that the Scotland Bill does not involve the creation of an extra tier of government. All suggestions that it does anything of the kind are treated as woeful distortions of the Government's intentions. This is not an extra tier of government, we are told. It is a question of the transfer of powers from central Government to a Scottish Assembly and Executive. We are told that this is not a question of local government reform. That can only mean a tremendous amount
      1200
      of duplication, with the Scottish Executive doing the work and the Scottish Office providing in large part—except for those few non-devolved functions—a team of "shadow" civil servants making sure that the real civil servants with the Scottish Executive behave themselves and do not exceed their powers. If ever there was a recipe for conflict it lies in the creation of this dual structure which provides a conflict that is not just latent but patent.
      If we examine this position a little further, the problem becomes even clearer. Clause 21 (3) says:
      "Such of Her Majesty's prerogative and other executive powers as would otherwise be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Minister of the Crown shall, if they relate to devolved matters and are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Scottish Secretary."
      That is the clear creation of executive devolution. If we examine Clause 21 (9). we find that:
      "A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate for the exercise of such of the powers mentioned in subsection (3) of this section as are for the time being exercised by him."
      The Scottish Secretary is given the right to appoint officers and servants whom he thinks appropriate. Presumably not only does he appoint whom he likes, but if we read Clause 21(9), he decides how many people, and of what kind, are appropriate for that purpose. Those officers and servants are then by definition acting under him and are his agents.
      That is the part of the Bill that is meant to be read by the devolutionists. But, as always, this Bill is two-faced. That is the bit for the people who want devolution. For the people who are not so keen on it, the non-devolutionist bit of the Bill comes in Clause 64, which we are now debating, conveniently separated by 43 clauses from that earlier clause, so that those who are not so keen on devolution might, with a bit of luck, forget what appeared in Clause 21.
      In Clause 64, we are told, on the face of it, that:
      "Service as an officer or servant of a Scottish Secretary or of the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General shall be service in the home civil service of the state, and appointments to any position as such an officer or servant shall be made accordingly;"

      1201
      What does that word "accordingly" mean? How does that square with the statement in Clause 21(9) that:
      "A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate"?
      Does "accordingly" mean that, in spite of what Clause 21 says, the Scottish Secretary will be bound by the rules of the Civil Service, and he cannot have whom he wants, when he wants, and cannot pay them what he wants? Who is to do the appointing? If the idea is that the hierarchial structure of careers and appointments in the Civil Service generally is to be maintained, in spite of Clause 21(9), that is entirely dependent on the meaning to be given to the word "accordingly". Everything depends on that word.
      In my submission the Committee will not be satisfied that the word "accordingly" is sufficient to do the trick. The problems are real. Will "accordingly" be sufficient to stop the Scottish Secretary exercising the powers that appear to be given to him by Clause 27(9) to choose whom he likes? As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has often said, the key position in many ways is that of the permanent undersecretary to the Scottish Office. What will he do? Will he stay in the Scottish Office or go and work for the new Scottish Executive? Apart from his personal preferences, who is to decide? Will that be a personal decision on his part? Does he have to go where the head of the Home Civil Service tells him, or may the Scottish Secretary refer to Clause 21(9), which says:
      "A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate"
      and say "I want that man"? If that man is prepared to go, is that an end to it? It will not do to say that the word "accordingly" determines that everything would be service in the Home Service of the state and that that solves everything.
      Mr. Dalyell: It would create great difficulty, even for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, if it had to rule on such a matter—as it might. In relation to the permanent undersecretary, can the hon. Member imagine a situation where a permanent secretary could, even if he wanted, opt for any-
      1202
      thing other than the Prime Minister of Scotland's service?
      Mr. Brittan: I will not join the hon. Gentleman in his speculation of what the permanent under-secretary might do. That seems to be almost as difficult a question to answer as his first point about what the Judicial Committee would make of these two clauses. It seems to me to be an insoluble problem. There is not only the question of what the permanent under-secretary would do. Who is to decide the pay? What about the questions of transferability? Are they to be decided by the head of the Home Civil Service or by the Scottish Secretary?
      This is typical of the whole approach of the Bill, and the point I stress to the Committee is that this is very much more than a question of inadequacy of drafting. I should not have taken up so much time if it were just that. The problem of loyalty is very real. What happens if a civil servant who is, for the time being, working for the Scottish Executive, is required to give information by the Secretary of State as to the operations of the Scottish Secretary? Does he then have to provide it, and does he have to provide it in the form dictated by the Scottish Secretary, or can he be required to do what the Secretary of State says because it is an appointment made by the Home Civil Service of the State?
      These are very real and unresolved questions. It may be said that there are often interdepartmental disputes within United Kingdom Government Departments. There may be a civil servant who has loyalty to the Treasury and another civil servant who has loyalty to the Department of Education and Science or to the Department of the Environment, and there may be a dispute between the two. But that goes to illustrate the difference between what happens within the United Kingdom and what is proposed here.
      If there is a conflict of loyalty between different Government Departments in the United Kingdom, there is clearly a machinery for resolving any dispute. At the end of the day there is one hierarchy, both administratively and politically. Administratively it leads to the apex of the permanent head of the Civil Service, and politically it leads to the Prime Minister. If the disagreement or dispute is

      1203
      sufficiently important, it is resolved at that level.
      Here an attempt is being made to square the circle. Nominally there is one administrative hierarchy—the bald statement about service in the Home Civil Service of the State would seem to imply that—but there are two quite separate political bosses. On the one hand, there is the Secretary of State for Scotland, with the United Kingdom Government behind him. On the other hand, there is the new First Secretary or Prime Minister of Scotland.
      Whereas the resolution of conflicts of loyalty between different Government Departments of the United Kingdom can at the end of the day be achieved within a single administrative and political hierarchy and pyramid, that is not true when there is the possibility—and perhaps even the probability—of a political clash between the political heads of the two Departments. The unfortunate civil servants will be pulled between the two and they will have nothing to point to in the Bill which will give them the slightest assistance in determining what to do in a clash of that kind—and nor will the Judicial Committee, as the hon. Member for West Lothian has pointed out.
      This is a vivid illustration of the dilemmas and the essential fallacy arising from the Government's whole structure and system of devolution. Once again, when we explore a particular aspect of it, whether it is the legislative powers of the Assembly or the political nature of the Executive, or the Civil Service, the inherent unviability and illogicality of the whole structure become apparent.
      Mr. Dalyell: Ministers will point out that the bodies representing the civil and public servants have said that there is not a problem of double loyalties, because each civil servant will be responsible to one Minister. What we have is a problem of duplication.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Brittan: There is certainly a problem of duplication, which I illustrated earlier. There may not be a problem of loyalty in the sense that, while working for a particular Minister, a civil servant may feel that the problem does not arise—although one would venture to disagree on that—but there
      1204
      is in any event an ambiguity as to the question of control. Clause 21(9) states that
      "A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate".
      Clause 64 does not square with that, because it all hangs on the meaning of the word "accordingly" in that clause, and that is a pretty thin peg on which to hang the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom, if that is what one wants.
      I suggest to the Committee that the whole problem—which I have sought to treat as being an illustration of the more widespread disease that is endemic to all the clauses of the Bill—is typical of the short-sighted politically motivated approach of the Government, and the pusillanimous way in which the Government seek, at best, to evade the problem, and to provide, alternatively, a half-sized solution to a double-sized problem.
      I am not at all sure that the problem is soluble, but the amendment at least seeks to make it clear that the Scottish Executive can indeed make its appointments. Those are not dictated to it by Whitehall. It is right that Whitehall should not be able to foist particular civil servants on a Scottish Executive to which they are unacceptable. But, at the same time, if we are to retain a Civil Service which is genuinely the Home Civil Service of the State, the United Kingdom as a whole, it is not unreasonable that there should be inserted the provision that such appointments should be
      "subject to the consent and approval of the Minister for the Civil Service and subject to such conditions as he may from time to time impose".
      That means that he can say "I will not have Mr. X and Mr. Y poached from me by the exercise of the Scottish Secretary's powers under Clause 21(9)." He can say "I am not having more favourable conditions of service, whether in terms of pay or otherwise, granted by the Scottish Assembly." He can generally take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that, within the context of the choice of civil servants, genuinely made by the Scottish Executive, the unity of the Home Civil Service is maintained.
      It seems to me that an amendment on these lines would be an entirely reasonable way in which to ensure the

      1205
      unity of the Home Civil Service. In that way at least we should be attempting to secure the unity of the United Kingdom, in spite of the stresses and strains that this scheme of devolution will eventually be imposing upon it. I do not necessarily suggest that it would solve the problem—I have tried to indicate that there are elements of the problem to which I do not see a solution—but at least it is an attempt to retain the unity of the Civil Service against all the heavy odds imposed upon it by this wretched Bill.
      It cannot be said that requiring the Minister for the Civil Service to consent and approve or impose conditions is fettering the power of the Scottish Executive in an unreasonable way, for later in the same clause we find powers for the Minister for the Civil Service in relation to financial matters, and elsewhere in the Bill—I will not take up time by exemplifying them—there are several provisions requiring the consent and approval of United Kingdom Ministers to acts of the Scottish Executive.
      The amendment is in no sense subversive of the structure of the Government's Bill but it flushes the Government out, because it makes them stand up and show themselves in their true colours. Do they want to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom and give more than lip service to their belief in a single Civil Service, or do they wish to continue, as the Bill does in its present form, to face both ways, with Clause 21 as a devolutionist clause and Clause 64 as an anti-devolutionist clause?
      The Government cannot fool all the people all the time. Let us try to reach a sensible solution to this dilemma, if it can be reached, and one which furthers and favours the continuation of the United Kingdom.
      The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a short intervention at this stage because there are several Government amendments to be discussed later. Perhaps I can deal with them in detail then. But for the moment it may be suitable to reply to one or two of the points that have been raised.
      The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said his argument
      1206
      was not a drafting one but rather one or more substance. However, we got the usual set of adjectives from him that we have heard on nearly every clause. The same objections are made to all the clauses which the hon. Gentleman discusses from time to time.
      We would maintain resolutely that the clause under discussion does maintain the unity of the United Kingdom Civil Service. A clear decision has been taken by the Government that there will be a unified Civil Service. That is achieved by Clause 64(1) and other parts of the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman argued that Clause 21(9), which provides that
      "A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate for the exercise of such of the powers…",
      was inconsistent in some way with Clause 64(1). At least, the gist of his argument was that they sat uncomfortably together.
      If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the power of appointment conferred by Clause 21(9), when read with the devolution of ministerial powers in Clause 21(3), somehow means that the need for consent or approval of the Minister for the Civil Service flies off, I think that he is wrong. We must read the Bill as a whole in order to ascertain its intention and effect.
      In this respect, and in accordance with the ordinary principles of construction, the later provisions in the Bill take account of the earlier provisions. Thus Clause 64(1) serves not to confuse but to clarify the intention that officers appointed by the Scottish Secretary will be members of the Home Civil Service and that the normal procedures of appointment to that service shall apply to such officers. There are other clauses which the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby has not touched upon.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: Can the Scottish Secretary appoint someone as a career civil servant to the United Kingdom Civil Service, so that that someone has the normal security of tenure, or is it merely intended that he should be in a position of a temporary civil servant?
      Mr. Smith: This will be done in the normal way through the normal entrance to the Home Civil Service. Conditions, salaries and the like will be dealt with

      1207
      in the normal way if the Minister responsible is the Minister for the Civil Service. It is said in Clause 64(1) that appointments "shall be made accordingly". That means that they will be appointed in the normal way as members of the Home Civil Service. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby made far too much of that point. It is quite clear.
      So far as I am aware, no questions were raised by the Civil Service unions when they gave their opinion in response to remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). They dealt clearly with the question of divided loyalty and rebutted it.
      Mr. James Sillars: Is not the difference between a lawyer and a trade unionist the fact that the trade unionist does know what "accordingly" means?
      Mr. Smith: There are lawyers and lawyers just as, I suppose, there are trade unionists and trade unionists.
      The main point made by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby was that there was some inconsistency between these two clauses. There is not. The number of people employed by the Scottish Executive is a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. The Scottish Secretary will make appointments in the way in which Ministers can make appointments within the United Kingdom Government. But the salaries and conditions of the integrated United Kingdom Civil Service will continue to be dealt with in the way in which they are at present.
      Mr. Dalyell: If the salaries are a matter for the United Kingdom Government, and the numbers a matter for the Assembly, is it not likely that there will be a situation where proportionately there will be a far greater cost with regard to the Scottish Assembly as it will have more civil servants than in the rest of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend's capacity for imagining all sorts of things that will happen as a result of devolution is almost unlimited. I cannot deal in detail with all the fantasies which he creates.
      The point at the heart of this discussion is who shall determine the size or
      1208
      number of the Civil Service to work with the Scottish Executive. The Executive will decide that. After all, the salaries that will be paid will come out of the block fund. It is for the Scottish Administration to decide how many civil servants are employed. But the conditions of service and the normal conditions surrounding the employment of civil servants will be those of the Home Civil Service.
      There are two alternatives, as the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said, if we move towards legislative and executive devolution. Either we retain the United Kingdom Home Civil Service or we have a separate Civil Service. We are not in favour of having a separate Civil Service. I understand that there is no dispute on that point and that the hon. Gentleman accepts the need for having a unified Civil Service. There are clear advantages in having that.
      Especially in the beginning years of the new structure a unified service is likely to be more economical and efficient. If we had a separate service we would need more staff and greater expenditure on recruitment and training. A single service would provide the devolved Administration with a wide range of talent and experience that it might not otherwise attract. It would also provide a more proper and flexible career structure. This would be especially true of specialists who are employed in small numbers and who would otherwise have a limited chance of obtaining job experience.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am neither a lawyer nor a trade unionist and I am rather confused by this whole argument. If a new post is created, say in the Department of Energy or the Department of Education and Science, who will decide on what particular scale it should be or on what particular designation of job? Will there be a separate Scottish Civil Service Department to choose what particular grade should be given to a particular new post in the Scottish Civil Service?
      Mr. Smith: As I understand it, these matters within the United Kingdom Government are normally done in consultation with the Civil Service Department. In the case of the Scottish Department the same situation would arise because we want to keep posts on the same grades. With regard to creating a post, that would

      1209
      be a matter which would be dealt with in the normal way by the Home Civil Service. It would not be a case of the Scottish Administration creating new grades. That must be so because there must be easy transferability for people who work in the Scottish Department and who might want to transfer to the Department of the Secretary of State or to another part of the British Civil Service.
      The necessity for having this transfer in and out is desirable. It will increase the range of talent available to the Scottish Administration. That is very important, particularly in the initial years of the new system of devolution.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Where in the Bill is there any obligation whatever on the Scottish Executive to consult the Civil Service Department on the question of grading? I have not been able to find it. If the Executive took the view that a particular post which it chose to establish deserved a higher grade, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it doing so. It is all very well for the Minister to say that this will be done in the normal way, but is there any obligation on the Executive to consult the Civil Service Department about the proper grading for a particular post?
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Smith: The United Kingdom Government will not operate central control over the number of civil servants. The Scottish Secretaries would be free to create posts in respect of the Scottish Assembly, subject only to the approval of the United Kingdom Government as to the correctness of the grade in which those posts are set. That is contained in the power under Article 5 of the 1969 Order in Council controlling Civil Service classifications. It is not necessary to have this in the Bill because the normal controls operated by the Civil Service in respect of the Home Civil Service applies in this case.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister certain of that?
      Mr. Smith: I am certain. If the hon. Gentleman doubts the accuracy of that statement, I will check it and let him know whether I am wrong in any way.
      Mr. Brittan: May I intervene at this point because it may save time? If the
      1210
      Minister is saying that all is sweet reason, why does he object to our amendment which merely spells out the situation clearly?
      Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon Gentleman will allow me to make my case in my own way. I intend to refer to Amendment No. 602, but there are other hon. Members who have asked me questions. On the subject of a unified Civil Service, there was initially a great deal of argument about divided loyalties. That argument now seems to have disappeared. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, diligent and persistent though he is, is not flogging that dead horse. He is now on the question of duplication—that is his theme.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is either a matter of duplication or double loyalties.
      Mr. Smith: I think that it is neither. In regard to double loyalties, I see no connection either conceptually or in practical terms. They are two distinct matters.
      The fact that there will be devolution means that there will be more civil servants, although this will not amount to an enormous extra number. The figure has been put at 750. One of the reasons that the increase in the number of civil servants is not higher than it is—it is a fairly moderate increase—is that the practice of administrative devolution has already gone a long way in the Scottish Office. For example, there is already a Scottish Education Department operating in Edinburgh. Devolution will mean for that Department that it will have a new political head, and it will be responsible to the Scottish Secretary instead of to the House of Commons. It will be responsible to the Scottish Assembly for the accountability which the Scottish Secretary will exercise through his Department.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of information, can the Minister say how many civil servants there are in St. Andrew's House or in the new St. Andrew's House who have already been devolved?
      Mr. Smith: After devolution there will be about 11,500 civil servants, taking into account the Prison Service, which is a large element in that amount. I am not sure of the exact figure, but that is the kind of number involved. Therefore

      1211
      administrative devolution has gone quite far already. That will ease the problem. I concede that this is a more complicated system of government than that which is operated through a unitary State with its own legislature, and certain extra work is involved. However, it is greatly outweighed by the increase in the amount of democratic accountability which will exist in the Scottish Assembly because that body will have more time to consider properly legislation in devolved matters. It will be possible for Assembly Members to scrutinise Executive activities in Scotland more closely than we are able to do in this House. With the best will in the world, we in this House, because of various pressures, are unable to give the same amount of attention to those matters.
      If I may now deal specifically with Amendment No. 602, I believe that the amendment would make very little difference to the situation. The effect of the amendment would be to qualify the Scottish Secretary's power under Clause 21(9) to appoint such officers as he thinks appropriate, subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. It is interesting to note that the amendment does not extend to recruitment or status.
      Mr. James Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend give me a little guidance? When he talks of the Scottish Secretary appointing such officers as he thinks fit, will he give me some idea of the type of officers he has in mind?
      Mr. Smith: We are talking about the powers of a Scottish Secretary, a person who will be a member of the Administration after devolution. Those he appoints to the Administration will be members of the Home Civil Service. I expect that substantially the people who will be employed in, for example, the Scottish Education Department, will be largely the same people who are now employed there. No doubt the vast majority will want to continue to undertake that useful public work.
      The hon. Gentleman's amendment does not extend to recruitment or status. The civil servant as a member of the Home Civil Service would still be required under the Order in Council passed in 1969 to be certificated by the Civil Service Commissioners and would have to meet the normal criteria of classification.
      1212
      The amendment would take away from the Scottish Secretaries their freedom to appoint particular people to particular posts. They will be able to do so only with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service. Secondly, the amendment would enable the Minister for the Civil Service to control the number of civil servants serving in a devolved Administration. I do not know which is the primary purpose of the hon. Gentleman, but his amendment would have that effect.
      Mr. Brittan: On the subject of appointment, in the absence of such power of veto does the Minister agree that on the face of it, provided that the right kind of person is appointed from within the category approved, and provided he is paid the right amount, the Scottish Secretary will be able, in the absence of our amendment, to pick absolutely anybody he likes because he will have a statutory right to do so? If the answer to that question is "Yes", is it not unacceptable that he should make such appointments throughout the entire range of the Civil Service? If the answer is "No", what is the objection to the amendment?
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is now slightly changing his tack. The effect of his amendment would bring in control by a Westminster Minister. That would have to happen before a Scottish Secretary made appointments in the Civil Service. The Scottish Secretary has power to make appointments but that is qualified by Clause 64, which says that civil servants who serve the Assembly and a Scottish Administration will be in the Home Civil Service—namely, the United Kingdom Civil Service. In other words, Amendment No. 602 would mean that the Scottish Administration would lose control over the number of civil servants who serve a Scottish Administration. More civil servants might be required in some areas, and fewer in other areas. This depends on the capacity and policies of those who will be elected to the Administration. When we consider how many civil servants will be appointed by a particular Department, we must remember that they will be paid from the block fund, and that this will be determined by Westminster. The Opposition appear constantly to be seeking further Westminster control. They want to control the

      1213
      finances and also the number of staff. That is our objection to the Westminster attitude adopted by the Opposition.
      Mr. Brittan: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but the Minister uncharacteristically has not answered the question. He appears to be asking me questions about numbers. I am concerned about the right of the Scottish Secretary to choose whom he wishes out of the pool of the Home Civil Service. Is the Minister saying that he is content that the Scottish Secretary should have the right to appoint any person he wishes to appoint, subject to that person's consent, without the Home Civil Service having any say as to whether a senior civil servant in, say, a United Kingdom ministry should be kicked out? If he recognises that such a course would be unworkable, unrealistic and wrong within a unified Civil Service, why does he object to the amendment?
      Mr. Smith: I am trying to explain my objection to the amendment. I am saying that it would mean Westminster control over the number of civil servants employed by the Administration.
      How will the Scottish Secretary go about appointing people to the Administration? He will do so in the way in which Ministers of the United Kingdom Government deal with these matters. We shall expect there to be close co-operation between those concerned in the devolved Administration and the Civil Service Department. It is reasonable to expect people to co-operate. Every time this matter comes up, I am told that every provision in the Bill is a recipe for conflict, but I cannot understand why there should be so many unreasonable people on the United Kingdom side of the line and on the Scottish administration side.
      Mr. Ian MacCormick: Is not the point of all this that the Conservative Front Bench would like to appoint the Ministers in the Assembly as well? Is the amendment not simply an extension of that outlook?
      Mr. Smith: It is difficult to know what the Conservatives want because their policy on devolution is unclear. They are very good at telling us what they do not want, but they are remarkably unclear when it comes to producing a policy on devolution.
      1214
      I notice that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) wants Select Committees to deal with parts of the Bill. He imagines that the process of framing a devolution Bill will take three years. Speed is obviously not one of the characteristics in determining how their policy on devolution is arrived at. However, it is difficult enough being responsible for the handling of this Bill without being asked to take responsibility for the Opposition's confused position and I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) will forgive me if I do not stray into that territory.
      Mr. Ian Gow: Can the Minister clarify one point before he leaves Clause 21(9)? Is he saying that we should add to that clause, which says that the Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate, the words "being members of the Home Civil Service"?
      Mr. Smith: I am saying that Clause 21(9) should be read together with Clause 64. It is common for two clauses to be read together. The later provision takes account of the earlier.
      The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby insists that his amendment is desirable. If carried, it would mean Westminster control over matters which can reasonably be left to the Scottish Administration, including such matters as the number of civil servants required. We should bear in mind that the Assembly will be paying their salaries.
      That is our serious objection to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman moved it with some extravagant arguments and fairly flowery adjectives, but I think that he put it forward in a reasoned way and I am trying to give a reasoned rebuttal and explain why I do not think that it would be a reasonable way of dealing with this matter.
      The fundamental point is the concept of a unified Civil Service. There may be some hon. Members who think that there should be a separate Civil Service, but, for all the reasons that I have given, I believe that this would be undesirable and that we should have a common Civil Service.
      Perhaps I have spoken for long enough. I shall be glad to deal later with contributions from other hon. Members.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the Minister of State tell us where in the Bill it provides that standards of entry to the Civil Service of the Assembly will be the same as those in the United Kingdom? As far as I can see, Clause 64(1) refers to people appointed by the Scottish Secretary being servants of the Home Civil Service, but I can find no provision relating to the standards of entry.
      Mr. Smith: Clause 64(1) refers to servants and officers serving in the Home Civil Service. Their appointments will be made accordingly and that means that the normal rules of entry into the Home Civil Service will apply. That is a perfectly adequate provision.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: When politicians discuss civil servants and their rôle and place in our structure of government, we generally hear a fair amount of gobbledegook. Before discussing the amendment, I should like to make some general assertions to bear out my contention.
      The political inhibitions laid on civil servants are wildly excessive and I would go much further in freeing them than do the suggestions of the recent committee. I realise that this may not appear entirely germane to the amendment, but it is germane to what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said about the possibility of conflict. At the risk of irritating the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Dalyell: Impossible.
      Mr. Johnston: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have a latent level of irritability due to having to go through this whole process. He has chided the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and myself for daring to mention Germany in the context of the Bill. But these references were entirely appropriate because the German example in regard to the treatment of political views of civil servants deserves serious consideration in this country.
      Mr. Iain Sproat: I presume the hon. Gentleman means West Germany.
      Mr. Johnston: Yes, indeed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It is not regarded in West Germany as wrong or prejudicial to the promotion
      1216
      of an individual civil servant for him openly to be a member of one of the main political parties. That is something we should bear in mind.
      The position of civil servants as administrators is no different from that of any other set of administrators. There is a fair amount of myth surrounding this point. Whether we talk of administrators in the Civil Service or in industry, education or anywhere else, the problems are essentially the same and I do not believe that difficulties should arise because of the personal views of civil servants. Indeed, they would be serving their superiors inadequately if they concealed those views.
      Clearly, problems would arise if a civil servant were made simultaneously responsible to two people, for example, the First Secretary of the Scottish Assembly and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who might spend their time in dispute. In such circumstances, a good civil servant might end us as the mediator, although that would give far too much power to the bureaucrat. People sometimes forget that the mediator is in a better position to project his views than are the contestants and I would not wish to put Mr. Kerr Fraser, who has been referred to by the hon. Member for West Lothian, into that position, however estimable his qualities may be.
      Given the need for civil servants to have only one master, we should remember that we are talking about only one master at one time. It is quite common for civil servants to change masters. The hon. Member for West Lothian has got into quite a froth about the terrible dilemmas which would rack and rend Mr. Kerr Fraser as he tossed and grunted in his bed trying to decide to whom he was responsible—the First Secretary of the Assembly or the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, the hon. Member said implicitly that he did not see any problem in Mr. Fraser rendering due obeisance and sterling service to the First Secretary from February to July and to the Secretary of State from August to December. Apparently that is not difficult, but to do both those things at once is difficult. People are able to change from one circumstance to another and that happens now. The problem is really

      1217
      one of timing and occasion rather than one of principle.
      It is against that background that I should like to comment on the amendment. I agree with what the Minister has said. The amendment seeks to dilute, as one might expect considering its source, the basic object of devolution. It seeks to remove certain powers of decision from Edinburgh and to retain them here. That has been the consistent objective of the Opposition Front Bench throughout consideration of the Bill, and I do not complain about that. In that respect there has been no inconsistency on the part of the Opposition Front Bench. However, that is not a matter of serving the purpose of the Bill.
      Secondly, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) spent some time suggesting that the amendment is all about making things smoother and easier, whereas I think that it would be more likely to create conflict than the situation contained in the Bill. As the Minister of State said, and as the hon. Gentleman confirmed—the hon. Gentleman was the first to use the word "veto"—the purpose of the amendment is to enable the Minister for the Civil Service to exercise the power of veto in respect of appointments.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested, in his admirably emollient fashion, that the idea that there might be conflict was an exaggeration. He said that the issue was simply about equivalent standards and other such matters, and that the likelihood of conflict between the Minister for the Civil Service and the First Secretary of the Assembly as regards the appointment of any person was remote.
      Surely that was an odd inversion of the normal run of argument. As the Minister of State said in responding to one of the not infrequent interjections from the hon. Member for West Lothian, the hon. Gentleman has apparently a limitless capacity for imagining dire events taking place and terrible conflicts emerging between the Assembly and Westminster. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said that such conflicts would not take place. In that way we had an odd inversion of the traditional approach of the opponents of the Bill and devolution as a whole.
      Mr. Brittan: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argu
      1218
      ment, or that I was guilty of not explaining myself sufficiently clearly. I was not arguing that which he suggests. I am saying that it should be made clear whether the Scottish Secretary may pick and choose whomever he wants from the Home Civil Service. I asked the question repeatedly of the Minister and he kept obfuscating the point. The Minister kept telling me that the amendment had consequences in terms of numbers. The problem about the Bill, never mind the amendment, is that it is not clear whether the Scottish Secretary may take anyone he likes from the pool of the Home Civil Service. That point has not been answered.
      Mr. Johnston: It is hardly for me to adjudicate on the obfuscatory qualities of the Minister. However, it appeared from his remarks that it is clear that the proposition contained in the Bill is that the First Secretary has the right of appointment as regards individuals and numbers, and that the consequence of the amendment would be that before the First Secretary made appointments, either in the case of individuals or total numbers, they would have to be approved by the Minister for the Civil Service.
      Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be opposing the amendment. Is the hon. Gentleman content with a situation in which the Scottish Secretary may chose anyone from a United Kingdom Department, whatever his position may be, and say "Pursuant to my powers under Clause 21(9), I am appointing him to the Scotish Civil Service"?
      Mr. Johnston: It is not a question of ordering individuals from any point throughout the United Kingdom to take up a position within the Scottish Civil Service. The system does not work that way, as well the hon. Gentleman knows. If a person is available for service in Scotland and the First Secretary wishes to appoint him, he does so without having to go through the Minister for the Civil Service to ask for his approval.
      Mr. Brittan: What does "available for service" mean? That is the issue that has not been resolved. I am trying to get an answer to that question, if not from the Minister, at least from the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Johnston: It is not for me to answer the question. However, I shall put my answer in the form of a question, being a naturally modest chap.
      Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is using the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) as an in-off to put questions to me. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby will recollect that I said clearly that the Scottish Secretary would make appointments, and that that would be done in the normal Civil Service way. There are ways in which posts are advertised and people are consulted. That is the way in which it will be done. The normal rules of grading and application will apply. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes advice from his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who has been in office and who knows how these things are done.
      Mr. Raison rose—
      Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. It confirms what I had said originally to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. The issue is nothing like as recondite as he was trying to represent.
      Mr. Raison: I shall introduce the intervention that I wished to make in my speech, if I catch your eye, Mr. Murton.
      Mr. MacCormick rose—
      Mr. Johnston: I do not wish to prolong my speech.
      Mr. MacCormick: I take up the Ministers point about the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) taking advice from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman will remember that the hon. Member for Cathcart is always jumping up and down to ask questions about Civil Service jobs coming to Scotland. However, it seems that many civil servants are unwilling to come.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) ask the Scottish National Party, and the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) in particular, to give the Committee some guidance? We know that there are about 203,000 unemployed in Scotland. Precisely what will happen to civil servants in the Post Office Savings Bank, for ex-
      1220
      ample, if the nationalists have their way and we have to send them south again?
      Mr. Johnston: With respect, I do not intend that my speech should cast me in the rôle of a catalyst in bringing together the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and Argyll (Mr. MacCormick). I shall continue in my own way, although I do not have a great deal more to say. However, I think that what I have said thus far has borne out the unacceptability of the amendment as it stands.
      As the Minister of State will confirm, the Liberal position from the beginning was that the logical position was to establish a separate Scottish Civil Service. That was our view. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, who agreed that that represented "the most logical approach". That remains Liberal opinion.
      I was disappointed by the Minister's brief reference to the issue of a separate Civil Service when, turning away from his own original comment, he turned to his supplied brief and read out a few traditional reasons for it being undesirable to have a separate Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman argued that a single service is more efficient and economical. He did so without a blink. He then said that it would provide a better career structure. He did so again without a blink. Both those arguments are arguments against devolution per se. They are against the duplication that in some degree the hon. Member for West Lothian is right to argue will happen. In some degree it is inevitable that duplication will take place, but the argument is that because of that duplication a better, more sensitive and more efficient method of Government will ensue.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is it fair to say that Liberal Members of a Scottish Assembly would strongly argue that the Civil Service in Scotland should be a Scottish service responsible to the Assembly? Is it fair to say that Liberal Members in an Assembly would argue for the fragmentation of the Home Civil Service?
      Mr. Johnston: I stated it as the opinion of Liberals now that their position was to establish a separate Civil Service, yes. Any Liberal group in the future Assembly would accept what is

      1221
      set out in the Bill for a period. We would not seek changes immediately after the establishment of the Assembly.
      Mr. Raison: I understand that the Liberal Party believes that there should be a separate Civil Service. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his party has not put down an amendment to that effect? Has it been browbeaten by the Government into not putting down such an amendment? Why not put forward that point of view?
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Johnston: I am putting forward my point of view. I am aware that such an amendment would not gain acceptance. I am also aware of resistance within the Civil Service unions to any such proposition. Therefore, it did not seem a useful exercise to go through the procedure of putting down an amendment to that effect. We have discussed the matter at some length with the Government. It does not mean that we have been browbeaten. If I had been browbeaten, I would not be expressing any view. I am expressing the view that it is a logical position. I do not see the point of putting down amendments which would inevitably be rejected.
      The Administration within the Assembly will have the right to choose its own civil servants and there will remain the opportunity for interchangeability within the United Kingdom Civil Service. If we had a separate Civil Service, interchangeability, which is the crucial factor, could be retained just as it will be retained in future in the European context. We shall have a flow in and out of the Community of British and other European civil servants. That is not an impossible situation. The amendment is unnecessarily restrictive. It reflects the general restrictiveness of the attitude of the Conservative Party towards the whole question of devolution.
      Mr. Sillars: I had not intended to speak in the debate. Indeed, I did not think that it would last for any great time.
      I tend to approach this matter as a trade unionist. The word "accordingly" struck me as being eminently sensible shorthand for what most trade unionists understand to be the normal conditions of service that will apply to any group
      1222
      within a bargaining unit, whether it be a small or a large bargaining unit. It is part of the normal negotiating machinery. The agreed conditions of service which operate for the whole of the Civil Service will apply to those employed by the Scottish Assembly. The conditions governing which grades may engage in local and national politics will apply in Scotland as they do elsewhere. The question of hours, conditions of service, and so on, is covered by the normally recognised trade union word "accordingly". My hon. Friend the Minister of State received no objections to this part of the Bill from the Civil Service unions, because we all understand the meaning of "accordingly".
      When the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) moved the amendment, I was transported back in time to the Industrial Relations Bill. On the first day we had four lawyers from different parts of the Committee giving different interpretations of the word "reasonable". However, every industrialist and trade unionist had a fair idea of what it meant in practice. The difference between the two Front Benchers is that one is a Labour lawyer and the other is a Tory lawyer, and the Labour lawyer understands what "accordingly" means.
      If we were foolish enough to accept the amendment, the position of those employed by the Scottish Assembly would be somewhat different from those employed by, for example, the United Kingdom Department of the Environment. The word "accordingly" gives the same negotiating power and coverage to those employed by the Scottish Assembly as to those employed by the Department of the Environment. If the amendment were carried, it would be left to the absolute discretion of the Minister for the Civil Service. I believe that the Civil Service unions would go hammering on the door of the Privy Council wanting to know what the Government and Labour Members of Parliament proposed to do about the matter on Report, because trade unions would want their members to be protected in future just as they are now.
      Mr. Dalyell: If my hon. Friend were the Minister in a Scottish Assembly, would he meekly and mildly accept from the Minister for the Civil Service in

      1223
      London an instruction on how to react to problems and conflicts which would inevitably arise in his Department? Would he meekly and mildly accept the diktat of a right hon. Friend in the United Kingdom Government?
      Mr. Sillars: I should be surprised if any United Kingdom Minister were to be so politically foolish as to issue a diktat to a senior member of the Scottish Administration in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others make the mistake of forgetting that we are dealing with the realm of democratic politics. We are all well accustomed to the resolution of conflicts by the normal procedure of dialogue and the exchange of views. If we ever reached the stage where a United Kingdom Minister isued strong diktats to Members of the Scottish Executive, we would indeed be at the parting of the ways. It would not matter two whits whether the civil servants were controlled absolutely by the Minister in Edinburgh or the Minister in Westminster. I think that my hon. Friend makes far too much of what the Minister of State described as one of his nightmare fantasies. I interpose the word "nightmare", but I think that is what my hon. Friend meant.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that we have been through quite a few nightmares with this Government. If we had a financial crises and instructions were issued to reduce the numbers of civil servants by 2 per cent., would the hon. Gentleman say that it would make for a unified Civil Service if the United Kingdom Secretary of State's Department, or whatever it might be called, had to reduce the numbers of staff and the Scottish Assembly Department, or whatever it might be called, did not have to apply similar reductions? Does he believe that it would make for a unified Civil Service if economic restrictions of that kind were to apply only to the United Kingdom Secretary of State's Department?
      Mr. Sillars: I do not believe that that would alter the character of a unified Civil Service. The basic fundamental characteristics of a unified Civil Service are whether similar conditions of employment and service apply from John o'Groats to the tip of Shetland when any
      1224
      body enters the Civil Service in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dumfries, Carlisle, Liverpool or London. That is what makes for basic unification.
      It does not worry me that there might be a different policy regarding numbers in the Civil Service in Scotland as opposed to England and, indeed, Wales any more than it worries me that we have a different approach to regional employment premium in Scotland as opposed to any other part of the United Kingdom. The whole essence of devolution is that different solutions may apply to different parts of the United Kingdom. Jobs in the Civil Service in Scotland are as much a part of the labour market as jobs in the engineering and shipbuilding industries.
      Many people make far too much of the allegation that there will be a conflict of loyalties. Let us boil the situation down to hard, day-to-day facts. All those who work in the Scottish Home and Health Department have a prime loyalty to that Department. That has always been so and always will be so. If there is a political conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster, it is wrong to expect civil servants, irrespective of their grades, to try to resolve that problem, because that would invite them into the political arena. The way to resolve the conflict is by political dialogue between the politicians.
      As I see it, the rôle of the Civil Service is to supply the information that is required and to administer policies. It would be undemocratic by definition to allow civil servants to impose their political view.
      I do not see what all the problems are. Let us consider the hypothetical situation—and it is one that should cheer the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—that an election is to take place in a month's time and that there is a change of Government. In the Scottish Office civil servants who had given all their support to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) would transfer their loyalties to the hon. Member for Cathcart within the space of 24 hours. One of those men is on the left of the spectrum and the other on the far right. Nobody believes that it is impossible for civil servants to transfer their support in this way.
      If this debate were broadcast north of the border on the day that 203,000 people

      1225
      have been declared unemployed in Scotland most Scots would wonder why so many of them were unemployed while people here were drawing a salary.
      Mr. John Stokes: I am not satisfied that the Minister has answered the doubts that have been expressed from both sides of the Committee about the appointment of civil servants in Scotland. I shall deal with the wider aspects of the amendment. Each day when we consider clauses and amendments to this complicated Bill we find new areas where there will be confusion and conflict.
      The independence and integrity of the British Civil Service has been the proud boast of this country for a long time. However, under the proposals in the Bill an intolerable strain of loyalties will be placed upon Scottish civil servants who will be pulled this way and that, on the one hand by their loyalty to the Secretary of State here and on the other by their loyalty to the new Assembly. If the Assembly makes claims for greater independence—which it is bound to do beginning on day one, whichever party is in control—the unfortunate civil servants in Scotland will be placed in an almost impossible position. Naturally they will be concerned about their future and career prospects. They are bound to be under strain if relations between the House of Commons and the new Assembly grow worse, as I fear they will. Giving unbiased advice will place an almost intolerable burden upon the civil servants.
      I remember the strains and stresses which beset French officials in 1940 after the collapse of France when they had to decide whether they would stay with the Vichy Government or risk their all and join de Gaulle. We do not want that sort of conflict of interests here in this peaceful and, until now, united United Kingdom. If the activities of the Assembly are such that they have to be curbed by the Westminster Parliament it will place the Scottish civil servants in the most embarrassing and difficult situation. They will find that they are pawns in a political power struggle, the outcome of which no one can foresee.
      5.45 p.m.
      All these fears lead me to believe that in this clause we are embarking on the
      1226
      most dangerous course. One may say that it is all right if we play ducks and drakes with our own lives and powers in this Chamber, but it is another matter to place the careers and the whole future of our civil servants at risk, particularly when they have no say in their destiny. Nothing less than the fundamental unity of the United Kingdom is at stake. If we put these sorts of pressures on civil servants nothing short of anarchy and chaos will break out. Who knows where the repercussions may end.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) asked a rhetorical question—where will it all end? I shall ask him a question. He comes from the West Midlands. Many Scots have important positions in the West Midlands. If there were this kind of break-up, what would be their reaction?
      Mr. Stokes: I have met not a Scot in the West Midlands, and few in Scotland, who is in favour of the Bill or even of an Assembly.
      The Committee should really be concerning itself with the appalling and disgraceful figures for unemployment in Scotland and every part of the United Kingdom. It should not indulge in this dangerous tomfoolery. It is incredible that the Government, presumably for political ends, are prepared to risk the foundation of the State in this way.
      Our Civil Service is the envy of the world. We may have failed in responsibility in government, we may not have produced the leaders that we used to produce—and we were reminded of that today—but in our administration we have something which no other country has. Why disturb it? Why make hundreds of civil servants anxious about their futures? What is it all for? What are we trying to do? What advantages will there be? I say again that we are playing with fire with this Bill.
      Mr. Dempsey: The Committee is anxious to make progress, so I shall not detain it for long. I am at a loss to understand the persistent dogmatism of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) in making the case for this amendment, particularly since time after time he has received positive replies from the Minister.

      1227
      What surprises me is that he argues that one cannot have conditions of service for the Civil Service unless the Minister becomes involved responsibly in the application of these conditions in Government agencies throughout the country. The hon. Member says that unless the Minister becomes directly responsible for this aspect of Assembly administration it simply cannot work. This seems to be the hon. Member's argument, and it is completely illogical.
      Surely we can have an Assembly with its own office bearers making appointments in accordance with the conditions that have been approved, not only by the Minister but by the Civil Service unions. They have not yet been mentioned. They are as deeply interested and as much involved as is any Minister in England. I listened very carefully to ascertain from the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby just how his dilemma arises regarding the relationship between the Minister and the operation of the conditions of service.
      I have spent a long time arguing for and advocating national negotiations in which conditions of service covering the entire United Kingdom, should be laid down. They are applied not only nationally but locally without London being involved, and to argue that any Minister should be responsible for the employment, the placing and the salaries of staff is totally absurd, especially when an English Minister might exercise such responsibilities in respect of Scotland. That really amazes me.
      The hon. Member should have done his homework. If he had done it correctly, he would have known of the devolved facilities for the health services in Scotland. I spent years in health services administration employing persons on the basis of the United Kingdom Civil Service scales and conditions of service without the involvement of an English Minister. Those people were moving from office to office and travelling between Scotland and England.
      I have never heard so much nonsense as that spoken about the apprehension of civil servants as to what is to happen. They are moving between Scotland and England at present, and they will continue to do that after devolution, pro-
      1228
      vided the salary is right, provided that the conditions of service are equally attractive and provided that they can get a suitable home, and so on.
      At this stage, therefore, I advise the hon. Member that he is trying to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It has been made unquestionably clear by the Minister that any such engagements by the Scottish Secretary shall be in accordance with the conditions of service laid down by the Government for the Civil Service throughout the United Kingdom. Since that assurance has been given, I cannot understand for the life of me why it should not be accepted. When the Scottish Assembly becomes operative, all the protection that is necessary for civil servants will be evident to all who wish to appreciate that in this clause the Government are leaving no stone unturned to protect the conditions of service of such people and to give the responsibility of engagement, and so on, to the Assembly.
      After all, the Assembly Members will be elected democratically, just as we are elected here. They will be answerable just as we are answerable to the general public. They will employ office bearers just as we employ them. If the Assembly is to pay the necessary salary, it is entitled to engage those it regards as the most suitable and able, and those people will be answerable to it and not to any English Minister. We in Scotland use the saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune". The Scottish Assembly will be paying the piper.
      From the block grant which the tax-payer will pay—and that includes the Scottish taxpayer—sums of money will be made available in order to manage the Assembly. Part of the management will involve the engagement of suitably qualified staff to carry out administrative work. If those staff are to be responsible to the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Assembly should employ them. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I am satisfied that they will be employed according to the conditions of service drawn up for the Civil Service throughout the United Kingdom.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: We are losing sight of some of what lies behind this Bill, of matters that

      1229
      are fundamentally of the utmost importance. The amendment seeks to improve on a position which can lead to very grave difficulty. The Civil Service is inevitably silent during a debate in this Chamber, and partly because of that I feel obliged to record my personal view. It is that the part of the Bill devoted to the future of the Civil Service is extremely small. I should have thought it appropriate for both Front Benches—I do not excuse my own—to have had on them the senior Ministers and their "Shadow" counterparts, who depend upon the Civil Service.
      I believe that they would leave the debate knowing of the real difficulties that we are presenting to the Civil Service for the first time by introducing into the Home Civil Service a conflict, be it large or small, which we must resolve as best we can. Our duty is to resolve it by saying that the wording of the Bill should embrace as little difficulty for the future as possible. It is quite unrealistic and over-optimistic to suggest that there will not be difficulty through asking the Home Civil Service to uphold two points of view within the same appointment bracket. That is what the Minister suggested, although he did it pleasantly. He said he did not believe that people were unreasonable.
      Mr. Dalyell: This is not only a question of people being unreasonable. It is also a question of a whole powerful group in the Assembly wanting something totally different. That is neither honourable nor dishonourable. This group will be striving for something which is across the chasm and, therefore, the question of reasonableness does not enter into it.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: That is the point I am trying to make. It is not a question of being unreasonable.
      It is over-optimistic to expect that there will not be occasions when two sets of perfectly honourable civil servants will have to provide advice which will conflict. The conflict will not be of their making. It would be quite improper, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, for the civil servants to be involved in the political aspects. We shall be asking two groups of civil servants, recruited from the same source, to serve different masters in Scotland.
      6.0 p.m
      Mr. John Smith: Let me take the hypothetical example of an official employed in the Scottish Education Department but answerable to the Scottish Administration. What conflict of loyalties would arise?
      Miss Harvie Anderson: With respect, the Minister continues to narrow the matter, and I think that he is unrealistic in so doing. The official to whom he refers may quite properly put forward the point of view of his Department and his Minister. I was not quite sure whether the Minister was referring to the old Secretary of State or the new Scottish Secretary, but I assume that he meant the new Assembly Secretary of State. The Scottish Secretary has an advisory civil servant. The Secretary of State has an advisory civil servant. There are bound to be areas of conflict, whether they be in education or in some other matters.
      Mr. John Smith: Why conflict?
      Miss Harvie Anderson: All right—there will be differences of opinion in some areas, to put it no higher than that. On such occasions, there will not be divided loyalty, because each set of civil servants will be loyal to their own masters, but their masters themselves will have conflict between them, and that situation will prove very difficult.
      The Minister may argue that there can be no such difficulty, but I am sure that in reality there will be, and that is what some of us are trying to prevent. We are asking the Government, therefore, to take this matter far more seriously and to examine the question much more closely than they appear at present to be doing.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to take advantage of the Minister, but he mutters sotto voce that these things are resolved in the Cabinet.
      Mr. John Smith: No. My hon. Friend should not listen to conversations.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am not listening to any conversation.
      Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend has repeated one.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Minister said quite loudly—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The right hon. Lady has given way to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He ought not to make a speech or have arguments with the Minister.
      Mr. Dalyell: Of course, in the present system they are resolved in the Cabinet, but in the system which we are discussing there could be difficulty. There could be the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in power in one place and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in power in another place. Therefore, Cabinet resolution does not come into it.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: Perhaps I may take the matter on from what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is difficult, Sir Myer, to avoid listening to other people's conversations because there are always about six going on, and the one which is most easy to listen to happens to be the one on the Government Front Bench—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The safest way is to look at the Chair and address the Chair.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: Now that you have so skilfully brought the Committee to order, Sir Myer, I shall gladly do so.
      I take up the point just made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). We are not dealing with a situation which we have ever experienced before, although we keep trying to pretend that we are. In fact, we are dealing with a totally new situation in which, sitting in Edinburgh, there will be two sets of people perhaps with conflicting views. I say "perhaps", but when there are conflicting views difficulties will arise. We are talking of the same set of civil servants. I cannot express it more clearly. I know that they will be different people, but each will be recruited from the Home Civil Service. They will advise their masters and they will do so impartially. But in some areas a point of conflict will inevitably arise, and we are asking the Minister to take that into account.
      The Minister is being terribly touchy about it. He says that it will be all right on the day. All we are saying is that it will not be all right on the day, and we are asking the Minister to take
      1232
      heed now and try to improve the arrangements. If he does not like our amendment, let him think of a better and more convincing way to go about it. He must acknowledge the difficulty, and there is, or will be, an opportunity for him to improve matters.
      Our plea is that the Government should make the rôle of the Civil Service possible, but many of us fear that we are about to pass a part of the Bill which will make the position of at least some civil servants very nearly impossible.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: I hope that no one will use my brief remarks as a reflecting wall from which to bounce off questions to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I assure the Committee that, if anyone does that, I shall not respond, or, in so far as I might respond on behalf of my hon. Friends, I might mislead the Committee, so I hope that the practice which seems to have grown up in this debate will now stop.
      I wish, first, to take up the line of argument advanced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and to say a few words about the problem of double loyalty and, indeed, of duplication, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred.
      When he opened the debate, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) suggested that there was no parallel to the situation which we should have after the creation of a Scottish Assembly, saying that the situation as between two Government Departments was in no sense a parallel. One can take a much closer parallel, that of civil servants in the service of a quasi-governmental body. I shall draw on my own experience and refer to the University Grants Committee.
      There are civil servants on secondment to the University Grants Committee from the Department of Education and Science and other Departments. Many of them subsequently return to their Department of origin or to other Government Departments. Never once in my many dealings with that body have I seen any problem of conflict of loyalty. When a civil servant is on secondment to the University Grants Committee, there is no doubt about where his loyalty lies; it lies

      1233
      to that Committee and to that Committee alone.
      If the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby thinks that that situation is not parallel because we shall have a political body in Scotland—perhaps even a body dominated by the Scottish National Party—I assure him that a body composed primarily of academics is just as difficult to serve and just as difficult to deal with as is any gaggle of politicians.
      Mr. Dalyell: This is not a rhetorical question. My hon. Friend refers to the time when he was a Minister at the Department of Education and Science. With respect, that is not an exact parallel—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair is here, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair.
      Mr. Dalyell: The parallel is not with a Labour Minister in a Scottish Assembly. It is a question not of University Grants Committee officials being loyal to a Labour colleague but of their being loyal, say, to the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), as Secretary of State. That is the parallel, and herein lies the difficulty.
      Mr. Fowler: That is the point I am making. Officials on secondment to the University Grants Committee are loyal to the Committee, not to the Secretary of State, whoever the Secretary of State may be. Indeed, there are often conflicts of opinion, and there have been conflicts of opinion between the University Grants Committee and the Department of Education and Science and the Secretary of State who heads that Department.
      We know of one such conflict in recent years, and I give nothing away when I refer to it since the dispute was at least semi-public. It was over the proper level of fees for students in higher education. I saw not the slightest evidence at that time that officials of the University Grants Committee were not totally loyal to the Committee. Nor did I see any evidence that their colleagues within the Department, or within other central Government Departments, attempting to browbeat them or threatening them that their career in the Home Civil Service would be damaged were they to remain loyal to the viewpoint of the University Grants
      1234
      Committee. No one else has seen any such evidence. It does not exist.
      Mr. Fairbairn: The parallel which the hon. Gentleman uses is utterly absurd, because the University Grants Committee is inevitably subject to the constraints of the Department of Education and Science. If the Department says "We intend to reduce university expenditure", the UGC is subject to that and has to find a way of carrying out that policy, so the Committee and its officials are just as much the servants of the political master.
      Here, however, we are envisaging a situation in which there are two different political masters pulling in opposite directions. For example, if Westminster says that the school leaving age shall be raised and the Assembly says that it wants to lower it, how are the civil servants who have to deal with that conflict to resolve it?
      Mr. Fowler: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is a much easier situation than the one which I have described, since in the one I have described the officials serving the University Grants Committee have simultaneously, on the occasion of a general cut in university expenditure, to advise the Committee on how that may be implemented—the hon. and learned Gentleman is right as regards the general level of university expenditure in that it is the Government who in the last analysis decide that and to advise the Committee how best it may continue to present its own case against that decision. That is a much more difficult situation than the one which the hon. and learned Gentleman postulates, in which officials in the service of the Scottish Assembly have merely to advise their own Executive as to the implementation of their own policy—not of somebody else's policy.
      I have chosen a peculiarly difficult example which more than makes the point that I was trying to make, and indeed, what the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby is worrying about. It is a chimera—a problem that does not exist in the real world.
      As for duplication, let us take the same example. It has been the consistent policy of the Department of Education and Science that its university branch shall be very small. So it has remained over the years. It is of a size sufficient

      1235
      to perform only its own proper functions that are concerned with the determination of university expenditure as a whole, and to act as a link with the University Grants Committee. I see no evidence, on that parallel, that we shall see a massive growth of the Civil Service in order to duplicate effort in both the Assembly and central Government.
      Before I conclude, I want to comment on the amendment directly. Part of the argument of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby was that the amendment was desirable in order to tie in the careers structure and membership of the Scottish Civil Service more closely with the Home Civil Service. The hon. Member painted a picture which I thought was quite remarkable. It was a picture of the Scottish Executive conducting a massive head hunt throughout the Home Civil Service looking for the most talented or the most biased members of that Home Civil Service and recruiting them under the noses of the Civil Service Department. I have rarely heard anything so absurd.
      There is no possibility—and the Bill brings it no nearer because it does not repeal the principles of the legislation that already governs the Civil Service—that the Scottish Executive would be able to recruit in this head-hunting fashion. In the first place, it is extremely unlikely that civil servants at any level would be transferred to the service of the Scottish Executive against their will, without their consent. In the second place, it is inconceivable that any senior civil servant would be transferred—recruited, as the hon. Gentleman would say—to the service of the Scottish Executive without the consent of the Civil Service Department.
      How is that supposed to happen? Here is a man in post in a central Government Department in London, and we are asked to imagine that a head hunter from the Scottish Executive descends on him and tells him that he will offer him an appointment next week in his service, and the Civil Service Department simply sits back and says "Oh, heavens, what a disaster. That is nothing to do with us, as the Department responsible in central Government for the employment of civil servants. You can just snatch him away from this Department and attach him to your own service." Of course, we cannot do that. If a civil servant were simply
      1236
      to desert his present post, which is what hon. Gentleman implies, he would be dismissed from the Home Civil Service.
      Mr. Brittan: That is the point that I was making. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) ought to be supporting the amendment, because Clause 21(9) provides:
      "A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate."
      There is nothing to stop him doing what has just been described in somewhat graphic terms. It would be very difficult to sack a civil servant in the face of an express statutory provision of that kind.
      If the hon. Gentleman wants the position to be as he describes it and for that to be made clear, he should vote for the amendment, which gives effect to exactly the procedure that he has described, namely, subject to the consent and the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. Those are virtually the words he used a second or two ago.
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman says that I am being graphic. I am merely describing the situation that he sketched in for us earlier. The hon. Gentleman invented it, not I. I am saying what has already been said from the Government side of the Committee—that it will in practice be requisite for there to be consultation with the Civil Service Department. That is absolutely inescapable, whatever gory fantasies the hon. Member may invent.
      6.15 p.m.
      Turning to what the hon. Gentleman wants to see, it is quite clear that his amendment would produce Civil Service Department control in detail of the civil servants serving the Scottish Assembly and Executive, including control of numbers. The importance of that is that it is another financial control. It is a way of telling the Scottish Assembly how it shall spend its money.
      Indeed, it is a way of telling it how it shall do that in a peculiar fashion which disjoins policy from the staffing necessary to implement that policy. To say that the Scottish Assembly shall determine its own policy in a series of areas, as we are saying in the Bill, and that it shall have no control over the

      1237
      number of civil servants who will implement and administer that policy appears to be nonsensical. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) seemed to go further. He suggested that we should have the control built into the amendment so that when there was a reduction imposed by economic necessity in the size of the United Kingdom Civil Service, that reduction should bite upon the Scottish Assembly as well as upon all the home Government Departments. Yet the hon. Member for Cathcart knows perfectly well that no such control is applied to local authorities in that crude and direct fashion. What happens is that the rate support grant is adjusted. What would happen here is quite obvious. The block grant would be adjusted.
      That would be devolution, because then it remains for the Assembly, on the advice of its Executive, to determine its priorities for the expenditure of the money at its disposal. Perhaps its priority will be—I should think that it would be an unpopular priority in Scotland were it to be adopted—that in conditions of severe economic restraint it should increase the number of civil servants who service it in the Executive. Were the Assembly to do so, it would be simultaneously deciding that there would be less money for other services, and perhaps its priority, more reasonably, would be the reverse. So the control would bite indirectly.
      If we adopt the amendment, with the gloss put upon it by the hon. Member for Cathcart, we should again be saying that the Scottish Assembly and the Executive shall be subject to more detailed Whitehall and Wesminster control than any local authority in the realm. We would again be saying, as we have heard so often from the Opposition Front Bench, that the Scottish Assembly is to be a body that has less control over its own policies and their implementation than any local authority in the land.
      I tire of hearing from the Opposition Front Bench the proposition that we should have devolution and that the Conservative Party is entirely in favour of the principle of devolution, but that in every detail of devolution which we debate we must observe the principle of
      1238
      giving no freedom of action to any elected body in Scotland. That is what the Opposition stand for. It sticks in the gullet of many English Members as well as in those of many Scottish Members. It is perfectly honourable to be opposed to the principle of devolution. What is not tolerable is to advocate acceptance of the principle but to deny in every detail the practice of devolution. I very much hope that the amendment will be rejected.
      Mr. Raison: I think that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) has missed the point, because we are not talking about a scheme put forward by the Government which is analogous to local government. We are talking about a scheme under which the Government themselves say that servants of the Scottish Assembly shall be members of the State Civil Service. That is a different position. The hon. Member's passionate words on devolution seem to be irrelevant.
      The Minister in his speech earlier this afternoon grumbled about the fact that we on the Opposition Benches and some Government Members spend a lot of time looking for flaws, looking for possible areas of friction, problems and so on. Of course we do, partly because we believe that that is what Committee stages are about, but much more fundamentally because we believe that the Bill is a scheme fraught with possibilities of friction and that it is our duty to bring it to the public and to the Committee. The fundamental reason why it is fraught with possibilities of friction is that it is a scheme that is welcomed and endorsed, in an ambivalent way perhaps, by the Scottish National Party which has said again and again that it sees it purely as a stepping stone on the path of a separate Scottish State.
      One of my right hon. Friends was asked to give an example of where this dilemma of divided loyalties in education might lie. I suppose that it could run something like this. It is perfectly possible—perish the thought—that the SNP could get a majority in the Scottish Assembly, could form the Scottish Government and could then adopt an education policy to the effect, roughly, that what was taught in schools should be devoted to the creation of a separate

      1239
      Scottish State. In other words, the SNP might use the Scottish education system in order to advance its political objectives. I do not know whether it would, but as education is to be a devolved power, it would be perfectly possible for the Scottish Assembly to use every possible means, not only through the education system but through anything else, to advance political objectives.
      The Minister says blandly that this would pose no problems for the civil servants who would, as it were, be temporarily assigned perhaps to the Scottish Assembly. But they would be administering a policy which was completely at variance with the policy of the United Kingdom Government as a whole and with the policy of Parliament as a whole, and profoundly antipathetic to the views of those particular civil servants. It seems to me quite evident that there could be a very serious conflict of loyalty. One might say that it would still be the duty of those civil servants to do what their masters in the Assembly told them to do.
      Mr. MacCormick: We in the SNP would never dream of turning people's minds towards a Scottish State through education. We do not have to do that. If the hon. Gentleman came to Scotland more often, he could do the job far better than any of us can do it.
      Mr. Raison: That intervention seems hardly worthy of comment.
      However, I do not know why Labour supporters of devolution seem to be completely committed to the view that they should make a speech and then completely disappear from the Chamber as quickly as possible. I suppose that it is to avoid defeat in argument, which they find painful.
      I was about to say to the hon. Member for The Wrekin, who has just left the Chamber, that when he talked about the UGC he was talking about a very different sort of circumstance from that which I have described. It is a QUANGO, a semi-independent body. By and large, it pursues its own line. No doubt, by and large, the civil servants assigned to it do what it was said that they do. But they are really a different kind of thing from an Assembly that might be controlled by the SNP.
      1240
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made a powerful case from the Opposition Front Bench, the most useful thing that I can do is to return to the starting point of the debate.
      Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman has used the education example. Will he explain, without fanciful examples about someone trying to brainwash people through the education system, how an official working for the Scottish Education Department and responsible to a Secretary for Education, a member of the Administration, will have a conflict of loyalties?
      Mr. Raison: Yes. As I say, the Scottish Secretary, the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive might decide, first, to move away from the tradition that we have in England, anyway, that the curriculum should not be centrally laid down, and go to the other system, which is widely used in other parts of the world. There is nothing unusual about the notion of a centrally determined curriculum in education. They might make that decision and then construct the curriculum in such a way as to put repeatedly and explicitly the clear political objectives of the groups that build up the notion of Scotland as a separate country. Given that we then have a centrally laid down curriculum, the civil servants would have to administer it.
      Mr. John Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman does not understand what the proposals are. Education is devolved to the Scottish Assembly—and the decisions. It may be wildly different from what takes place in England. That is the whole point of devolution. One can have different choices. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Scottish education system is radically different from the English education system. But where is the conflict? The official will be carrying out the instructions of the Secretary in the Scottish Administration. He will not have a relationship with the United Kingdom Government.
      Mr. Raison: I am saying that the Minister is being quite impractical and quite unreasonable in thinking that that will happen. No doubt that will be the correct constitutional position. No doubt these civil servants will be meant

      1241
      to do what they are told to do by their immediate masters of the moment, namely, the Scottish Executive and so on. I do not dispute that. Nevertheless, the Minister is being blind if he does not see that there will be profound conflict where those civil servants are ultimately the servants of the United Kingdom Government, because that is really the position.
      Mr. John Smith: I just do not understand the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Raison: If the Minister does not understand it, I cannot help that. The civil servants will be in the service of the Home Civil Service of the State. They are members of the United Kingdom Civil Service. Ultimately, their career prospects will depend upon their membership of the Civil Service of the State as a whole. Ultimately, too, they will have a profound loyalty to the United Kingdom. I hope that they will still have a profound loyalty to this Parliament. Our civil servants are imbued with a very deep sense of loyalty to not only the United Kingdom but this Parliament.
      As a matter of hard fact, I believe that civil servants temporarily assigned to the Scottish Assembly will find it not only distasteful but, in some cases, morally impossible to carry out a policy that is in total opposition to that of the United Kingdom Parliament.
      It is no good the Minister making faces, because what I am saying is true.
      Mr. John Smith: No, it is not true.
      Mr. MacCormick: Does the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) appreciate that we already have in Scotland a total administrative devolution of education and that no conflict arises at present? I cannot see, first, how such a conflict would arise in the future, and secondly, why some people should try to constrict the civil servants even more in the future than they are constricted at present.
      Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman would be wiser not to intervene, because he has just made the most fatuous observation. As the hon. Gentleman says, a very great level of administrative devolution and, indeed, a form of political devolution obtains at present in Scottish education. That is right and admirable.
      1242
      I am delighted that it exists. I should like that to continue. But that is a totally different thing from the circumstances that would prevail with the Scottish Assembly. After all, the Scottish Office is still a part of the United Kingdom. It has a lot of administrative power, but it is still bound by United Kingdom policy as a whole.
      Mr. John Smith: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's point. Education is a good example of something that is destructive of his point. After devolution, the Scottish Assembly is to have sole responsibility for education. The hon. Gentleman might have a case if the United Kingdom Parliament were to have some responsibility for education. There might be a clash then. However, when it is clear that education is a devolved matter, I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's point that the civil servants carrying out the policy of the Secretary for Education would have a divided loyalty, because I do not see that there is a conflict of loyalty. To which other Minister will they have responsibility?
      Mr. Raison: I do not often accuse the Minister of being legalistic, but he is now being ridiculously legalistic. I conceded earlier that the civil servant who, for the time being, is working for the Assembly has a duty to carry out the wishes of the Assembly. That is the full legal position. But I also said that there was far more to it than that. If one reaches the stage that the Scottish Assembly, because of there having been elected an SNP majority, uses every endeavour to try to create a separate Scottish country, quite separate from the United Kingdom, those civil servants will be placed in a position of most profound unease, and I believe that in some cases the position will be intolerable for them.
      The idea that civil servants do not chat to each other and that there is no kind of Civil Service network, stretched across the Civil Service, as opposed to the political network via Departments, is a myth.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Malcolm Rifkind:: Cannot the example that my hon. Friend is trying to give be found in Quebec, where, if the civil servants were still part of a Canadian Civil Service,

      1243
      there would be conflict over a matter such as the Quebec languages Bill? There would be a direct conflict not simply in terms of devolved powers but over the Canadian constitution, which the civil servants are also pledged to uphold.
      Mr. Raison: I agree. I do not know enough about the position of the civil servants in Canada, but it seems to me that there might be a position in which the consciences of civil servants would be tortured.
      For some reason the Minister is in a bad temper today, but I should like to try to explain to him why we on the Conservative Benches believe that at the very least the scheme he is putting forward is hard to follow and very confusing. Clause 21(9) says:
      "A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate for the exercise of such of the powers mentioned in subsection (3) of this section as are for the time being exercised by him."
      That is a clear statement that the Scottish Secretary may appoint. We then jump to Clause 64(1), which says:
      "Service as an officer or servant of a Scottish Secretary or of the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General shall be service in the home civil service of the state, and appointments to any position as such an officer or servant shall be made accordingly."
      What the Minister is saying is that the second clause qualifies or explains the first. But at the very least to use the word "appoint" in this way is a source of considerable confusion. What do we think when we read that
      "A Scottish Secretary may appoint",
      with the qualification in Clause 64 covered simply by the word "accordingly"?
      The Minister and other hon. Members who support his point of view have said that "accordingly" means that everything must be on the same basis as for the Civil Service in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) lectured us because we were not trade unionists and did not understand that "accordingly" meant that all terms and conditions had to be exactly the same wherever the civil servants were, and so on. If the Minister does not think that our amendment is the right answer, he might at least concede that there is cause of confusion and that it would be
      1244
      helpful to make clear to the country by another amendment—perhaps even his own amendment—what this all means.
      I am not a lawyer, but I believe that courts called upon to construe "accordingly" might have the greatest difficulty. They might well come up with very different answers, which would cause all kinds of confusion. "Accordingly" is made to carry an excessive load. I know that the Minister touched on these matters, but we need a clear idea how the word can be construed as covering the following matters. It is not enough for him to say "this is what it covers". He must explain how.
      For example, how does the word make sure that the Assembly could not suddenly decide that the civil servants in Scotland should be paid an extra 20 per cent, or that they should be paid less than civil servants in the rest of the United Kingdom? How does it determine the process of selection and training for the Civil Service? The Assembly might want a separate college in Scotland for training Scottish civil servants in particular attitudes of mind, perhaps to do with approaching independence.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is not simply a question of the Scottish Assembly wanting a separate Civil Service college in Scotland. Surely, if the Assembly is to be as different as all that, it will have to have a Scottish Civil Service college which serves its own needs.
      Mr. Raison: That is a fair point. There is a problem, which would disappear if there were a separate Scottish Civil Service. I do not want there to be a separate Scottish Civil Service, but if it existed there would be a different answer. We can get into a tremendous muddle over this.
      There are other very important problems, but the problem on which we are particularly entitled to ask for elucidation is that of temporary appointments by the Scottish Secretary. The assumption so far has been that those who serve the Assembly will be drawn from the national pool of civil servants. I can see that nobody will force people to work for the Assembly if they do not want to, but the Executive may say, for example, "We wish to appoint policy advisers". It may want to have them on a bigger scale than the present Government have

      1245
      policy advisers, and on different conditions. It may say "We want more experts—more engineers, scientists, doctors".
      It seems to me that those people, having been appointed by the Scottish Secretary, then become a part of the State Civil Service. When I read those two clauses in conjunction, that is what they appear to mean. If that is not so, the Minister must show not merely that it is his intention that that shall not be so but that the Bill ordains that it shall not be so.
      The Minister has not explained the position over temporary appointments, certainly not adequately. He has a duty to tell us what it all adds up to. Can the Scottish Secretary say "I wish to appoint so-and-so"? As I understand it the hon. Gentleman will tell us that the Scottish Secretary can say that, that he can say "I wish to appoint Mr. McTavish to a particular position, maybe as my special adviser on this or that matter". Mr. McTavish might be a man of questionable security background. I imagine that the portmanteau word "accordingly" includes some kind of security vetting of Mr. McTavish. It could mean anything under the sun.
      Let us suppose that the Scottish Secretary says "I wish to appoint Mr. McTavish to this sensitive post" and then the Civil Service Minister says "I can't have that. He is a security risk." That might well all be done in a gentlemanly way, with nothing ever coming out, with everything very peaceful and taking place with the kind of co-operation that the Minister believes will always prevail. But the whole thing could boil up into a flaming political row, and then somebody would be in an impossible position.
      The Minister must tell us exactly what he has in mind about these difficult matters. We are trying to produce examples of things going wrong. That is what Committee stages are all about.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby, who made an excellent speech, put his arguments with great force and clarity. He showed—and this is always the theme—that there are anomalies and discrepancies, that the whole matter is fundamentally a mess because we are trying to graft this devolved thing on to a unitary State and it cannot work.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and other speakers have revealed the fundamental truth about the nature of a unitary State, that we cannot have our cake and eat it, that we cannot have in the Civil Service, as in so many other aspects, only part of a unitary State and a subordinate Parliament.
      Before I come to the details of the amendment, I want to refer to one other matter raised by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He is for ever saying that of course we shall be dealing with reasonable people, that we should assume a sense of co-operation. I wish that we could, but it is not a question of individuals being reasonable or unreasonable or being co-operative or unco-operative. In the very nature of the situation in which we find ourselves, there are deep differences of opinion. There are a lot of people, not only in the SNP, who want something different from that which I and the Government Front Bench want. There is no way of reconciling these views and being reasonable and co-operative.
      It is possible that a great many Members of the Assembly would be reasonable, on the proviso that we acquiesce in what they want. What they want is a separate State. They will be co-operative provided they get what they want. Such demands are unacceptable to a great many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In parenthesis, I should say that my right hon. and hon. Friends should be acquitted on one score. Hon. Members may know that there is a crucial meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party going on and I do not believe that those who have spoken from the Labour Benches should be attacked on the ground that they have subsequently deserted the Committee.
      I wish to put a direct question to the Minister of State, a question to which I genuinely do not know the answer. If civil servants are to be paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund, does that in any way affect the contract on which they entered when they entered the Civil Service? This is a new situation. I ask this direct legal question. Has any adjustment to be made in the terms of the contracts of those who entered the Home Civil Service, albeit many years ago?
      Mr. John Smith: The answer to that is "No."
      Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful.
      I thought that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made a thoughtful and pertinent speech. But I do not support his amendment and I wish to explain why. Basically, I do not think that the amendment would come near to achieving what the hon. Gentleman seeks. Even if the amendment were carried it would simply paper over the cracks in the unity of the Home Civil Service, cracks which are far deeper and far more structurally significant than many hon. Members have yet realised. The hon. Member spoke of an air of reality and I suspect, by the way he is looking at me, that he perhaps agrees with what I am saying.
      The reality is that this amendment, even if it were carried, could not be delivered by a United Kingdom Government, even in good faith. On previous occasions I have expressed fears concerning the problems of double loyalties in the Civil Service. The Civil Service cannot serve both God and Mammon, Whitehall and Westminster or old and new St. Andrew's House. A little to the gleeful satisfaction of the Minister of State, I had to accept, and I did it willingly, from Norman Ellis of the First Division Association and Leslie Christie of the Civil and Public Services Association that they did not see the problem of double loyalties arising since each of their members would be working to a Minister, either a Whitehall Minister or Secretary, or an Assembly Cabinet Minister or other Assembly Minister.
      Once the Committee accepts that there is no problem of double loyalties we have a problem of duplication with a vengence. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby put it in terms of "shadow" civil servants within Scotland. Never will so many cooks have been paid so much to stir so frequently the Scots broth. The Assembly will have its retinue of civil servants as will, presumably, the Secretary of State. I do not accept for one moment that in those circumstances the parallel drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) concerning the small number of civil servants who work for the University Grants Committee is in any way valid. That is a totally different situation. If anyone says that the Secretary of State will not have a retinue I am entitled to ask, from
      1248
      whom will the Secretary of State get his advice and information?
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Raison: Can I give an example of something which might conceivably happen and which is topical? The Select Committees of the House have the power to send for persons and papers. Such a Committee could say that it wished to examine something happening in Scotland and could summon civil servants in the employ of the Scottish Assembly to give evidence. It may be that the SNP, or some other party controlling the Assembly, might say to the civil servants "No, you must not go and give evidence." Can anyone dispute that at the least such civil servants will be faced with the most appalling problem of divided loyalties? This is something which no words of the Minister of State can brush away.
      Mr. Dalyell: Presumably the civil servants in question would ask their Scottish Assembly Minister, or the Scottish Prime Minister, according to the importance of the issue, whether they should give evidence and what information they should give. That may create conflict between Royal High School Ministers and Westminster Ministers. The conflict may be a ministerial one rather than one involving the Civil Service. It is simply transferring the conflict from the Civil Service to Ministers.
      Mr. Brittan: That is true in a constitutional sense but would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is an extra dimension to this in that it is not just a question of the civil servant saying that he does what the Royal High School Ministers says? He also knows that he is a member of the Home Civil Service and may in two, three or five years' time be in a United Kingdom Department. What sort of effect would his resisting the command of a Select Committee have on his future prospects?
      Mr. Dalyell: I am not, perhaps, the man to ask, because I have to get into the position of devil's advocate. My reply to the hon. Gentleman would be that such a person would have to ask about his future relations with, for instance, those in the Treasury and the Civil Service Department on whom his future would have to depend. One thing that is true

      1249
      about most civil servants is that, understandably, they are naturally extremely concerned about what their senior colleagues think of their performance. It may be that senior colleagues will be generous and say of someone who was fighting for a Scottish Minister that he was only doing his job. This raises the most delicate questions of career structure. Any civil servant in this position would be, to say the least, in a quandry. Like everyone else, he has to be concerned about his future.
      Mr. Raison: Is it necessarily the case that civil servants summoned to appear before a Select Committee, have to go to their superiors and ask permission? Is there some Act which says that a civil servant is bound, under those circumstances, to turn to his Secretary of State, his boss, rather than obey the summons of the House? What would he fall back on to justify turning to his boss rather than obeying the will of Parliament?
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not know the rules but I imagine that if a situation arose in which a civil servant in Edinburgh, loyal to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), as a member of a Scottish Government, coalition or otherwise, decided off his own bat to give controversial evidence to a Select Committee of this House without so much as a by-your leave from his Minister, it would be human and natural for the hon. Member to have something to say about that—or the hon. Members for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) and Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) if they were similarly placed.
      Mr. MacCormick: Clearly, if we are to have in the Scottish Assembly a position in which members of the Scottish Executive appoint civil servants, they will also have a responsibility to dismiss them should the occasion arise. In such a case I would certainly sack them at once.
      Mr. Dalyell: This is very revealing—that the Minister would sack the civil servants. The civil servants, having heard what was said, would naturally be concerned, and therefore perhaps it would be a very unwary civil servant in Scotland who came to this House to give evidence to a Select Committee. But that raises very considerable problems for the House—
      Mr. John Smith: I do not think that my hon. Friend can fairly attack the Government and the Bill in that way, merely because of some of the odd answers given by Members of the Scottish National Party. As the Bill stands, a Minister cannot sack a civil servant, nor would a Scottish Secretary be able to do that.
      Mr. Dalyell: Yes, but a Scottish Prime Minister would surely want some say as to his own most senior advisers.
      Mr. John Smith: But not in regard to sacking.
      Mr. Sillars: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the hypothetical civil servant will give his own personal opinion or a departmental opinion? There would be a difference if he gave the departmental opinion, which is what tends to happen before Select Committees. Which set of circumstances is my hon. Friend talking about? If he is talking of someone coming to give his own personal opinion and revealing damaging information—to use my hon. Friend's own words—that would cause problems in relation to the present unified United Kingdom Departments.
      Mr. Dalyell: Then bang goes his loyalty to the Home Civil Service, and here again it is a question of trying to have one's cake and eating it. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is on a very real point here. In these circumstances, we cannot surely talk about loyalty to the Home Civil Service, and that is the break-up.
      Let my hon. Friend imagine, if he will, the position that would arise if he had a post of senior responsibility in a Scottish Administration. Would he tolerate for a moment civil servants who were not loyal primarily to himself? Indeed, would he not be concerned to choose certain civil servants who, shall we say, were not unsympathetic to his point of view? I am not saying that he would want toadies, but the truth is that most senior Ministers are concerned to have around them not political supporters necessarily but people who are not unfriendly to what they are trying to do. That has implications for a Scottish Assembly.
      Mr. Sillars: Would it not be the case that, in both the present circumstances

      1251
      and in a future devolved situation, if a senior civil servant went to a Select Committee of this House and revealed damaging information from his departmental knowledge, there would be problems, whether he was a member of the Department of the Environment or a member of the devolved Administration?
      Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's second point, is it not the case that under the Bill it is perfectly possible for members of the Scottish Executive, like members of the present Cabinet, to employ as civil servants their own political advisers? Of course, one would be liable to choose as political advisers those who were closest to one in terms of political ideology.
      Mr. Dalyell: I hope that I shall be acquitted, for time reasons, of not going into that point. I will simply say that the question of political advisers is a little different.
      Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend made a remark about Ministers having friendly people around them. I deduced an implication that Ministers in Government like to have, as their most immediately involved civil servants, people of a similar political persuasion. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is in a position to know about this, but from my experience in this Government this is a completely absurd proposition. I think that my comment would be true of nearly every Government.
      Mr. Dalyell: I have not sought to put it quite like that. What I say is that if there are Ministers committed to the idea and concept of a separate Scottish State, or to more devolution—the idea of maxi-devolution—they would not find it tolerable to have as their most immediate and close advisers those who were absolutely committed to a United Kingdom view. There are shades of meaning here which are rather important. The impression I wish to convey is not that Ministers want to have friends around them. It is that they do not want to have people around them who are intellectually deeply unfriendly to their point of view.
      Mr. Raison: I think that there is another dimension to this and that we have to face up to it. Very sadly, there have been instances recently of civil servants
      1252
      applying political pressure. One of the most shameful things to happen during the life of the present Government, in my view, was the way in which civil servants at Swansea said that they would not handle cherished number plates. I do not care a fig about these number plates, but I am very worried that civil servants in the Department said that they would not process them. For several months they were not processed. It was not the Government who said that it would not be done. It was the civil servants who said that they would not do it. That was, I think, the first ugly glimmering of something that I hope we shall not see again. It seems to me to be the kind of thing that is more likely to happen in the sort of general situation that we are talking about here.
      Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), I have to try to beware of not taking over his mantle and conducting a seminar. All I can say is that I listened to the hon. Gentleman's comment with interest. If it is contended that the Secretary of State will have a tiny number of civil servants, I suggest that his days in the Cabinet will be numbered, partly because he will not be anchored in Whitehall and will be known by his colleagues to have to depend for basic information on the civil servants responsible to the Scottish Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues in Edinburgh. "Why deal with the monkey", the London Cabinet members might say, "when we can talk directly to the organ grinder?".
      In these circumstances, the office of Secretary of State—to which apparently my Front Bench attaches considerable importance, and to which considerable importance has been attached in every Labour document on this issue—will almost certainly wither away. I suspect that in that proposition I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.
      I say to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that inextricably and inevitably, if an Assembly is established, Scottish civil servants will look to that Assembly more and more and to the Secretary of State less and less. The hon. Gentleman asked whose civil servants they are. There are issues here such as a common promotion ladder. I wonder

      1253
      how selection is to be done on the basis of the present Civil Service examinations. I am not quite sure that this promotion ladder and the promotion system can continue to exist. But when the hon. Gentleman asks this kind of question, surely he must recognise that his amendment, even if it is passed, will form no kind of lasting constraint in regard to the unity of the Home Civil Service.
      It is at this point that we should consider the unreality of the amendment. Supposing there were an English Conservative Minister for the Civil Service—perhaps the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). Supposing there were a Government on the Left, sustained—heaven help us—by coalition support from the Scottish National Party in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh civil servants would have a loyalty to their Minister in Edinburgh and they would see their future, provided they wanted to remain in Scotland, as being on the side of Edinburgh. I do not like the word "masters" which is sometimes used to describe those for whom civil servants work, but certainly they would acquiesce with Scottish Ministers, and in any conflict they would cock the proverbial snook at the English Minister for the Civil Service. There would be very little that the Minister could do about it.
      It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say that there is a clear decision by the Government that in 1978 there will be a unified Civil Service, and that this will be carried out by Clause 64. It is fine to make those assertions, but the very reality of the situation will bring about a position of flux where inevitably civil servants in Edinburgh will have to choose between the one or the other. My guess is that in terms of their future they will choose to work with the Edinburgh Assembly and put their eggs in the Assembly basket.
      7.0 p.m.
      No less than my hon. Friends I feel that the whistling-in-the-wind assertions in Clause 64 about servants of a Scottish Assembly being in the Home Civil Service of the State are wishful thinking. So, no less, is the amendment of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. The idea that there can be control by the Minister for the Civil Service is just another of
      1254
      those notions that could not possibly endure in the real world.
      Mr. Brittan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of accepting that I said it was an attempt to square the circle and that I have the gravest reservations about this solution. I said that if an attempt were made to make it work, it would be necesasry to change the wholly inchoate, vague and inexpressive form contained in the present Bill. In my speech I did not set out any high hopes that this solution would be a durable one because I do not believe that the Bill is a durable one.
      Mr. Dalyell: This is a probing amendment which ought to be developed, because the hon. Gentleman has fairly outlined his position.
      I am also charged by my hon. Friend the Minister of State with having fantasies. I want to get the matter straight. I may be thick about this, but we are told that the salaries will be decided by the United Kingdom Government and that the numbers will be decided by the Assembly and that this will come out of the Consolidated Fund for which the Scottish Assembly is responsible. We are then told that the Minister for the Civil Service could control numbers.
      Mr. John Smith: I never said that the Minister would control the numbers. Indeed, I said precisely the opposite. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has misunderstood me in a very basic way.
      Mr. Dalyell: I hope that we shall get some clarification on this point. If the salaries are decided by the United Kingdom Government and the numbers decided by the Assembly, the extra moneys will be found out of the Consolidated Fund at the expense of other matters.
      Mr. John Smith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will recall that I said precisely that. I said that the salaries would be paid for out of the block fund. My hon. Friend is asking me questions which I answered in my speech.
      Mr. Dalyell: In that case the cost of all those extra civil servants, be it 750 or whatever, will come out of the Consolidated Fund. One of the results of our great devolution caper is that more civil servants will have to be paid out

      1255
      of the Consolidated Fund at the expense of existing services in Scotland. One thinks of all the different services which exist, such as home helps and others. If we are saying that there will be more civil servants and fewer home helps, that ought to be made clear, at any rate by the time we come to the referendum.
      Mr. Sillars: This is an important point and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to be unfair to the future Assembly. Is it not just as fair to argue that once the Assembly administration examines the structure of the Scottish Civil Service it might well reduce the numbers? What we are talking about at the moment is a Civil Service in Scotland that is run basically from the Whitehall end of the United Kingdom. Things could get better instead of worse.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not see the prospect of the Assembly reducing the numbers, especially when one thinks of the great Assembly committees on health, education and housing that are to be set up and all the functionaries who will have to serve those committees. The Government themselves concede that there will be many hundreds of extra civil servants in Scotland and Wales. Presumably, they will be paid for out of the existing allocation. Incidentally, I believe that the allocation will be far more to the disadvantage of Scotland because people will scrutinise the pro rata basis on which it is made.
      The point is that we shall have more civil servants and be less well off as a result of our devolution plans. That does not seem to be a very challengeable proposition.
      Reference was also made to the question of "in and out". The Minister of State said that this was an extremely important matter. That brings us to the whole issue of the Scots who want a United Kingdom Civil Service career. Surely questions have to be asked about what, an entrant to the Civil Service opts for. For example, one of the options will be to the Scottish Assembly Civil Service, even given that this Act sticks, which I do not think it will.
      In passing I should point out that careers such as we have seen at the end of this decade of people such as Sir William Armstrong, Sir Matthew
      1256
      Stevenson and Sir Alexander Johnston will be impossible if the Bill is passed, because there will surely be some kind of separation between those who go for the different system of an Assembly and the rest of the Home Civil Service. I believe that the hon. Member for Aylesbury was quite right in saying that many civil servants will be tortured in their consciences in this matter.
      For time reasons I shall not raise the whole question of the Foreign Office, on which I have asked the Foreign Secretary various questions. I go on to reflect that a devolved Scotland will be a very internal place. I ask the SNP whether it would not want civil servants who were not basically unsympathetic—I put it in the form of a double negative—to its basic aims. If there were an SNP Government, or if the SNP at any future date formed part of a governing coalition, would it not be tempted to promote those civil servants, or further the careers of those civil servants, whom it deemed shared its beliefs? I do not ask this as in any way a smearing question. I believe that it is the reality of the position.
      Ministers surely have the right to have people around them who are not uncongenial—I put this point by way of a rather careful double negative—and to have civil servants who have some sympathy with what they are trying to do. What happens when what they are trying to do is contrary to the continuation of a British State in general and the unity of the Home Civil Service in particular?
      Therefore, by a different route, I arrive at the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Aylesbury. It is one thing to ask civil servants to be loyal to political masters who may have particular political policies at the time. It is quite another to ask civil servants to be loyal both to the Home Civil Service and at the same time to Ministers whose very raison d'être is the break up of the British State. Therefore, can it not be said that the very possibility of separatist Ministers in Edinburgh alters the basis of the discussion that we are having?
      Yet again, as so often, we find ourselves driven to the heart of the matter —that one cannot have a subordinate Parliament in one part, though only one part, of a unitary State and, as a rider to that proposition, one cannot have a

      1257
      Civil Service that will come more and more to depend on one Parliament and expect that it can be obedient to and integrated with the ministerial orders of a Minister in another Parliament. Like it or not, this clause is the thin end of the wedge in the break-up of the Home Civil Service. We cannot have loyalties to one while at the same time having loyalties to the other.
      Finally—and I am seeking to be brief —I hope that when the Bill reaches another place a great deal of attention will be devoted to this clause. I hope that the noble Lords Lord Armstrong, Lord Allen and Lord Trend, who have had distinguished careers in the Civil Service, will regard it as a sacred duty to pay great regard to the provisions of the Bill. I hope that those noble Lords, who have been senior permanent secretaries in the British Civil Service, will give their minds to these matters when they are dealt with in the other place.
      Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes in dealing with this important amendment on which the argument has ranged widely.
      I do not subscribe to some of the higher nights of fantasy which have been indulged in on both sides of the Committee about the workings of the Civil Service in relation to the Assembly. I share some of the Minister's optimism rather than some of the pessimistic thoughts which have been expressed as to the degree of co-operation. Some hon. Members thought that there would be an utter lack of such co-operation. However, I believe that the Civil Service, by virtue of its experience and traditions, will show its ability to adapt itself to this new situation.
      I do not believe that the situation is as serious or as desperate as some hon. Members make out. However, we shall be entering a completely new dimension in terms of Civil service loyalty when the Scottish Assembly is established. The Civil Service must work with the Scottish Assembly and also with the United Kingdom Parliament. I believe that there will be a split in loyalty. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) instanced the analogy of civil servants who work on the one hand for the University Grants Committee and on the other hand for a
      1258
      Government Department. However, I do not believe that that argument stands up. The crucial difference that we are now discussing is that civil servants will be answerable to two different Executives. The moment that one introduces an Executive into the form of devolution one intends to set up, one also brings in certain strains. I do not think that the Government sufficiently recognise the strains that will be introduced.
      However, I do not think the situation will be as bad as some have made out. I do not question the impartiality of the Civil Service, or indeed of individual civil servants, and to some extent the system may work despite what I am arguing. But the strains will arise on practical grounds, such as in career prospects. I see that the Minister does not agree with that remark, but it must not be shrugged off.
      The moment that one has civil servants operating in two different Administrations when those Administrations can be of two different political complexions, one is dealing with a new situation and a new dimension. It is one thing to have a Civil Service that is answerable to one form of Administration before a General Election and then to cope with an Administration of a different political complexion after the election, but in this case we are asking civil servants simultaneously to be loyal to two Administrations which could be of a different political colour.
      7.15 p.m.
      I should not be quite so worried about the situation if we had a clearer division of responsibility, but we do not have such a division in the Scottish Assembly. I would be more sanguine if we had a better idea of the division of responsibility, but we do not even have that at present. Drawing on my own experience in Government—and I served in Departments connected with agriculture and fisheries—I came to learn that the agricultural colleges, for example, in Scotland are administered by one division in the Scottish Office. That subject will now be part of a split responsibility. The same argument applies to teaching and to the educational aspects of agriculture and fisheries and also to research and advisory matters. This process is sure to lead to duplication. One division will

      1259
      have to be sub-divided in answering on the one hand to the Scottish Assembly and on the other hand to the Secretary of State.
      If I may take the question of fisheries as an example, the freshwater aspect will be the responsibility of the Assembly, while sea fishing will be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is an important division of responsibility. But that is bound to lead to the kind of duplication envisaged by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It will lead to a clash of responsibilities. In regard to the functions of the agricultural colleges as between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament, there will be some overlapping and an increase in areas of possible conflict. The same argument applies to fishing. The fact is that certain freshwater fish do not confine themselves to fresh water. There will be an overlap in that responsibility, and that conflict will extend to the Civil Service.
      I should like to deal with some of the arguments deployed by the Minister in favour of the Government's proposals. He said that the Bill would ease recruitment and smooth the transfer from the present system to the new one. However, we should not look at only the short-term advantages of moving into a new system. The question of continuity is most important, but the ease of transfer should not be made the main reason for change.
      I do not accept the Minister's argument that a unified Civil Services gives better promotional and career prospects. I cannot help remembering wryly what happened when we discussed police amalgamation. It was proposed that the police force in Shetland should be amalgamated into the police force in the northern counties. It was said that such a move would increase promotional prospects for constables in Shetland because they would be joining a larger police force. But the opportunity to become chief constable in the northern counties was assessed as one in 200, whereas the opportunity of making a similar promotion in Shetland was one in 14. Therefore, that argument can be easily stood on its head.
      I come to the nub of the matter. The Minister said that his method of proceed
      1260
      ing was the easiest and most straightforward solution to service the Scottish Assembly. I do not regard that as the right approach. I believe that an approach that is based on what is easy will eventually lead to an unstable system. I do not wish to support an unstable process. If we are to undertake this course, the only sure answer is to have a Civil Service that is particular to Scotland and to the Scottish Executive and Assembly.
      If we are to have an Assembly with an Executive, this is the logical way to proceed and the logical conclusion of most of the arguments that we have heard. The Minister argued strongly against that view. If we do not proceed in this way, we are pushed back to the amendment. We must reduce the difficulties and the areas of conflict, and although the amendment may be second best, it may still be the best option before us.
      Mr. Sproat: I have listened with great interest to the arguments deployed on the question of the loyalty of civil servants. As so often, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has thrown up interesting and unusual nuggets which could almost have come only from him. The idea of those in another place who have had experience as permanent under-secretaries giving the closest attention to this part of the Bill is a particularly useful suggestion and I hope that they will follow it up.
      I am more open minded on the question of loyalty than on any other part of the Bill. On almost every other amendment, my natural inclination is to take issue with the Minister and to support anyone who can find a way of blocking this ridiculous Assembly. However, I am about to undermine the Minister's intellectual self-confidence by saying that I slightly agree with him on this issue.
      I do not accept that there will be a tug of loyalties between two masters. Each civil servant will have only one master, and it is the clear duty of civil servants to obey the politicians to whom they are attached at any time. There will, of course, be differing political views which must bind the Civil Service as a whole.

      1261
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) mentioned the example of Select Committees. Difficulties could arise there, but this is a one-off, ad hoc question and I do not think that it will be beyond the ability of this House to say, if a Select Committee summons a civil servant, that he must attend or that he need not attend. Indeed, there may already be an answer to this problem. I do not think that such a one-off argument should draw in the wider issue of the loyalty of civil servants.
      The hon. Member for West Lothian thought that there would be a slight problem over whether civil servants would look more to the Scottish Assembly or to the rest of the United Kingdom Civil Service. Surely if people are interested in, say, housing or education they will want wider fields for their efforts.
      Mr. Dalyell: If that is so, they will have to serve outside Scotland.
      Mr. Sproat: Indeed, but they are wholly interchangeable at present. If there is a magnet, I do not think that it will be the Scottish Assembly.
      As for the problem of conscience, surely civil servants already face that difficulty. No doubt some of the civil servants who drafted the Bill to nationalise the oil industry thought that it was a load of rubbish. This is one of the problems that they have to face when they become civil servants. They know that the chances are that they will have to serve Ministers with whose political views they disagree. I do not accept that serving a Labour Minister in Edinburgh and being switched to a Department in Westminster under a Conservative Government would place intolerable strains on the loyalty of civil servants.
      However, there can be no doubt that within Government circles in Edinburgh there will be civil servants responding to Socialist pressures from the Assembly and Conservative pressures from a Conservative Secretary of State. There will not be individual tugs of loyalty, but there will be confusion over the general differences of loyalties between those responsible to a Conservative Secretary of State and those responsible to a Socialist Scottish Secretary.
      There are problems over loyalty which cannot be dismissed out of hand, though I slightly side with the Minister, and there
      1262
      is also the problem of duplication which we have not touched on yet. However, we can say that whatever else happens, there will be more bureaucrats and they will be receiving higher salaries. This is one of the arguments that will weigh strongly in Scotland against the Bill in the referendum campaign. We are not talking about piffling numbers. The Scotland and Wales Bills together account for more than 2,000 extra civil servants as things stand, and we all know that Government estimates tend to be underestimates. The possibility of another 2,000 civil servants cannot be just brushed aside.
      Mr. Dalyell: They will be paid for out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund and that will therefore be to the disadvantage of other services in Scotland.
      Mr. Sproat: I was coming to that point. The Minister said that the Assembly will pay for these extra civil servants. In one sense, they will. The Assembly will pay for them out of the Consolidated Fund, but, in reality, it will not be the Assembly which is paying but the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) is right when he seeks to put the view of someone speaking for an English constituency. What would SNP Members say if it were proposed to set up a Parliament for Mercia, the name of the ancient Kingdom, as ancient as Scotland, for the area my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) represents, and the Scottish taxpayers had to pay out more money from their pockets? Everyone in Scotland would rightly feel indignant, and the people in the rest of the United Kingdom should be feeling indignant that they are being asked to pay more taxes to set up a useless Parliament for Scotland alone.
      As the hon. Member for West Lothian said, Scotland will be receiving overall less funds as a result of the Bill. At present, we get £500 million a year, which is more than our per capita entitlement. We are likely to lose this because of the attention that the Bill has focused on Scotland's financial advantages. Indeed, this decreased amount will be further decreased because the extra civil servants will have to be paid for out of it.
      The Minister criticised some of us for saying that conflict arises out of every

      1263
      clause. But it is our duty to point out that fact. Let me show him how conflict arises out of this clause. The Scottish Secretary may ask for more civil servants if he wants them. They will have to be paid for out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund. Suppose the Scottish Secretary demands more civil servants and they are granted. He will then say that when the Consolidated Fund was allocated, the Assembly did not know that it would have the extra civil servants and it therefore needed more money. The Assembly would then come to this House and to the taxpayers of the rest of the United Kingdom for more funds. Either those funds would be granted, in which case my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge would have the right to feel aggrieved, or else they would be not granted, in which case another financial conflict would arise. That would be a conflict of the worst sort between the Scottish Assembly and Westminster. Once again a conflict inevitably arises from the amendment.
      7.30 p.m.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) candidly acknowledged that the amendment is not ideal. However, I shall support anything that gives Westminster more control. Ultimately it is Westminster that should have control as it is Westminster that is providing the money. As the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said, the man who pays the piper calls the tune. That is as it should be. I do not see why a civil servant from the Assembly should be treated any differently from any other home civil servant if those in Scotland are to remain part of the Home Civil Service.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that the whole point and purpose of the Bill is to give greater democratic control over the bureaucracy in Scotland than presently exists. I am sure that as an English Member he will accept that the degree of control that we have over St. Andrew's House through this House is inadequate.
      Mr. Sproat: Rubbish. The purpose of the Bill is to try to buy off a few Scottish National votes. That is the fons et origo of the entire Bill, and everybody knows it.
      1264
      The proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby would give Westminster more control. It may not be a proposition that I would have put before the Committee, but it would give the British people more control, and it is the British people who are providing the money. Therefore, the British people through their British Members of Parliament, should have the right of control. I support my hon. Friend's amendment on the ground that it goes at least some way down that road.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I shall be brief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Do not taunt me. There are those who put the constitution before dinner or, shall we say, the British constitution before their constitution.
      This section of the Bill probably illustrates as well as any other that the Bill is false and a fundamental political lie. If we are to have, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) calls it, more democratic control over the civil servants in the Scottish Office, and if we wanted that, we would have Parliaments in Inverness-shire and Perthshire, and no doubt in Brecon. If we are to have a separate Executive with a separate Prime Minister, a separate Government and a separate Parliament, which is what they would be and which is what the Scottish National Party intends them to become—that is, utterly independent—but which in the meantime will be temporarily disguised with such idiotic expressions as Scottish Secretary, First Minister and all the rubbishy terms that have been invented to disguise reality, and if there is a division of power, it is utterly improper not to have the logical and properly inevitable result of a Scottish Civil Service.
      Why does the Minister not want a Scottish Civil Service? It is not because he does not think it is sensible in logic or in terms of power but because the Civil Service does not want a Scottish Civil Service. It is in the interests of the Civil Service that Assembly civil servants remain part of the United Kingdom Civil Service. That compels a conflict, and that is the fallacy of not dividing the Civil Service in two.
      Once again we have a total political falsehood. We have a situation in which the Government would inevitably introduce a Scottish Civil Service if they had

      1265
      the slightest faith and belief in this constitutional measure. They would undoubtedly divide the Civil Service into two parts. Instead of having civil servants who have to render unto Caesar the things that are Emperor Westminster's and unto God the things that are Assembly God's, they would have to represent only their own commander.
      I know that the Minister of State has a simple mind and that he has frequently been unable to understand where I would end, especially when he was my junior at the Bar. However, it is important that the Committee should not overlook the fact that if we are to go along this road the only justifiable course is to have a separate Scottish Civil Service, which the civil servants themselves reject and the Government funk introducing. That might in itself lead us further along the road to independence, but let us understand that that is where we are going if we go along with the Bill.
      Why disguise that which will inevitably result from the conflict of two parliaments and two nations? It is inevitable that there will be a conflict of loyalties. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) properly said that it is inevitable that the conflict will be between those who have to try to behave loyally to the different requirements of two political Executives.
      I raise another matter which has not been overlooked and which emerged from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns—job opportunities. If there is a dispute whether a certain power lies with the Assembly or with Westminster, it is inevitable that the Assembly will claim it.
      Civil servants are not other than human beings, and the enlargement of their power and influence, their office and staff, as regionalisation has shown, is something that occurs, however unmotivated it may be. If an example is required, it is necessary only to consider the Fife region. On reorganisation the region did not alter, but the chief executive of the region, the chief constable, the head of planning and the head of education managed, by doing the same job in the same region, to increase their salaries considerably.
      That is what will happen if there is devolution. There will be an urge for
      1266
      more responsibility, more offices and more power. That will inevitably result in a pull by the civil servants who happen to be employed in Scotland to draw back power unto themselves.
      The logic that there should be a separate Civil Service with its own responsibilities, sailing in its own boat and, if necessary, sinking in its own boat, is one which civil servants do not dare to risk, and which the Government do not I dare to undertake. It is that dishonesty; that arises from the clause that causes me to feel that the conflicts of responsibility and interest that the clause demonstrates indicate the rottenness and corruption of the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Gow: A terrible misfortune has befallen you today, Sir Myer, in that you did not hear the cogent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). An even more grievous misfortune has befallen us, Sir Myer, in that it seems as if twice on the same amendment we shall hear the Minister replying to clauses that he appears not to understand. It might have been an appropriate occasion to have the intermittent presence of the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might have had a greater grasp of the clauses.
      Mr. Fairbairn: We did have the intermittent presence of the Lord Advocate, but, as always, it was silent.
      Mr. Gow: The Minister of State sought to explain Clause 64, but as it is impossible to follow his explanation in the light of the devastating criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby, it is necessary to refer to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. It states:
      "The staff of the Scottish Secretaries and of the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General are to be members of the home civil service and their salaries will be paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund."
      But something quite different appears in Clause 64—a distinction upon which no comment has yet been made. There is the phrase, which I have not come across in any other document,
      "home civil service of the state".
      What is the difference between Home Civil Service and
      "home civil service of the state"?

      1267
      I suggest that the use of the word "state" implies that we are talking about an independent Scottish State. Otherwise, I do not understand the purpose of including "of the state".
      Again, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby, Clause 21(9) places no limitation upon those whom the Scottish Secretary may appoint to be officers and servants. The only qualification is anybody "he may think appropriate".
      The Minister of State appears to believe that the wording of Clause 64 is such as to allow the Secretary of State to appoint as an officer or servant only someone who is a member of the Home Civil Service. Manifestly, that is not so. It would be possible for a Scottish Secretary to appoint as a special adviser someone who was not a member of the Home Civil Service. Indeed, Ministers in this Government have appointed special advisers who are not members of the Home Civil Service. I do not believe that Professor Lord Kaldor, who was special adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his worst period at the Treasury, was a member of the Home Civil Service. Is the Minister of State telling the Committee that it will be impossible for a Scottish Secretary to appoint as a special adviser someone who is not a member of
      "the home civil service of the state"?
      I believe that the amendment will improve an incomprehensible clause. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore press it to a Division.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I think that almost all who have spoken in the debate, which has been quite lengthy, have made clear that, unless we seek to amend the clause and clear up the confusion, we shall have an administrative nonsense in Scotland and a ludicrous situation which will be a recipe for conflict.
      The Minister of State indicated that no great problems would arise if we accepted the clause as drafted. That advice was given on the basis of experience in dealing with problems between different Government Departments. I hope that he accepts that we are dealing with liaison not between one Government Department and another but between
      1268
      civil servants serving different Governments. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) pointed out, those Governments may comprise different parties pursuing totally different policies. The idea of having the kind of non-liaison that we have between Departments existing between two separate Governments is a nonsense.
      This would be a difficult problem to resolve in any event, but the Government have tried to arrive at a halfway house which is not a logical constitutional stopping point. The Minister, in his initial reply, tried to create confusion about the responsibility of the Civil Service. First, he told us that the numbers of civil servants employed by the Scottish Assembly would be determined only by the Assembly, that wages for those civil servants would be determined by United Kingdom arrangements and that gradings would be determined by the Civil Service Department.
      Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the Assembly will be entirely free to decide the numbers of civil servants, which will be variable, and that the CSD will come in on the basis of job specification, presumably applied by the Scottish Executive, and say what is the appropriate grading for the job? How is the CSD meant to do that without detailed knowledge not only of policies but of the staff complement and prospects of the Scottish Executive? My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that there could be a logical argument for a separate Scottish Civil Service but that there is no logical argument for this halfway house, which will be very messy.
      If the Assembly is to be responsible for determining the numbers of civil servants to be employed in the Scottish offices, who will be responsible for supervising the efficiency of those sections and for making sure that the numbers are right for the appropriate responsibilities?
      7.45 p.m.
      Despite what has been said by some of my hon. Friends, Ministers do not employ and make sure that civil servants work hard and do not waste time. Ministers have nothing to do with such matters. At least, that was my experience. Unfortunately, Ministers do not

      1269
      decide the numbers or determine who goes into different jobs. We assume that the Civil Service Department and other experts ensure that we do not have too many people doing the jobs that have to be done.
      Are we to have a separate Scottish Civil Service Department to supervise the civil servants employed in the Scottish Office and to ensure that the numbers are right for the appropriate responsibilities? Will the Minister advise those who are employed in the Scottish Office now how matters will work out should this constitutional nonsense come into effect?
      Will there be a separate building for the Secretary of State's Department and separate buildings for those civil servants who will be answerable to the Scottish Secretaries?
      What will happen in areas of shared responsibility? For example, part of the responsibility for the appointment of members to the Scottish Development Agency will lie with the Scottish Assembly. The guidelines setting out what the SDA is to do are laid down by the United Kingdom Administration. The SDA has shared responsibilities in many areas of Government activity. We shall have civil servants with divided loyalties.
      Civil servants employed by the Scottish Assembly, which will not be similar to any other Department, will be answerable to the Scottish Secretary. The Bill provides that any Minister of the Crown may ask any Scottish Secretary for information that he may require. That appears in Clause 34. What will be the position of civil servants employed by and answerable to a Scottish Secretary who are asked to prepare a brief for a big block grant—I am sure the Minister accepts that civil servants working for Scottish Secretaries will be asked to prepare briefs for a big block grant—and civil servants in the Treasury who will undoubtedly want the necessary information to argue for a smaller block grant? There is bound to be haggling over such a matter as the block grant. Where will the Treasury get information about the needs of the Scottish Executive but from civil servants employed by the Scottish Administration? Does the Minister accept that civil servants will be asked by Scottish Secretaries to prepare a brief for a big block grant and that, on the
      1270
      other hand, others may be asked by the Treasury to prepare a brief for not such a big block grant? There is bound to be a conflict of loyalty in that event.
      I hope that the Minister will at least accept that, irrespective of his assurances, we are dealing with a clause that is far from specific. It appears that the Scottish Executive will have power to appoint anyone that it wishes and that, having done so, the appointment will be made "accordingly". Unless we improve the clause by accepting the amendment, we shall create a constitutional nonsense.
      Mr. Dalyell: How can we improve the clause? Is there any way of doing so? The amendment is extremely wooly. The Opposition had better explain how we can improve the clause.
      Mr. Taylor: Acceptance of the amendment would remove one obvious problem. As the Minister of State said, the numbers of civil servants will be determined by the Assembly, the gradings will be decided on the advice of the Civil Service Department and salaries will be fixed in United Kingdom negotiations. Acceptance of the amendment will to some degree achieve uniformity between Government Departments and the Scottish Office. This will make things a great deal easier and I am sure that the civil servants, whether they are working for the Scottish Assembly or for other Government Departments, will be thinking along the same lines.
      The Government are creating a constitutional nonsense. They are about to appoint 1,000 extra civil servants which will cost a great deal of money and create more confusion and expense. This problem shows once again that the Government have arrived at legislation which does not make sense, which will create confusion and which will lead to constant strife and misunderstanding. That will not help Scotland.
      It is sad that we are discussing this nonsense on a day when Scotland has been told that it has 203,000 unemployed —the highest figure since the peak of the depression in the 1930s.
      Mr. John Smith: Hon. Members have asked a number of specific questions and I shall do my best to answer them—as quickly as I can because I sense that the

      1271
      Committee wishes to reach a conclusion as soon as possible.
      The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) described a fantastic scenario of an SNP-dominated Assembly trying, with its education policy, to poison the minds of the children of Scotland with nationalist propaganda. He ought to give more credit to the Scottish people. He must know that they would not put up with such a situation for long. It is a democratic society, and I do not see anyone, of whatever political persuasion, getting away with that. To be fair to the Scottish National Party, I do not believe that even it believes that that would be a wise policy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is always talking about an SNP-dominated Assembly. He should have more confidence in the capacity of the Labour Party to win seats in the Assembly. It is our intention to do that. I do not know whether his distaste for an Assembly is such that he would be prevented from supporting the election of Labour Members to the Assembly. It is unrealistic to talk in terms of an SNP-dominated Assembly. The Assembly will be constituted according to the wishes of the electorate.
      My hon. Friend tends to argue against separatism rather than devolution. He tries to switch the argument so that it corresponds with his feelings, but he went far too far, even for him, when he suggested that civil servants would be tortured in their consciences because of the conflicts. That does not square with his submission that there is no conflict of loyalties. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian latches on to a certain speech which he repeats whether or not it is relevant to a particular amendment. He overdid his argument about conflict.
      I asked a number of hon. Members what would be the conflict for a civil servant working for the Scottish Education Department, post-devolution. I have not received an answer that convinced me that this will create conflict. This has been a parrot cry.
      Compared with some of our other debates this has been relatively interesting and balanced. Not only did the amendment take a fair pounding but it emerged
      1272
      that the supposed conflict is more chimerical than real.
      Mr. Dalyell rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has already spoken for half an hour or more on this subject.
      Mr. Dalyell: I wanted to ask a specific question on the issue of the block grant. Is not a civil servant's responsibility to a Minister in the Assembly when preparing a submission on the block grant in conflict with what he might have to submit to a United Kingdom Minister?
      Mr. Smith: I shall try to answer my hon. Friend briefly. I do not believe that there would be conflict because those civil servants involved in compiling financial statistics for the Scottish Administration would be answerable to the Scottish Secretary for whom they worked, and not to other Ministers. With one or two minor exceptions, such as freshwater fishing and sea fishing, the big Departments' civil servants will be responsible to one member of the Executive and not to two. Only if their responsibility were to two sections of the Government would such a conflict arise.
      Mr Teddy Taylor: The civil servants would be responsible to two Departments because of the right of United Kingdom Ministers to ask for information. Where will the Treasury get its information on the block grant unless it is from the civil servants?
      Mr. Smith: That does not mean that there will be a double responsibility. The proposition that it would mean a double responsibility stretches the situation beyond the imagination of even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).
      The hon. Member for Cathcart asked a number of questions about the rôle of the Civil Service Department. Civil servants are normally delegated by the Civil Service Department to different Departments under the supervision and control of the Civil Service Department. We expect that to continue after devolution. There will be discussions with the Civil Service Department about it. We expect the Scottish Administration to have its own staff. We intend that there shall be discussions with the CSD staff institutions about that matter.

      1273
      There has been much argument about the appointment of civil servants by Ministers. There was a difference between the allegations of those who speculated about how it is done and the experience of those who have been in Government. Ministers have little influence over the civil servants who serve them. It is not possible for Ministers to dismiss civil servants without going through the agreed procedures. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked whether civil servants' contracts would be affected if they elected to go to the Scottish Assembly rather than to the Treasury for instance. Their contracts would not be affected because they would be members of the United Kingdom Civil Service.
      I was asked if it would be possible for the Scottish Secretary to appoint political advisers. Yes, it would be possible. It would also be possible for the Scottish Secretary to appoint civil servants for five years on a temporary basis according to procedures which recognise short-term appointments. This could be done on the same basis as it is done by Whitehall Departments.
      The basic point is how we organise the Civil Service for the Scottish Administration following devolution. It must be either a unified Civil Service or a separate Civil Service, as was argued by the hon. Members for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Inverness (Mr. Johnston).
      Mr. Raison: The Minister has devoted some minutes to explaining what this thing is all about. Does he really think that the single word "accordingly" provides an adequate summary of all that he has had to compress in his two speeches?
      Mr. Smith: I have had to compress my remarks because of the time. It is not just a question of the word "accordingly". There is more to it than that. The word "accordingly" is just the last word in the sentence which ends
      "and appointments to any position as such an officer or servant shall be made accordingly".
      It does not hang on the word "accordingly". My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) made an interesting speech. He understood the purpose of the clause. I believe, and I am certainly advised, that the effect of
      1274
      the clause would be that each person who was appointed would require to have a certificate of qualification issued by the Civil Service Commissioners under the procedures we adopt.
      8.0 p.m.
      It is possible to consider a separate Civil Service. Stormont had separate civil servants, but I do not know whether that made a great deal of difference, given the common grades and entrance qualifications with those of United Kingdom civil servants. I discussed this matter with former civil servants of the Stormont Administration, and opinions amongst them were divided. Some of them preferred a unified system and others separate systems. It is difficult to be dogmatic about this.
      Without being uncharitable to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, I must say that he was being a little bit too hard on some aspects of the proposal. The question of career prospects is a reasonable point. There is the difficulty with a separate Civil Service of the young person who, entering it, knows that he will have to work within that Scottish Civil Service and will not be able to move, if successful, to the Treasury or Foreign Office. He will not have the whole of the Civil Service open to him as it is open to those who do not serve under the Scottish Administration.
      Some hon. Members said that one of the reasons the Government did not want a separate Civil Service was that the Civil Service was against it. We took into account the views of the professional associations and the trade unions which represent the civil servants. That was an elementary thing for a Government concerned with good industrial relations to do. They were strongly of the opinion that there should be a unified Civil Service. That view was not a determining factor, but was one that the Government took into account.
      The absurdity of hon. Members' fantasies was shown when they were pressed to give practical examples of conflicts that would arise. The tone of the debate reinforces my recommendation to the Committee that we should retain the clause and reject the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 175.

      Division No. 73]

      AYES

      [8.04 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Alison, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Percival, Ian

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Bell, Ronald

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Benyon, W.

      Holland, Philip

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hordern, Peter

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Biffen, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Raison, Timothy

      Blaker, Peter

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      James, David

      Rhodes James, R.

      Brittan, Leon

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

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Brooke, Peter

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Buck, Antony

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Budgen, Nick

      Lamont, Norman

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Lawrence, Ivan

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Carlisle, Mark

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shepherd, Colin

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Silvester, Fred

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Luce, Richard

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Clegg, Walter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Spence, John

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Cope, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Sproat, Iain

      Cormack, Patrick

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Corrie, John

      Marten, Neil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mather, Carol

      Stokes, John

      Dunlop, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Durant, Tony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tapsell, Peter

      Emery, peter

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Moate, Roger

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Molyneaux, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Wakeham, John

      Forman, Nigel

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Wells, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mudd, David

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Gorst, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Neubert, Michael

      Younger, Hon George

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Nott, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Osborn, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Peter Morrison and

      Grist, Ian

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Mr. John MacGregor.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Deakins, Eric

      Anderson, Donald

      Cartwright, John

      Dempsey, James

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Doig, Peter

      Ashley, Jack

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Dormand, J. D.

      Ashton, Joe

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Dunn, James A.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Eadie, Alex

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Coleman, Donald

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Crawford, Douglas

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Bradley, Tom

      Cryer, Bob

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Flannery, Martin

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Campbell, Ian

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Canavan, Dennis

      Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

      George, Bruce

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Madden, Max

      Sillars, James

      Gourlay, Harry

      Magee, Bryan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Marshall, Or Edmund (Goole)

      Snape, Peter

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Stallard, A. W.

      Harper, Joseph

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Stoddart, David

      Horam, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Thompson, George

      Huckfield, Les

      Oakes, Gordon

      Tinn, James

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tomlinson, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hunter, Adam

      Ovenden, John

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Pardoe, John

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      John, Brynmor

      Park, George

      Watkins, David

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Parker, John

      Watt, Hamish

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Wellbeloved, James

      Judd, Frank

      Penhaligon, David

      Welsh, Andrew

      Kerr, Russell

      Perry, Ernest

      White, James (Pollok)

      Kilfedder, James

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Whitlock, William

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Radice, Giles

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lambie, David

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Litterick, Tom

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Woodall, Alec

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Rose, Paul B.

      Woof, Robert

      McCartney, Hugh

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Sandelson, Neville

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Sever, John

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Maclennan, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Alf Bates.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 558, in page 30, line 13, leave out from 'accordingly' to '(including' in line 14 and insert—
      '(2) Service in the capacity of—

      (a) the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland or any officer or servant of his;

      (b) the Accountant of Court or any officer or servant of his:

      shall continue to be service in the home civil service of the state.
      (3) Any salary and allowances in respect of service in any such capacity as is mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) above'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): We may consider at the same time the following amendments:
      No. 559, in page 30, line 24, leave out from 'been' to 'above' in line 25 and insert:
      'serving in any such capacity as is mentioned in subsections (1) and (2)'.
      No. 560, in page 30, line 29, at end add—
      '(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council designate any person for the purposes of this
      1278
      section; and references in this section to an officer or servant of a Scottish Secretary shall include any person so designated.'
      Mr. Smith: The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the clause by ensuring that the status of staff of the Registrar General and the Accountant of Court as civil servants is put beyond doubt. Provision is made also that at a future date other staff may be designated as civil servants by Order in Council, which is one of the Orders in Council arising from the Prerogative.
      The staff of the Registrar General and of the Accountant of Court may have been thought not to be covered by the terms of Clause 64 as originally drafted. In both cases, they are recruited by the Civil Service Commission and are treated as civil servants. But by statute, if not in practice, the Registrar General and the Accountant of Court appoint their own staff. Any anomaly which arises can be put right by administrative means in present circumstances. Since all are responsible to the Secretary of State. There was, therefore, doubt as to whether they could be termed staff of a Scottish Secretary and accordingly be civil servants within the terms of the Bill. These amendments will put that matter right.

      1279
      I hope that that explanation, though brief, will be satisfactory to the Committee on a fairly minor matter.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Brittan: I have no objection to the amendments as proposed, but I have a question to raise on a small matter of grammar. It seems curious that the proposed subsection (4) should provide that
      "Her Majesty may by Order in Council designate any person for the purposes of this section".
      I should have expected these persons to be designated as something, but as worded the amendment seems to leave them in the air. What is meant is obvious, but I should think it preferable to put it in somewhat clearer form, since designation ought to be designation as something.
      There is no matter of controversy between us, but perhaps the proposed subsection could be tidied up.
      Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has raised a matter of taste and style in the drafting rather than one of substance. I should point out that it is designation
      "for the purposes of this section".
      However, I shall look at it again. I think that it is clear as drafted, but since the hon. Gentleman has asked us to think about it again, we shall do so.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 559, in page 30, line 24, leave out from 'been' to 'above' in line 25 and insert—
      'serving in any such capacity as is mentioned in subsections (1) and (2)'.
      No. 560, in page 30, line 29, at end add—
      '(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council designate any person for the purposes of this section; and references in this section to an officer or servant of a Scottish Secretary shall include any person so designated.'—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Dalyell: I wish to raise a question which I put on an earlier and, perhaps, not so apt occasion as this. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for three years, and I know of the great assistance given to that Committee
      1280
      by the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff.
      What is the Government's thinking about the establishment of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department for the Scottish Assembly, and where do they expect all the necessary skill to come from? This is a highly specialised job. Would the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General be appointed from the existing Comptroller and Auditor General's Department? It is not all that easy to hive off 40 or 50 people from an existing organisation, and one cannot imagine that the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department in Scotland could have many fewer than 40 if it were to do its job properly. For the United Kingdom, the number of staff is over 600.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, therefore, to tell us the Government's thinking on the mechanics of the provision of a Comptroller and Auditor General's Department at Edinburgh.
      Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised this matter previously at a time when we were considering another question, and I think that this is the appropriate point for it. The proposal in the Bill is that the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General will have his own staff, who will be members of the Home Civil Service. The detailed staffing arrangements will be for the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General to consider in due course.
      I should say that there has been representation made to the Government from the Exchequer and Audit Department Association suggesting that there might be a common citizenship concept for dealing with this matter. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent some form of common citizenship arrangement being devised. It is used by some Government Departments.
      Obviously, in the context of different Administrations the question is slightly more complicated, but the Bill does not rule that device out. It is one of the matters which we should like to discuss with the Scottish Administration when it is in being.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to continue this discussion, but how exactly does the

      1281
      concept of common citizenship enter into the matter? I ask that question in ignorance, because I do not understand. Perhaps the Minister would care to write to me.
      Mr. Smith: I do not think I need write to my hon. Friend. It is, in effect, the sharing of a common pool of staff. Already the Departments of Transport and of the Environment have common citizenship, as do the Departments of Trade, of Industry and of Prices and Consumer Protection.
      This is a matter which has to be discussed with the Scottish Administration. The Bill, as I say, does not rule out such a possibility, and the Government have it under active consideration in preparing for the new Assembly and Administration.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 65

      RATE SUPPORT GRANTS
      Mr. George Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 491, in page 30, line 41, leave out
      'have regard to such considerations'
      and insert
      'act in accordance with such directions'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: We may consider at the same time Amendment No. 492, in page 31, line 1, leave out 'bring to his notice' and insert 'make'.
      Mr. Younger: These amendments enable us to have a look, albeit brief, at the future of the rate support grant after the Assembly is set up. Our object here is to insert more clarity into the nature of the future relationship between those involved in the rate support grant order negotiations at every level.
      In order to explain the amendment, we must look for a moment at the rate support grants in general and how they work relative to the new proposed system. As the Committee knows, the rate support grant is now the main, and in many respects the only, organ of Government support for local government in Scotland and England—but as far as we are concerned, for local government in Scotland.
      1282
      It is an immensely complex system. It involves a great deal of calculation behind the scenes by the Civil Service and by local government officials.
      In general the system is that, in consultation with each other, the Civil Service and local officials draw up an agreed total of aggregate expenditure expected to be incurred in the years in question by the local authorities. They then, as a separate calculation, parcel this out, according to what I always regard as immensely complicated formulae, among the various local authorities involved.
      I stress the complication of all this because I doubt whether anyone on the Government Benches will dispute that we who are not involved in these negotiations always find it extremely difficult to get into the swing of understanding the negotiations each year when they take place. I personally find that if I have to indulge in a period of study of them for some particular debate, by the end of it I think that I am beginning to understand something about it, but when I come back to it again in the next year, I might as well have started from scratch because it has all gone again.
      In the future, the system will be further complicated by the fact that there are to be two completely different sources of local authority expenditure. In Schedule 15 there is a list of what are to be in the future the reserved functions of local authorities and other bodies. These are the functions which to be reserved entirely to the decision of central Government through the Secretary of State, although they are carried out by local government or other bodies either to a very great extent or entirely.
      There is on page 28 a long list of functions. Some of them are fairly small ones and some are very big ones. The most obviously big one at the beginning is that of police, which is an extremely expensive service. It will continue once the Scottish Assembly is set up to be administered as it is now, by local government. It will be grant aided, of course, in the way that it is now, with the exception that the local authorities will have to rely upon getting the support for this, as of now, as part of the rate support grant settlement. But this will now be made up differently, in that the Secretary of State and central Government will have

      1283
      to negotiate with the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive to establish what element in the rate support grant will be relevant to these reserved functions.
      This is where the necessity for our amendment comes in. If the Committee will imagine the situation, it will be that for, as an example, the police—a very expensive service—the Scottish Executive and the Ministers under the Scottish Secretary will be told by the United Kingdom Government, through the Secretary of State, what the Secretary of State thinks is necessary for running the police service, or running any of the other services mentioned in Schedule 15.
      The words written into the Bill which I wish to delete by the amendment are that the Scottish Secretary shall
      "have regard to such considerations affecting reserved functions as the Secretary of State may bring to his notice."
      That seems to be a pretty good euphemism for what I imagine will happen.
      If the Scottish Secretary and the Scottish Executive are merely to have regard to such considerations as are drawn to their attention, surely what it means is that they will have to carry out what the Secretary of State tells them. If the Secretary of State says that £50 million will be needed to run the police service through local government in the coming year, the Scottish Executive will have no option. It will have to "have regard to" that, as it is put in the Bill. It will certainly have to accept that figure. No doubt it can argue if it wants to. But I cannot see—I hope that we can be assured that this is not the case—it being able successfully to deny the validity of the figure that is presented to it by the Secretary of State.
      For this reason we think that the wording in the Bill ought to reflect the imperative nature of the requisition on the Scottish Secretary by central Government. Therefore, it would read from line 40 on page 30:
      "The Scottish Secretary shall act in accordance with such directions affecting reserved functions as the Secretary of State may make."
      Our contention, therefore, is that the words that we wish to insert much more accurately convey what I believe will be the situation.
      1284
      For that reason, I very much hope that the Government will accept the two amendments, because it is surely desirable that there should be no doubt in anyone's mind of the nature of the relationship.
      I make one or two points about the relationship between the Secretary of State's interest and the Scottish Secretary's interest in the rate support grant order. The first point that I make is in the nature of a question. It is a fundamental question as to the drafting of the Bill, on which I would ask the Secretary of State for some advice. I may have got it wrong, but it appears to me that the nature of the wording may be defective.
      8.30 p.m.
      As the Committee knows, the Scottish Assembly will be empowered to legislate within the scope of many of the functions that we are giving to it. One of those functions is local government. The Assembly will be able to legislate on local government.
      It follows from that that the Scottish Assembly will be able to change the rate support grant system in future if it wishes to do so. I presume that a Bill could be introduced into the Assembly, which could pass it and make it an Act of the Scottish Assembly, for an entirely new subsidy system.
      The Scottish Assembly is not empowered to alter, repeal or amend the Scotland Act, as this Bill will become when passed. But it can alter, repeal or amend the Local Government Acts. Therefore, what will happen if in the future the Scottish Assembly were to decide to have a completely new subsidy system which was unsuitable, perhaps, or did not work in very well with the interests of the Secretary of State and the Government in the supporting of the reserved functions? We should then have two different systems of local government financial support—first, the RSG system, which for the reserved functions would be continuing, I presume; second, a new system brought in by legislation of the Scottish Assembly.
      First, I should like to know whether I am right in thinking that this complete difference could take place between the two bodies in the future. My second question follows from the first. If it is

      1285
      the case that we could move towards two different systems because of the different political control of each part of the setup, would it not be wiser to operate this system as laid down in the Bill by having two RSG settlements instead of one that is bundled in with another?
      I see no reason why the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Government or the Scottish Office should not draw up their own RSG arrangements exactly as they do now for their own reserved functions, of which they are retaining control, and pass that to local government. The Scottish Assembly and the First Secretary and his Ministers have no standing in this matter at all. It is a central Government responsibility.
      The Secretary of State could have his RSG settlement exactly as he does now, calculated and discussed as it is now, exactly as it has always been, and the Scottish Secretary could have his RSG settlement, again calculated as it is now, in negotiations between the Scottish Executive and Scottish Ministers and the local authority association, COSLA. If that were done, many of the undesirable features of the present joint system would be eliminated.
      That brings me to my next point, which concerns the nature of the support in future that central Government will give for their central functions. It seems to me that we are working back—not wittingly; I think unwittingly—to the old system of specific grants, which we have been trying to get away with—[HON. MEMBERS: 'Oh."] It was a Freudian slip. We have been trying to get away from that system.
      I take again the example of the police, as it is, perhaps, the clearest and most obvious example. What will happen is that the local authorities will receive in future a specific grant for police. They will not be able—I hope that I can be assured that this is true, anyway—to pocket the portion of RSG which is earmarked for police support and decide to cut down the police force and spend the money on bigger hospitals. It is important that everyone concerned should be assured that that will not be so.
      That again emphasises the absolute wall that we are building between these two chunks of the RSG. That wall is patently there, in my opinion—unless I
      1286
      have got all this wrong. I should be delighted to be corrected if I have it wrong. It seems to me that we are building in between the two chunks of the RSG a wall that absolutely demands that we recognise these two sections of RSG, negotiated by two sets of individuals, two different Government Departments—the Scottish Executive's Department and the Secretary of State's Department representing the United Kingdom Government.
      There is a great deal more to think and talk about and to cause concern in this innocuous clause. There is much more than at first appears. The amendments are designed to do quite a simple job on the face of it—to represent as faithfully as we can in language the nature of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Scottish Executive and Scottish Ministers when it comes to those subjects which local government administers but which central Government have the total interest in controlling and for which they proide the whole rate support grant money.
      The two amendments are a genuine attempt to make the wording of the Bill more closely correspond to the reality of the situation. Going with them are the other questions, which go much wider. I shall understand if the Secretary of State cannot give a full answer tonight, because we shall have to return to the subject in another place, and if we are ever given time—a matter about which we cannot feel confident these days—at another stage in the House of Commons.
      I hope that I shall carry every hon. Member with me when I say that the rate support grant system is in all conscience difficult enough to understand anyway. If we are to put into it two different sources and two different methods, with two different Government Departments dealing with COSLA and the local authorities in Scotland, the complexity that we find difficult now will become almost impossible. In the interest of clarity and correctness, to make it easier for all to know where they stand, I very much hope that the amendments will be accepted.
      Mr. Dalyell: I made a long speech on the previous amendment, and it would be unfair of me to detain the Committee for long now. But the amendment raises

      1287
      the question of the increasing disquiet felt by many local authority heavyweights in Scotland about the idea of having to deal with both an Assembly and the previous people with whom they have dealt.
      Therefore, I repeat that people such as Councillor Charles Snedden of the Central Region and some of his colleagues who have to deal with finance, people such as Councillor Alex Bell in the Lothian Region, say to me more and more that they are extremely concerned about the future of local government as they have known it. They wonder whether the present Government have any idea how the Assembly will tie in with local government.
      I leave it with one question: how do these arrangements fit in with the continued existence of the regions? If we keep them, there will certainly again be heavy duplication in the financial structures, which are difficult enough and which the Bill seems to make even more complicated.
      Mr. J. Grimond: The rate support grant is indeed of great importance and considerable complexity.
      I notice in the schedule that it is not only police but ports that are reserved functions of local authorities and other bodies. I share the desire of those who want to see as much clarity in this matter as we can give. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to spend a minute or two explaining how he sees the working of the clause. I am not so far convinced that the amendment will add to clarity. If it does, so much the better.
      I should like first to ask whether the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who moved the amendment, is right in saying that it would be open to the Assembly to set up an entirely new subsidy system, as he described it. I am not clear that that would be so. That might be challenged, probably successfully, as going outside the Assembly's powers as stated earlier in the Bill.
      My second question concerns the consultations with associations of local authorities and consultation generally. At present rather elaborate consultations go on. Although there are complaints about them, those who take part in them
      1288
      usually come out from them feeling that they have made their point and that some attention has been paid to it. Is it the intention of the clause that this form of consultation will carry on? I follow that it may be with different people, but I take it that the same type of consultation is intended.
      Such consultations will have to be tripartite. The hon. Member for Ayr spoke of building walls and of returning from the system of general grants to specific grants for specific circumstances. I was not certain whether he wanted the walls to be erected higher or removed altogether. If we have two systems the walls would be thicker and higher. It seems that the consultations must be tripartite to some extent. If, for instance, the police is a reserved subject, it will have to be a subject of which the consultations with the Scottish Secretary will take some account.
      I should be grateful if it could be explained how these consultations will be carried on. Although I see that to have an absolutely firm direction, as the amendment suggests, might increase the size and height of the wall, it might clarify matters and make it easier for local authorities to understand with whom they have to deal. I hope that the Secretary of State will do his best to enlighten us on these points.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The amendment deals with a complex and important matter. Although the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said that he found difficulty at the best of times in understanding the rate support grant, he made a pretty good fist at it with his amendment. He has raised a number of interesting matters.
      The rate support grant will continue. That does not mean that it will continue in its present form for all time. The Scottish Assembly could, to answer the question of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), decide to give financial assistance to local authorities in some different way. As a matter of practicality, the Assembly will probably find, in the early days, and possibly for a good length of time afterwards, that it would be sensible to continue with something like the present system.

      1289
      Whatever complaints there may be about the rate support grant system, it is one that has been built up over many years. It has been refined through consultations between local authorities and the Scottish Office so as to meet individual circumstances and cope with the needs and resources of individual authorities. In my view, it is not something which would be lightly abandoned by any Scottish Executive. The system can be refined further, and made even more fair and equitable. A lot of thought has been given to it over the years, and no doubt the Scottish Executive would want to look at it carefully before making radical changes.
      It would be within the power of the Assembly to make radical changes, but we are dealing with the situation as it is. The clause was drafted in such a way as to enable the necessary adjustments to be made if the system were radically changed. That might involve Assembly legislation, but, in so far as there might be an impact on reserved functions, Westminster legislation might be involved. That is something that could apply to anything in this Bill when there is a relationship between what will be done by the Assembly and the House of Commons. Alteration in the legislation of one place may require corresponding alterations elsewhere. In principle we are not in any different situation when dealing with the rate support grant.
      8.45 p.m.
      For the purposes of the clause it is assumed that the responsibility for the rate support grant negotiations will be taken over by the Scottish Executive. That is because the vast majority of local authority functions are devolved functions, and the individual Scottish Secretaries will, therefore, be responsible for these functions. The Secretary for Finance—or whoever it is in the Executive who deals with these matters—will presumably go through the negotiations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as I do at present. There is a system of consultation. We have, I think, three formal meetings, and an enormous amount of work is done behind the scenes through local government finance working parties, in which local authority officials and my own officials are involved.
      1290
      I cannot give a guarantee that the Executive will run the system in exactly that way in the future, but I think that, as a matter of common sense and convenience, as these consultations and the system of consultations have been built up over the years, one must assume that things will continue in that particular way. The system basically will carry on as it is at present, with the very important exception that it will be the Scottish Executive, rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland, which will have the negotiations with COSLA.
      That raises the important question of what happens about the reserved functions. Although it is true that the vast majority of the functions will go to the Scottish Assembly, there are certain reserved functions, outlined in Schedule 15, which will remain with the Secretary of State for Scotland and will have to be financially supported in the same way as the services are supported at the present time.
      It is, of course, important to point out that rate support grant is a general and not a specific grant. It is something that provides for Government assistance to a whole range of services. Although certain discussions take place between Government and COSLA as to the development of individual services—and certain estimates are made as to likely expenditure, so that there is an aggregate total of relevant expenditure on which rate support grant is calculated—once the grant is paid the local authority is absolutely free to use it in any way it desires.
      That is the essence of the rate support grant system, and it is something to which the authorities attach a great deal of importance. The general authority view is that it is better to have a general grant arrangement of that sort, which gives the authorities scope for deciding their own priorities, rather than to have a system of grants which are specific and which relate the Government help to individual services.
      That is the general situation and we have tried to maintain that within the new framework that we are establishing here. In other words, we look on the general support to local authorities, even for the reserved services, as coming from the rate support grant negotiations

      1291
      between COSLA and the Executive. That is why we require a clause which enables the Secretary of State for Scotland to be responsible for a certain amount of input, so to speak, into the system before the final negotiations are concluded. For that reason, in Clause 65(2) we say that
      "a Scottish Secretary shall have regard to such considerations affecting reserved functions as the Secretary of State may bring to his notice".
      Why did we use that language rather than the language suggested in the amendment? The hon. Gentleman suggested that the language in the amendment is a more accurate indication of what will happen, but I do not think that that is true. Suppose that we were to direct, as was suggested—the hon. Gentleman thought that we should have statutory authority for it—that for a certain reserved function a certain amount of money should be put in as the relevant expenditure, and that this were decided between ourselves and COSLA without the Scottish Executive being involved, and the Executive then disagreed with that item of expenditure. If there were a specific direction it would not bite in practice, because an adjustment could easily be made by deducting the amount in dispute from some other item that was part of the total relevant expenditure—or, for that matter, by deducting it from the total. The grant is not based on individual items but on a total. Therefore, if there were a practical difficulty the Executive could make an adjustment elsewhere. One would, therefore, be making a direction and establishing the wrong relationship, instead of consultations, which I hope will be carried out on a reasonably friendly level.
      If one puts it in the sense that the Secretary of State is directing or dictating to the Executive we shall probably get more difficulty and more chance of dispute. At the end of the day the Secretary of State for Scotland would not be able effectively to dictate what would go into the settlement because an adjustment could be made elsewhere over which he would have no control. That is the reason we have drafted the clause in this way, although I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman has moved the amendment. I believe that he has raised some interesting issues in doing so.
      1292
      I should like to go on and say something about the police, which is the main reserved function. Although there will be consultations between the Secretary of State and the Scottish Executive, the RSG negotiations will not be on a tripartite basis, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The Secretary of State will have certain discussions with COSLA about reserved functions, specifically the police. The Scottish Executive will have the general RSG negotiations about the main generalities—the 90 per cent, or more of local authority expenditure relating to devolved functions. It is not provided in the Bill that there will be a tripartite negotiation. Indeed, I would consider it improper for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be involved in negotiations about devolved functions.
      Speaking for myself, whatever there was in the way of informal discussions on expenditure as a whole, I would not see myself—if I were Secretary of State in those circumstances—being involved in those negotiations. I am pretty sure that the Scottish Executive would not want me to be concerned, and nor would the local authorities. So far as I was dealing with reserved functions I would be having my own discussions; but those discussions, having taken place, the input has to go into the RSG negotiations, as I have already explained, because the generality of the RSG will still come through the Scottish Executive.
      That raises the question whether in practice there might be some difficulty if there were a difference of view as to the correct level of relevant expenditure for the reserved functions. I am talking about a difference of view between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Executive or a difference of view involving COSLA as well. If there were a real danger of that not only happening but making a substantial financial difference as well, the hon. Gentleman's solution—which is to break the thing completely—would have a considerable amount of merit, although it would almost mean making the reserved functions specifically granted rather than setting up an entirely separate RSG negotiation so that two separate negotiations would be going on.
      In practice, I think that the amounts of money involved, in terms of the

      1293
      generality of local government expenditure, are not so great that we would want to go for that system. I say that for two reasons. First, as I have already said, the reserved functions are rather less than 10 per cent, in terms of total local authority expenditure. Secondly, the overwhelming item is, of course, police and traffic warden expenditure.
      I have figures for 1978–79, although I should not like to be wholly bound by them because the reserved functions contain a number of minor items which we have not yet identified. We reckon that the identifiable reserved services amount to about £138 million, which is between 9 and 10 per cent, of total local authority expenditure next year. When we have identified some other items the figure might rise to £140 million, but it will certainly be a figure of that kind. Of that figure the police and traffic wardens represent no less than £129 million, and in addition to the police the Civil Defence and sheltered workshops are specifically granted. Out of that figure of £138 million, less than £10 million is specifically granted at present, and that will be reserved to the Secretary of State.
      In regard to matters which are not devolved, the Committee will see that paragraph 5 of Part II of Schedule 10 reserves grants
      "for specific purposes relating to reserved functions of local authorities".
      In other words, the specific amount of 50 per cent, for police services, which is the main reserved function, will remain with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Scotland will not only decide the relevant expenditure in consultation with COSLA but will make a specific grant as well. What will come through the rate support grant will be the residual amount that comes through the normal RSG calculations. That will still come via the rate support grant even in respect of the police, but it will be a small proportion of what local authorities will be receiving in respect of the police. Therefore, in practice the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention will not be likely to make a great deal of difference.
      We are not saying that this is the only way of dealing with this complicated matter, but we felt that it would maintain
      1294
      the rate support grant system for devolved functions and for as many of the non-devolved functions as we thought we could legitimately grant. We believe that this will be for the convenience of everybody, including the local authorities. At the same time, with regard to the reserved functions, there is a safeguard in both financial and statutory terms. Therefore, the most important of these functions—that relating to the police—is not likely in practice to be neglected. I hope that with that explanation of this complicated matter the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not think my right hon. Friend dealt with the relationship with the regions. He may have overlooked that matter.
      Mr. Millan: The answer is that the clause makes no difference to the situation. The general question of the relationship between local government and the Scottish Executive is a wide one. As Ministers have made clear on numerous occasions, it will be possible for the Executive to reform local government, if that is what the Assembly wishes to do. However, this clause as drafted does not have much effect on the wider issue.
      Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for a most interesting reply, which has answered many questions and helped to clarify how the new system will work. However, it raises a few important points which should go on the record.
      It appears that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind an extra stage in the rate support grant negotiations, which as a first step will take the form of bilateral negotiations. There would be the preparatory work, and there would then be bilateral discussion between the Secretary of State and COSLA on these reserved functions on the one hand, and between the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Secretary and COSLA for the non-reserved functions. Only after those two bilateral negotiations have been completed would they be put together, and the rate support grant negotiation would take place between the Scottish Secretary and COSLA. The Secretary of State would not be involved.
      Therefore it follows that in the general rate support grant negotiations there

      1295
      would be no chance of altering that section which related to reserved functions. That would be on the table as a fixed, agreed amount and, to that extent, the negotiations will be pre-determined as regards reserved functions.
      9.0 p.m.
      I take the Secretary of State's point that the vast majority of the expenditure on reserved functions relates to police and that the vast majority of that expenditure is specifically granted now and will be specifically granted in future by virtue of the provisions at the foot of page 50. In fact, we are leaving the vast majority of the responsibility for police, traffic wardens and so on with the Secretary of State. That should be clearly understood so that we all know where we are.
      Two other things arise from what the Secretary of State has said—and his explanations have been helpful. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that the whole system could be changed by the Assembly, though I take his point that the Assembly may not want to meddle with the system. Equally, it is possible that Whitehall might want to change its side of the bargain.
      I understood the Secretary of State to say that the wording in Clause 65 is sufficiently flexible to cover any of these eventualities. If it is not, this matter should be looked at carefully before the Bill leaves the House so that we may see whether it can be improved. It is important that we should not let it go through in a form which fetters either side in changing the system.
      Mr. Dalyell: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine a situation in which the Assembly would not want to change things, given that one authority—that in Strathclyde—will be half the size of the Assembly?
      Mr. Younger: That is a good point. I agree with the Secretary of State that the Assembly, if it has any sense, will be chary of changing this complicated system because it will take Assembly Members some time to understand it. However, there will be strong pressures, and that brings me to my next point.
      The Secretary of State made clear that it is possible for the Scottish Assembly to change the rules in the middle of the
      1296
      game. It may be granted so many hundreds of millions of pounds under agreed calculations of what the money is needed for, and then spend it on quite different programmes. I accept that the specific element of the central Government grant cannot be changed, but there is nothing sacrosanct about the allocation of the sums agreed in the negotiations. The money approved for education, hospitals, housing or anything else could be used for different purposes. The Secretary of State has also admitted that the portion of the money provided for the reserved functions which is not specifically granted could be used for other things.
      In making this legislation we must allow for the worst cases as well as for the best cases. If all concerned wish to make the system work, it could probably be made to work, but we must envisage the worst situations. We must think this through and take into account the possibility of a thoroughly hostile relationship between the two parties.
      We must consider the clause in the light of accepting that it is possible—some would say extremely likely—that there will be strong pressures to spend the money that is granted for quite different purposes than those for which it was voted. Further, we would be unrealistic if we did not face the fact that there will be a bargaining system. Such a system is bound to develop from time to time. If the Assembly gets at loggerheads ideologically with central Government at Westminster, it will try to bargain something that it wants to get out of Westminster in return for spending money on certain things in certain ways.
      The right hon. Gentleman has fairly admitted that it will still be open for the money to be spent in ways quite different from those envisaged in the rate support grant calculations. That is something that he should recognise. I should like to know what he thinks he would do if lie went to next year's rate support grant discussions and found that last year's grant had been completely misallocated in the spending of it. Would he have any sanction that he could apply? What action would he intend to take, or would he think that it did not matter?
      I ask the Secretary of State to tell us whether it would be possible for the Assembly quite deliberately to accept a rate support grant and deliberately to

      1297
      underspend on important matters affecting local government, relying upon local government to raise the necessary shortfall by increasing the rates. If that were so, it would be tantamount to giving the Assembly a right of taxation, something which many have wanted it to have and which so far has been said to be impossible. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to allay my fears? It is my understanding that it would be possible for the Assembly to take a rate support grant settlement of £500 million and to ensure, for example, that it spent £50 million short on local government services, thereby forcing local government to raise extra money through the rates and altering the whole balance of the system between central Government and the Assembly.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to answer my questions. They are not raised with any destructive intent. I believe it necesary that we try to legislate for the worst situation. There is no problem with the best situation. If everybody happily goes along with the system, wanting it to work and determined that it shall be made to work, clearly it can be made to work. However, we must legislate after having taken into account situations which are bound to occur from time to time in which there is a deliberate intention not to make the system work.
      I hope that I shall not tread on too delicate ground when I offer an example that I believe will wash out any rosy ideas that Ministers may have that everything will always be sweetness and light. There is no doubt that the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish Standing Committee system in the House of Commons has, at various times during the past 15 years, been deliberately operated upon by those who did not wish it to work to ensure that it would not work. Incidentally, that is a great deal of the reason for our being where we are today.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will regard my remarks as being constructive. I stress that we must ensure that we legislate for the worst situation as well as the best. I hope that he will now answer some of my questions.
      Mr. Millan: I am glad to answer some of the questions of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).
      1298
      First, the hon. Gentleman is formally right and accurate in how he describes the way in which the negotiations will take place. However, the discussions between COSLA and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the reserved functions will be a much less complicated matter than the discussions between COSLA and whatever Scottish Secretary is responsible for them at the Scottish Executive level. That is because they will be dealing not only with much less expenditure and a very restricted range of functions but with a simpler operation because of the specific grant for police. With that qualification, I accept that the hon. Gentleman accurately described what would happen.
      Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the rate support grant system could be changed and whether the Bill as drafted would comprehend and deal with any other system that might be put in its place. We have drawn the clause in a way that we think will fit amendments to the rate support grant system as we know it. But if the system were replaced by something entirely different, the clause would not bite.
      Legislation may be passed by the Assembly on many matters which affect relationships with Westminster, and we may have to make corresponding changes here. Equally, we may make changes here which have an impact on Assembly legislation. Therefore, it was impossible to draft a clause which would bite not only on the rate support grant system but on some other system, not yet invented, for supporting local authorities. But for this system and any variation within the limits that we know now—we change the formula from one year to another in modest ways to affect redistribution and so on—the clause is perfectly adequate.
      Mr. Younger: We must envisage the Scottish Assembly changing the system and the Westminster Government not changing or refusing to change it. In those circumstances, would the clause still be operative as regards the reserved functions?
      Mr. Millan: Yes. We shall have to assume that as a matter of common-sense where there is an inter-relationship. First, legislation does not go through the

      1299
      House of Commons overnight and presumably it will not go through the Assembly overnight. There will be some informal coming and going. No one would want a system which did not fit together. The local authorities would have a strong view to express on this matter. As a matter of practical politics, we do not want a system, invented by either the Assembly or Westminster, that is so out of joint with what is happening at the other place that it does not work and local authorities are grossly inconvenienced. We must assume that that will not happen.
      The last two matters raised by the hon. Member for Ayr rested on a misunderstanding not of the rate support grant but of the block fund system from Westminster to the Assembly.
      The rate support grant that the Scottish Executive will pay to local authorities in Scotland will come out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The block fund from Westminster to the Assembly will not identify specific elements for rate support grant. Still less will it identify specific elements for individual services within the rate support grant.
      The problem about which the hon. Gentleman was worried—that the Assembly would get money for one item and use it for another—will not arise, because the block fund is not specifically allocated to a particular service. The real problem, if it is one—I am not admitting that it is—is present now. The rate support grant, being a general grant, leaves it open to local auhorities to spend the money on other items, and they do.
      When we discussed the rate support grant for 1978–79 we noticed that the actual expenditure for 1976–77 was, in a number of instances, different from the calculation of aggregate relevant expenditure. There was no reason why that should not be so. The local authorities were free to use the money in whatever ways they thought fit. They were not bound to use it on an individual service because it was identified at a particular level of expenditure in the previous rate support grant negotiations. There will be no difference in terms of local authorities using the rate support grant for other purposes when the Scottish Executive deals with the matter.
      1300
      The hon. Member for Ayr was under a misapprehension about the block fund arrangements between Westminster and the Assembly. It will be possible for the Assembly to alter the general relationship in terms of expenditure between itself and the local authorities just as this Government have altered the RSG every year. Certainly, while I have had responsibility we have increased and reduced the RSG. That alters the balance of revenue raising between central Government taxation and local taxation. As regards the Assembly, it will alter the balance between what is raised by local taxation and what is paid out of the block fund.
      The Assembly may be more generous—that is, reduce the rate and pay more out of the block fund—or less generous. In principle, that is what happens now. The decisions about the balance between local taxation and other ways of raising money are taken after consultation by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Those decisions will be taken in future by the Scottish Executive, but such decisions will basically be the same. They will be taken in the light of exactly the same kind of considerations that influence or determine the Secretary of State's decision at present.
      The debate has gone slightly beyond the amendment into the clause as a whole, but I hope that it will have clarified some of the financial relationships which I agree are extremely important and in which the local authorities have a keen interest.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Robert Adley: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for most of the debate but I hope that the Minister will answer a question. Perhaps this is one of the few opportunities that we shall have to raise the question of tourism, which is dealt with in the Bill. There seems to be little or no chance of debating it.
      Are the rights within the Bill for the Scottish Tourist Board to advertise itself overseas and to take over the functions within Scotland, which are at present under legislative arrangements, reserved to the BTA, to be under the RSG arrangements or under the Assembly Fund arrangements? Would the Minister say something about this important matter? It is little short of a scandal that the constitution of the British Tourist

      1301
      Authority is to be completely changed and that the Committee is given no opportunity to discuss the matter.
      Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the Minister for his answers. I have one important comment to make about them. Finally we have got out of the Secretary of State a matter of great importance. He has made it clear that in effect the Scottish Assembly will have a tax-raising power. It will be able to save money on its block grant, which will be given on the understanding that it will be spent on a range of services which will be discussed in detail during negotiations, and to spend that money on something quite different. It will then be able to recoup that sum by raising rates from the ratepayers of Scotland.
      Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is nothing to prevent the Assembly from doing that if it so wishes? Can he confirm that there is no limit and no protection for the ratepayers?
      Mr. Grimond: This is an important matter. I am sure that what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) says is correct, but if the Assembly saved money by not spending its total grant, it could spend its savings only on something within its powers. Presumably the Assembly would have negotiated the total grant. It cannot simply save money and do something which is not in its power.
      Mr. Younger: I agree. I hope that I am wrong in my conclusion.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) saying that this is a back door way into the levy on rates which was discussed on the White Paper?
      Mr. Younger: That is exactly what I am saying. I hope that I am wrong. There are good arguments for saying that the Assembly should have a tax-raising power, but I am not arguing that tonight. I am saying that we have unravelled from the Secretary of State that the Assembly will have the ability to do this. It will be able to spend its block grant on matters within its powers. It will be able to spend more than is expected on one part of its functions and make up the shortfall by forcing local authorities to raise rates at a higher level. There is no safeguard for the ratepayers against that.
      1302
      Hon. Members may regard that as good or bad, but at least in the debate we have unearthed the truth, and I hope that that will be noted and carefully considered before we proceed much further.
      Mr. Millan: I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is not seeking to give the impression that he has extracted some terrible admission. This fact has been clear all along. If he is only now appreciating it, that is too bad. This matter has nothing to do with the Government. The negotiations on rate support grant, and therefore the ultimate impact on ratepayers, will pass to the Scottish Executive. That has been crystal clear all along, and the local authorities understand it very well.
      The point raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) does not arise on this amendment or this clause. But where tourism expenditure is involved with local authorities as distinct from the Scottish Tourist Board, that is relevant expenditure under the rate support grant and nothing in the Bill will change it.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: Do I have it right? Assuming that expenditure from the block grant on housing exceeds the official amount and leads to a shortfall on education, will that shortfall be met by an increase in rates?
      Mr. Millan: Some of these points are rudimentary. The block fund—and this is the essence of the arrangement—will give the Scottish Executive the opportunity to distribute its expenditure as it wishes. If it wants to spend less on housing and more on education, or vice versa, it will be free to do that. If that were all determined in advance, there would be no scope for the independent initiation of policies.
      Mr. Younger: I do not wish to criticise the Secretary of State. He has been most helpful this evening. But I want to make clear to everyone who reads the debate what is happening. If this fact has always been known, why did everyone reject out of hand the idea of a surcharge on the rates? It was said that all sorts of undesirable factors would result. It is now clear that such an approach is possible for the Scottish Assembly.

      1303
      We have had a good answer from the Secretary of State. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Dalyell: Rudimentary though these points may or may not be, I hope I may be forgiven for wondering whether the members of Scottish local authorities realise that money can be raised in this way. Whatever my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may say, this will be news to a number of them, I know. After all, we had an endless discussion on the question of raising money through a levy on the rates, and local authority members and people such as Dr. Cecil Stout, director of finance for the Edinburgh district, endlessly in seminars and elsewhere, argued the case how wrong it would be for the Assembly to depend on finance raised by the local authorities through traditional methods.
      We seem to have stumbled, as we so often do in these debates, on truths which should have been obvious to some of us. It was not obvious to me from all the debates we have sat through. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement, so I think that I am not the only one who is puzzled.
      We must, therefore, discuss at some length, though not perhaps on this occasion, whether it is right for a subordinate Parliament to be financed through ways which have been traditional to the local authorities. I shall be very interested to send a copy of the present exchanges to Mr. Graham Spiers, the secretary of COSLA, and to other local authority members to find out whether I have been as obtuse and ignorant as might seem to be the case. In my view, this must be cleared up.
      I turn now to another matter. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) talked about ideological problems. It is not a matter only of ideological problems. On the last amendment we went over the ground regarding what would happen if there were a Conservative Minister in London and a Labour Scottish Secretary in Edinburgh, and vice versa. But the whole position is an adversary position. There is no chance of its not being so.
      1304
      Sometimes a hypothetical model is produced, on the assumption that all are men of good will. If we had all been people of good will, we should not have been here in the first place, and this situation would not have arisen. In these debates, I do not accuse and have never, I believe, accused SNP Members of being men of ill will. No question of their being people of good will or ill will comes into it. But they happen, perfectly honourably, to want something which is entirely different from what others want.
      My hon. Friends and I—this goes for the Government Front Bench as well as for Back Benchers, including those who think as I do and those who do not, as well as most members of the main Opposition party—want something fundamentally different from what the SNP wants. Therefore, it is not a question of ill will or otherwise. It is a matter of wanting to change things, not just settling in and being as co-operative as possible.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of exaggerating his position? I accept, of course, that our aims in the Scottish National Party are defined in our policy, just as the aims of other parties are defined in theirs. But does he not accept that in many matters, such as detailed negotiation on the rate support grant and so on, positions can be negotiated? These matters are negotiable, and in many instances will be settled by negotiation.
      Mr. Dalyell: Yes, but I must in all candour add that they will be settled to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction only on his terms, which entail something approaching a separate State. He may be reasonable in his negotiations, and quiet as he was in his speech last week, but there are many members of his party who certainly would not settle for that kind of quiet negotiation. That is a fact of life which we have to face.
      I do not want to take up more time, save to put a specific question on the wording of subsection (2) of Clause 65:
      "… a Scottish Secretary shall have regard to such considerations affecting reserved functions as the Secretary of State may bring to his notice after consulting with such associations of local authorities: as appear to him to be concerned and before the conclusion of the consultations required by that subsection."

      1305
      What is meant by "shall have regard to"? In any sort of adversary situation, it can be interpreted according to pleasure. In fact, the wording is very loose. This is a grey area. Once again, we come back to the problem of grey areas and of vagueness, which in itself is a recipe for conflict.
      If the Secretary of State wants to rebut me on that, he will doubtless do so, so I put my question in these terms: to what extent is this a grey area, and does he accept the charge of loose wording?
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish to record the fact that, like the Secretary of State, I am exceedingly surprised at the response of the hon. Member for Ay (Mr. Younger) and, perhaps, less surprisingly, that of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the self-evident statement by the Secretary of State that the Assembly will have the right to vary the rate support grant that it gives to local authorities. It is as if the hon. Members had just purchased a house and suddenly discovered a skeleton in the attic. [An HON. MEMBER:"A family heirloom."]
      That is a most unrealistic response. It is not a question of the Assembly being given some sort of back door method of raising money. The whole basis of this devolutionary proposal is that the Assembly should have the power to disburse its resources, which come in the form of a block grant, as it feels appropriate. That is not an astonishing matter. It would be very alarming if it were otherwise.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that we could discuss this matter at a later stage. Quite frankly, there will not be an opportunity at a later stage. Therefore, I think it right to ask the Secretary of State on this important point, which has been referred to as so obvious by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), for a few assurances as to what steps can be taken by the Secretary of State on his reserved functions if local authorities are deprived of substantial proportions of revenue because of the action of the Scottish Assembly in spending its block grant.
      1306
      Although the hon. Member for Inverness says that this is something which has been obvious—as, indeed, it has—he must appreciate that we are moving into a new situation. At present, the Scottish Office pays about 71 per cent, of the expenses of local authorities.
      Mr. Millan: It is 68½ per cent.
      Mr. Taylor: Yes, 68½ per cent. It was 71 per cent, under the Conservatives. So 68½ per cent, of local authorities' expenditure is accepted as being his responsibility by the Secretary of State. If, for any reason, he were to reduce that to, say, 50 per cent., with devastating consequences for Scottish ratepayers, there would presumably be a riot in the House of Commons and in the Scottish Grand Committee.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing (Moray and Nairn)That will be the day.
      Mr. Raison: What if it were reduced to the English proportion of 60·5 per cent.?
      Mr. Taylor: If it were reduced to the English proportion, there would be considerable increases in rates in Scotland, and we would not want that. If the Secretary of State were to seek to do such a thing and if the Government did it, there would be great complaint. Hon. Members would understandably blame him and say "You are to blame. Something must be done." If, on the other hand, the Scottish Assembly or the Executive were to do such a thing, as they can, indeed, do—as has been discussed —is it the Assembly and the Executive which would be blamed? I very much doubt it. The Scottish Assembly and Executive would not be blamed. The Scottish Assembly or the Executive could say, as they no doubt would say," The only reason we have had to cut your money and why the rates have had to go up in Moray and Nairn, Dundee, Ayr and everywhere else, is that the Government and the Secretary of State, as our representative in the Cabinet, have been so niggardly in the block grant allocated to us."
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Member not accept that if there were to be a Conservative Administration in the Scottish Executive and the Scottish

      1307
      Assembly, people might as well say that it is the policy of the Conservative Party to reduce public expenditure and that therefore it is the fault of that Conservative Administration in the Scottish Executive? That would be a plain answer.
      Mr. Taylor: We do not want to talk about economic policies now. All that I can say is that Conservative policies in Scotland would work an awful lot better than the present policies, which have landed us with 203,000 unemployed.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As Moray and Nairn was mentioned, may I point out to the hon. Member that we had the situation of a very efficient organisation with rather low rates and wonderful services before regionalisation—which was, I think, supported by his party?
      Mr. Taylor: I was present at the discussions. I can assure the hon. Member that the representative of the Scottish National Party in no way voted against the proposition. Nor did anyone in the Scottish Grand Committee vote against the Local Government (Scotland) Bill on its Second Reading. I was there.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: There was no vote.
      Mr. Taylor: Of course there was no vote, because nobody called a vote. I can assure the hon. Lady that she has a lot to learn. She knows a lot about Europe but not about the Scottish Grand Committee. One can divide the Scottish Grand Committee with one person seeking to do so. The hon. Lady is shaking her head. If she doubts what I have said, that shows how little she knows about Scottish affairs. All I can say is that on Tuesday this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison)—the hon. Lady can ask him about this—alone divided the Scottish Grand Committee. I think that the vote was 13 to 1. That can be done in the Scottish Grand Committee.
      If it did not happen in this case, it was because the nationalist representative so chose. However, we are discussing not the policy of SNP Members, who show an abysmal ignorance of Scotish affairs, but a serious issue that affects local authorities.
      1308
      I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness will take the simple point that whereas if it happened directly people would blame the Secretary of State, if it happened through the Scottish Executive cutting RSGs the Scottish Executive would say that the Secretary of State had not given them enough.
      Let us look at the situation as of today if the clause were in force. We have 203,000 unemployed in Scotland. Understandably, the Scottish Assembly would be under enormous pressure to do something about that. Doing something about it usually means trying to create employment, and spending money. If that were done from the amount allocated by the Government, the only way in which money could be saved would be to reduce the allocation to local authorities. Can we honestly say that a Scottish Assembly would be blamed for so doing? As usual, it would be the Westminster Government to whom all blame would accrue if this Bill came into effect.
      Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Member for Inverness that it is not like the situation as of today. It would be a new ball game. There would be a man at Westminster to blame for all the problems.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I shall do so only briefly. Does he not agree that where we have local authorities at present whose rates are either raised or lowered by whichever party is in control of the local authority area, if the rates are increased it is very often the party in control of the local authority that rightly takes the responsibility, and that the blame is not necessarily transferred to central Government and the amount of rate support grant?
      Mr. Taylor: One usually finds that ratepayers are not daft. If rates rise because the authority has been spendthrift, the party in power is blamed. If, on the other hand, the rates rise in consequence of cuts in the RSG or cuts in the allocation, that is a different matter. I can give a good example. A strange Bill is being put through Parliament now. It will mean that some well-managed housing authorities will lose housing grant and some spendthrift authorities will get more housing grant. The result

      1309
      of this in rate poundage has been explained to us. Councils should make absolutely clear to ratepayers why this has happened.
      The Secretary of State may huff and puff, as he is trying to do. I am sorry that he does not attend our debates more often. If he did, he would learn of the shambles that we shall have if the Bill is passed. I just wish that the Leader of the House would attend even as regularly as the Secretary of State. It would not be much, but it would be something.
      However, I put a straight question to the Secretary of State, which I hope he will answer "Yes" or "No". It concerns the reserved powers available to the Secretary of State, and I am thinking essentially of Clause 37. It appears to me that if—for the sake of argument—a Scottish Assembly were to use its powers in such a way as to reduce grant to local authorities in such a way that rates had to rise substantially, and in consequence jobs were put at risk—as we know that they can be, because the rates in some of our cities so substantially affect jobs—that could be regarded by the Secretary of State as something that would, indirectly or directly, affect a reserved function. Is that so?
      We know that jobs, industry, employment creation and so on are reserved functions. It seems to me that if a Scottish Assembly were to reduce the percentage RSG to local authorities in such a way that rates rose substantially, and jobs were put at risk, that could be claimed to affect a reserved matter.
      I turn to a question that the Secretary of State should have clear in his mind and we would want to have clear in our minds if a Conservative Government came to power with this astonishing Assembly to cope with. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that Clause 37 could be used to protect local authorities against such action by a Scottish Assembly? If I am right in thinking that it could be used in that way, how would the Secretary of State give a direction for action to be taken? Would he give a direction to the Assembly that it must increase its percentage of RSG? If he did not do it in that way, how would he do it?
      We have not had much opportunity to discuss the Secretary of State's reserved powers. He must accept that Clause 37
      1310
      is there for some reason, but he has given us no indication how it could be used. It seems to me that it is one way in which the powers could be used by him. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that even if the Assembly acted irresponsibly, by slashing the proportion of grant being made available for local authorities, he could not cope under Clause 37, the reserved powers are of little value.
      There is no doubt that this is an indirect way of the Assembly's raising revenue. Therefore, I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman this. He may say that it will not happen, that he hopes it will not or thinks it will not, but if the powers were used in such a way, could Clause 37 be used to protect local authorities?
      I have another question to which there is probably a simple answer. Has the Assembly any powers in relation to industrial derating? I should like clarification, and this seems a good place in the Bill to raise the matter.
      Mr. Adley: Perhaps I should declare an interest in tourism. I want to probe a little further, because the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and his reference to Clause 37 are very relevant.
      Tourism is clearly a matter which, in the words of Clause 37,
      "concerns Scotland (whether or not it also concerns any other part of the United Kingdom)".
      Overseas tourists who come to the United Kingdom will have little desire to know what is or is not in this measure. Will the Secretary of State explain which powers, if any, he will reserve or hold concerning tourism policies carried out by the British Tourist Authority on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, as opposed to tourism policies carried out by the Scottish Tourist Board?
      My second point concerns the relationship between the Assembly—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we are discussing rate support grants.
      Mr. Adley: What happens if the sums that the Assembly thought it would have available for tourism purposes are no longer available and the regions take unto themselves, using additional rates, the

      1311
      decision to spend more on tourism? There may well be competition between Tay-side, Strathclyde and Lothian. The Secretary of State knows of the recent controversy over the activities of the tourism director in Lothian, who has been trotting all over the globe. What guarantee have the ratepayers of any of the regions that their money will not be used in a way that is not compatible with the policies of the Scottish Tourist Board?
      It is only because there may be no other opportunity to raise the matter that I ask for a passing reference to tourism from the Secretary of State on this clause.
      Mr. Raison: I want to raise what may seem a trivial point which I am assured has not been mentioned. Subsection (2) says:
      "In taking into consideration the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d)…a Scottish Secretary shall have regard to such considerations affecting reserved functions as the Secretary of State may bring to his notice after consulting with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned".
      What I am not quite clear about is whether it is the Scottish Secretary who does this consulting with the association of local authorities or whether it is the Secretary of State. It appears that it could be either. It is desirable that the Secretary of State should explain what is meant here and perhaps consider tabling an amendment to make the position quite clear.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Millan: It is the Secretary of State who is meant to be doing the consulting. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) feels that the clause is ambiguous, I will look at the wording again.
      Mr. Raison: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I had assumed that it would be the Scottish Secretary who would do the consulting. It is interesting that the Secretary of State should have the right to consult with the Scottish local authority associations. That seems to be a breach of this principle of devolution. There is meant to be a clear and sharp distinction between the powers here and those in Edinburgh.
      Mr. Millan: The hon. Member was present earlier in the debate but one would not think so from that last comment. I explained at considerable length
      1312
      the way in which the Secretary of State would be discussing with COSLA the matters concerning reserve powers.
      The question of tourism is dealt with under Clause 67. If the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) would keep quiet we might get to that clause.
      To my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) I say that on all of these matters affecting the rate support grant a minimum amount of good will helps with the consultations. We have it at the moment and I see no reason why COSLA and the Scottish Executive should not establish the kind of relationship that I have, which is more or less cordial, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We must not assume that the Scottish Executive will be so inept or provocative that it will not be able to deal sensibly with local authorities and other interests in Scotland. That would be an extremely arrogant and patronising attitude. I would not assume that I must be better, intrinsically, in dealing with COSLA than would be the Scottish Executive.
      Dealing now with the remarks concerning the words "shall have regard to", that was the point of the previous amendment which was withdrawn. I pointed out that the Scottish Secretary would have matters drawn to his attention and would have regard to them and would take them into account. For reasons that I explained at length, it was not possible effectively to put that provision in stronger terms and dictate to the Scottish Secretary what he should do in that situation. We are not trying to tie him down absolutely. We could not do so. There has to be a form of words which gives the Secretary of State a statutory locus on this issue. The form of words we have seems to be as good as any other.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) asked me about industrial derating. That is a matter for the Assembly. I have announced that I intend to continue the 50 per cent. industrial derating from 1st April 1978 and I shall be laying an order for the next three years quite soon. Thereafter, this will be a matter for the Assembly. I daresay that, again, the Executive will have the same balance of considerations in mind when

      1313
      it makes decisions about industrial de-rating as I have had in making my decisions. I refer to such things as the interests of local authorities, of domestic ratepayers compared with other ratepayers and of the need to encourage Scottish industry.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart also asked whether a Government would be likely to use their reserved powers under Clause 37 if a Scottish Administration started to slash the level of rate support grant. I make the general point that the only way to ensure that the present level of rate support grant, 68½ per cent., was maintained for ever would be to write that into the Bill, but no one is suggesting that we should do that or tie the hands of the Scottish Executive in that way. But in any case, since I have already explained at great length earlier in the debates on the clause that they can change the whole system of rate support grant, it would be utterly pointless to put in a particular percentage and try to tie the Scottish Executive down to it.
      I understand the hon. Gentlemena's worries. He recognises that the present level of rate support grant is very generous to local authorities and is worried that there might be an Executive which would reduce it to the significantly low level at which it stood when the Conservative Party was in power. That is a legitimate worry, and the local authorities appreciate that devolution might have that unfortunate effect.
      It is conceivable that there could be a Conservative Administration in Scotland. It is not very likely, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must look at every contingency, however remote. I suppose that it could happen, and it might have these effects. In that hypothetical situation, if a Conservative Administration in the Assembly were to behave in a wickedly damaging way, and this had an impact on the reserved functions—which is what Clause 37 is about—it would then be open to the Government in Westminister to intervene. But I consider that these are very remote matters indeed, and I do not believe that the normal matters of relationship betwen the local authorities, on the one hand, and the Scottish Executive, on the other, are matters in regard to which the reserved powers would be likely to be used. But if there were matters of great controversy
      1314
      of that sort, I dare say that they would come up at the annual negotiation of the block fund. For practical purposes, therefore, I do not believe that Clause 37 would be relevant.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is simply a question of saying that the relationship—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Is the
      hon. Gentleman intervening in the Minister's speech?
      Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend sat down.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I certainly had not called the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Taylor.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has treated this subject in an arrogant and silly way. I say so because I raised a serious question about a situation which could arise, I put it to the Minister that obviously—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) would keep quiet and not make silly observations on a subject about which she knows nothing.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a Tory Administration in Scotland is a real possibility?
      Mr. Taylor: That is the kind of thing that I would prefer to discuss with the hon. Lady at an earlier hour of the day. If we were to embark on such a discussion now we should get away from the debate on the clause. It would not amount to sense to have such a discussion with the hon. Lady at this time of night.
      I repeat to the Minister that it was a serious point that I raised. The Government would presumably make their own assessment as to what percentage could be given to local authorities by way of a block grant. If there were to be considerable economic stringency, the present Government or a future Government might have to say that the block grant was to be a little lower. It might say that it considered a level or. 60 per cent, or 65 per cent, to be right, but it could tell the authorities that if they wanted to spend more on one thing and less on another, that would be a matter for them. If the Scottish Assembly, the Government in Westminster having made their calculation, reduced the amount available to local authorities, and a big

      1315
      increase in rates followed, would it be possible for action to be taken? The Secretary of State has rather dodged the question.
      Secondly, if such an intervention were called for, how would it be made? Having looked at the reserved powers, I do not see how it could be done. That is one of the most dangerous points. If we had an RSG order it would presumably be a Statutory Instrument placed before the Scottish Assembly. What can the Secretary of State do about that? Under Clause 38 he has the power to revoke a Statutory Instrument. But here we would find ourselves in exactly the same difficulty which hon. Members on this side find when discussing RSG orders. All we can do is either vote against it, in which case local authorities get nothing, or let it go through, in which case they get something.
      If the Secretary of State used the power in Clause 38 it would not help at all because all he would do would be to object, and instead of getting 50 per cent, there would be nothing at all.
      Mr. Harry Gourlay: Surely the hon. Gentleman will make an analogy with what happens in this House? His argument would then be that the Scottish Assembly would introduce another order just as we do in this House.
      Mr. Taylor: That would be fine if we had co-operation. But what are we dealing with? Suppose for the sake of argument one had a Conservative Government in Westminster and some of the hon. Gentleman's wild Left-wing friends in control of the Scottish Administration; we could not have that degree of cooperation between the Government and the Assembly, particularly if we were to have the appalling level of unemployment which there is under the present Labour Government. In those circumstances Clause 38 would not work.
      If we look at the reserved power in Clause 37—that is the power to instruct the Scottish Secretary to do something—it now appears that this particular power does not apply to legislation or Statutory Instruments. It would be a most unusual use of power if the reserved power in Clause 37 were used to direct a Scottish
      1316
      Secretary to promote a Statutory Instrument.
      We are then left with the reservation in Clause 36—it is not a reserved power at all—which relates only to legislation. But that would not happen except in very unusual circumstances. What the right hon. Gentleman has not said is how precisely he can use the reserved powers to do anything about the situation I have described. That was something about which we asked him specifically and it is a question which he has not answered.
      While we accept that the right hon. Gentleman regards these as powers which would be used only in unusual circumstances—perhaps in circumstances in which we had an irresponsible Administration either here or in the Assembly—we are bound to ask how can reserved powers be used to resolve such a situation. I hope that the Secretary of State can give some indication of what the answer is.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not think it is either arrogant or patronising to say that the relationship between my right hon. Friend in his present position and COSLA is totally different from the relationship with an Executive that does not accept the guidelines which hitherto we have always accepted as between local government and national Government. That is a totally different situation and one is entitled to point it out.
      As has so often happened in these debates over the past 10 days, whenever the Committee lifts a manhole, it seems to stumble on some kind of hornets' nest. That is a 10 o'clock metaphor, but it is exactly what happens.
      I took down the words of my right hon. Friend which were "The people down here would intervene ". In which circumstances would they intervene and with what effect? That particular view ought to be explained. How would the people down here intervene, on what grounds and with what result?
      Mr. Millan: I do not want to go back over the question of reserved powers. We have already dealt with this matter in Clauses 36, 37 and 38. Clause 36 deals with the situation where it is an Assembly Bill, which I suppose could be conceiv-Clause 37 deals with Executive action able, with regard to rate support grant,

      1317
      which could conceivably relate to rate support grant, and Clause 38 deals with subordinate instruments which is relevant in respect of RSG because it is expressed in an order. All these clauses deal with reserved powers which are related directly to actions, whether legislative or in other ways, of the Scottish Assembly which have a severe and detrimental effect on reserved powers.
      10.0 p.m.
      I gave an illustration relating to the reduction in RSG, but the Scottish Assembly equally could decide to increase RSG. I said that it was unlikely that that would be the kind of situation in which these reserved powers were appropriate to be used by a Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government down here. But if the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who is now muttering to himself, is asking whether the Bill contains all the powers that would be necessary if such intervention seemed appropriate, so far as I can see from this clause and from what has been said by way of explanation in the past, all the powers are available in the Bill.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I believe that the Secretary of State should take back this clause and re-examine it. He said he believed that the powers were there, but
      I believe that the powers patently are not there in Clause 38. Clause 38 gives him power only to revoke a Statutory Instrument put forward by the Assembly.
      The situation which we have envisaged is that the Scottish Assembly, hard up for money, will say to the local authorities "I am sorry, but we need more money to help Scotland. Therefore, we shall have to cut your money." This will go into a Statutory Instrument, it will be put to the Assembly, and the Secretary of State in those extreme circumstances could say "I am sorry, but there will be no order. I am revoking it." What happens then? Has he power to insist on a new order with a new percentage? That will certainly not happen under Clause 38.
      This is a situation which may prove to be a danger to Scottish local authorities and ratepayers. We do not appear to have the weapons to deal with it. In those circumstances let us throw out this clause as a warning to the Secretary of State that these matters should be thought out and that Ministers should be prepared with the proper answers.
      Question put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 147.

      Division No. 74]

      AYES

      [10.2 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Huckfield, Les

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Archer. Rt Hon Peter

      Deakins, Eric

      Hunter, Adam

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dempsey, James

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Ashley, Jack

      Doig, Peter

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Dunn, James A.

      John, Brynmor

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Eadie, Alex

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Bates, Alf

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ennais, Rt Hon David

      Judd, Frank

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Kerr, Russell

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Kilfedder, James

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lambie, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Flannery, Martin

      Litterick, Tom

      Buchan, Norman

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Buchanan, Richard

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Campbell, Ian

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Carmichael, Neil

      George, Bruce

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cartwright, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      MacCormick, Iain

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Golding, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Gould, Bryan

      McElhone, Frank

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Gourlay, Harry

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Cohen, Stanley

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Coleman, Donald

      Grocott, Bruce

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Madden, Max

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Harper, Joseph

      Magee, Bryan

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cryer, Bob

      Henderson, Douglas

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hooley, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Horam, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Molloy, William

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Watt, Hamish

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wellbeloved, James

      Oakes, Gordon

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Welsh, Andrew

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Sillars, James

      White, James (Pollok)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitlock, William

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Palmer, Arthur

      Snape, Peter

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Park, George

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Parker, John

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Penhaligon, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Woodall, Alec

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Wool, Robert

      Radice, Giles

      Stoddart, David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Thompson, George

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Tinn, James

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Tomlinson, John

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Alison, Michael

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Percival, Ian

      Arnold, Tom

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Holland, Philip

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Bell, Ronald

      Hordern, Peter

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Benyon, W.

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Biffen, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Raison, Timothy

      Blaker, Peter

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bradford, Rev Robert

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

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rhodes James, R.

      Brittan, Leon

      Jopling, Michael

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Brooke, Peter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Brotherton, Michael

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Knox, David

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Lamont, Norman

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Buck, Antony

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Budgen, Nick

      Lawrence, Ivan

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lloyd, Ian

      Silvester, Fred

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Luce, Richard

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Clegg, Walter

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      MacGregor, John

      Spence, John

      Cope, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Marten, Neil

      Sproat, Iain

      Corrie, John

      Mather, Carol

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mawby, Ray

      Stokes, John

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Dunlop, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Tapsell, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Emery, Peter

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Eyre, Reginald

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Moate, Roger

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Viggers, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Morgan, Geraint

      Wakeham, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wells, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mudd, David

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Neubert, Michael

      Younger, Hon George

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Nott, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Osborn, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grist, Ian

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I, through you, ask the Secretary of State to withdraw an erroneous statement that he made in our last debate? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the reserved powers in Clause 38 as matters that we had dis
      1322
      cussed previously. In fact, that clause was guillotined and we did not discuss it at all.
      The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair.

    Clause 66

      PUBLIC BODIES
      Mr. Gow: I beg to move Amendment No. 412, in page 31, leave out lines 25 and 26.
      The clause gives to a Minister of the Crown power, by order, to make provision for
      "imposing any limits in addition to or in substitution for existing limits"
      on the 19 statutory bodies which are set out in Schedule 13. Subsection (4) provides:
      "A statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      The provision for further parliamentary control of the limit of borrowing of these 19 bodies confers upon the House of Commons the least authority. It is the most cursory of all provisions.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled this amendment because we are deeply suspicious of a power which will enable Ministers, by order, to increase the borrowing powers of these 19 statutory bodies. We meet at a time when the control of Parliament over the Executive is passing from the House of Commons to the great advantage of the Government of the day. If ever there were a time when we needed to assert the supremacy of Parliament and to be vigilant about granting to Ministers power to increase, by order, the borrowing capacity of statutory bodies, it is now. The overriding need for the House of Commons to exercise increasing control over the Executive is demonstrated by subsection (2)(d) of Clause 66 because, without any explanation, the Government are seeking to confer upon themselves the power by order, subject only to annulment, to have an unlimited capacity to increase the borrowing powers of 19 statutory bodies.
      There are three reasons why we believe that these powers are undesirable. The Government have said that they wish to control public expenditure. In the letter of 15th December 1976 from the Chancellor to Dr. Witteveen it was stated in the plainest terms that it was an objective of the Government to secure a
      1324
      substantial reduction in the share of the nation's resources for the public sector. Yet if Dr. Witteveen reads the reports of these debates he would expect the Minister warmly to applaud this amendment. Anyone who is anxious about the control of public expenditure should welcome this amendment. Even if a case could be made out for Government powers to increase the borrowing capacity of 19 public bodies the case certainly cannot be maintained for giving the Government power to increase these limits by order subject only to the annulment procedure.
      There is another astonishing feature of Schedule 13. Many of the bodies listed in this schedule have no relationship to Scotland. We start off with the British Waterways Board. Why do we need to include in the Scotland Bill a power which will enable the Government by order to increase the ability to borrow off the British Waterways Board? Certainly, as the Bill is drafted, any increase in the borrowing capacity of the Waterways Board could be wholly unrelated to Scotland. I believe that this is a device, which has not been thought through by some of the profligate members of the Government, to give by way of the back door powers which are wholly unrelated to Scotland and devolution. Only the vigilance of my right hon. and hon. Friends has identified the mischief which could be done by Clause 66(2)(d). There is no mention in that clause of financial limits. Indeed, the clause is reverse of specific, and yet, what else can it mean if it does not mean that these 19 statutory bodies are to have power to increase their borrowing limits if the subsection is not to be meaningless?
      If we move on we find that the Forestry Commissioners, the Housing Corporation and the Inland Waterboards Amenity Advisory Council are listed.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend moves further down the list, we should stop at item 2, the Forestry Commissioners. The Forestry Commission, which is a United Kingdom authority, was devolved to Scotland on the sort of pressure for employment which one hears from many sides of the House. It is one of Lord Taylor of Gryfe's marvellous achievements as head of the Forestry Commission that its headquarters was

      1325
      moved to Scotland. Now there is to be the magnificent effect for Scotland that there will be two Forestry Commissions and that one of them will have to be moved back to England as part of the benefit of devolution.
      Mr. Gow: I can only hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fair-bairn) will catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Murton, because I am sure that his argument needs developing at considerable length. It is only the outrage of the guillotine that will prevent my hon. and learned Friend from making a very long and cogent speech.
      We have reached only the fifth of the statutory bodies which will have their borrowing requirement extended by order. I come to the Advisory Committee for Scotland. I believe that 18 out of the 19 bodies here could happily be dispensed with without material damage to the United Kingdom or Scotland. We have a great superfluity of councils, authorities, tribunals, colleges, gaming boards and the rest. All the best libertarian instincts of the Tory Party are offended by this galaxy of nonsense.
      Let us just reflect upon the cost to public funds of providing headquarters for these boards, commissioners, corporations and councils, and let us reflect upon the number of unproductive, wealth-consuming civil servants who man them. Let us then measure the expenditure involved against the value to the community. Even under the existing arrangements there is a sorry imbalance between cost and true output or value.
      However, that is not enough for the Labour Party. The Government say that even the amount which these 19 bodies are able to spend is not enough. They are inviting the Committee to enable any Minister of the Crown to come to the House and, through the negative resolution procedure, extend the borrowing powers of each of these 19 authorities. It would be possible even for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his new incarnation as protector of small businesses to do so, perhaps to the very great detriment of precisely that part of the nation's activity—small businesses—which has been so grievously wounded by this Administration in its attempt to
      1326
      give more money to bodies such as those in the Bill. Will the Minister of State say why the Civil Aviation Authority should be included in the Bill?
      Let me say what pleasure it gives me to see the Lord Advocate occupying the Front Bench below the Gangway, a pleasure rivalled only by the pleasure it will give you, Mr. Murton, to see him there. I hope he will catch your eye and reply to the debate. I see that he has now been joined by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) whose constituency has a great interest in the aircraft industry. I should like the Lord Advocate to tell the Committee why the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority should be included in the Scotland Bill, and why the borrowing powers of those authorities should be subject to increase by ministerial order. We are discussing devolution to Scotland. There is nothing in this clause to tell us even that the borrowing must relate to Scotland.
      10.30 p.m.
      It is a trick. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West has come into the Chamber, because it may have been a trick implanted in the Bill by the most profligate overspenders on the Government side.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am no substitute for the Lord Advocate, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the problem is that the civil aviation experts have said that the result of the Bill will be a shambles for their expertise.
      Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman—I almost called him my hon. Friend—adds to the weight of the argument. It is a patent absurdity to include a prospective increase in the borrowing powers of these bodies which have nothing to do with the Scotland Bill.
      Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend has raised an important point which the Minister should not overlook. I direct attention for a moment to the precise provisions of subsection (2). Let us assume that we give the British Airports Authority the right to spend another £1,000 million. The provisions which may be made in relation to that United Kingdom body are provisions
      "enabling powers to be exercised"

      1327
      we need not trouble at this stage with
      "duties to be performed"—
      "by a Scottish Secretary instead of by a Minister of the Crown."
      Thus, if the Westminster Government wished to get out of the embarrassment of spending a lot of money on building the Channel Tunnel or a new airport, or whatever it might be, all they would need to do would be to say "We shall give the money to the United Kingdom statutory body and put on a Scottish Secretary the responsibility to spend it".
      Mr. Gow: The Committee will be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that pertinent intervention.
      I turn now to the next item on the list, the Council on Tribunals and its Scottish Committee. May we be told why it is necessary to confer power to impose in respect of that body
      "limits in addition to or in substitution for existing limits"?
      We have been denied the guidance and assistance of the Lord Advocate. I think it right to put on record that the Committee has heard the Lord Advocate once only during the whole of our proceedings. I can only assume that he fails to address us on this occasion because it is beyond his comprehension how this clause and Schedule 13 got into the Bill at all.
      We can all now heave a sigh of relief because into the Chamber has come the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I do not wish to damage his brightening political career by paying tribute to him, but we all know that he is a very capable Minister. I was referring to his Department a moment ago. As the Lord Advocate has now left us and the hon. Gentleman has joined us, perhaps he can assist the Committee, and I shall address some brief remarks to him.
      The British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority come under the Under-Secretary's Department's hand—
      Mr. Raison: No, Trade.
      Mr. Gow: That is the Department of Trade. Oh dear. What about water? That is Environment. I see. Well, we welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport although those matters are outside his responsibility.
      Reading on down the list, we find that the Horserace Totalisator Board is to
      1328
      have its borrowing powers increased. Nor do we stop there. The same applies to the Housing Association Registration Advisory Committee. What is the budget for that body? Why is it necessary to increase its borrowing powers?
      It is quite astonishing that these 19 entities should be presented to the Committee as being ripe for further borrowing powers.
      I wish to deliver a short word of advice to the Government Front Bench about borrowing—particularly now that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport is present. I know that I have the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West with me in this matter. One of the evils that has fallen upon this country since 28th February 1974 is the way in which, in the view of the Labour Party, every problem that presents itself can be solved if only one borrows. Of course, the national debt has virtually doubled since the Labour Party last came to power. It is borrowing that is regarded by the Labour Party as the solution to all problems.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: Does the hon. Member agree that the Opposition believe that every problem that we face can be solved by cutting public expenditure?
      Mr. Gow: I do not subscribe to that view myself—not every problem. But certainly we shall not solve our problems by giving unlimited powers to the Executive and to Ministers—particularly when they are Labour Members—to increase without limit borrowing powers by order. It will need all the vigilance of my right hon. and hon. Friends—we shall not get much help from below the Gangway—if we are to prevent a massive increase in borrowing powers. The only way in which we can prevent it is by the negative procedure under subsection (4).
      I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to address the Committee on this crucial amendment. We can look for no support from SNP Members. We have no support from the Liberal Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] There are present one or two representatives of the Tribune Group. They had a very interesting party meeting earlier today, but it would be out of order to go into that matter. The

      1329
      only source of vigilance is to be found among my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      I want to summarise the reasons why the amendment is of such fundamental importance, and I do so in the presence of the Shadow Secretary of State.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The hon. Member has made a very witty and amusing speech. He has tried to ridicule, in a blanket fashion, the inclusion of the list of bodies. However, he should be a little wary of doing that in the spirit in which he did. The whole future of the Forestry Commissioners of Great Britain depends on land in Scotland, because in England no land is left for forestry development. Given the situation that the development of forestry will basically be in Scotland, on the millions of acres left in Scotland—give or take a little elsewhere—it is reasonable that the body responsible for such a massive expansion should be credited with some particular powers. Simply to blanket all these bodies in the list and to ridicule it in the way in which the hon. Member has done may be amusing to hear but is a little unworthy of the hon. Member.
      Mr. Gow: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that the Forestry Commissioners do a very good job. I shall not argue about their worth. I was arguing against giving them power to borrow more money on the say-so of a Minister, subject only to our negative Statutory Instrument procedure.
      There are three basic reasons why this part of the clause is objectionable and why we wish to leave out the lines with which the amendment deals. It is the House that should be able to control public expenditure, and to increase the power to borrow by order subject only to the negative procedure is a denial of the right of this place to control the executive.
      Secondly, there are many items of expenditure which could be covered by these bodies which will all be south of the border. For this matter to be included in the Bill is an affront to its common sense and purpose.
      Finally, we regard it as deeply offensive to include a provision to increase the
      1330
      borrowing capacity of 19 bodies when this is nothing to do with the legislation before the Committee.
      I hope that the Minister will calm all our fears and endear himself to his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and to me by accepting the amendment, which has been designed to carry the Government along the path plotted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the famous letter to Dr. Witteveen of 15th December 1976.
      Mr. John Parker: I should like to take up what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said about the Forestry Commission. He made an amusing speech, but forestry is not an amusing subject to the great mass of people who are interested in it, particularly in Scotland.
      For once I agree with the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). Forestry is rightly centred in Scotland. Most of the land required for forestry is there and most of the work done by the Commission is there. The Commission has done a fine job over the years in bringing a great deal of this country into cultivation, helping to cut imports of timber. We want it to go on doing that job, and for that it needs to be able to borrow money and have funds made available to it to buy and plant land.
      Among the strongest critics of devolving the Forestry Commission are the woodland owners of Scotland, who are helped by big grants from the United Kingdom Government. They fear that if the nationalists ever came to power in Scotland they would not be able to obtain the support that they have had in the past.
      Two years after Scottish National Party Members first appeared in the House in any considerable number, I asked the Library what Questions about forestry they had tabled and what forestry issues they had raised in the House. They had not tabled one Question or initiated one debate on the subject in that whole period. When I made fun of them because of this, they poured forestry Questions on to the Order Paper, and it was only then that one SNP Member who is a former employee of the Forestry Commission took an interest here in the subject.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: May I correct the record and say that I asked many Questions concerning forestry when I was in the House between 1967 and 1970. I did so again when I was elected in 1974. If the hon. Member looks at the record, he will find that to be the case. More seriously—because that was obviously not meant to be a serious point—although successive Governments of different political complexions have given the Forestry Commissioners powers of compulsory purchase, not a single acre has been acquired in this way. Can the hon. Gentleman explain this, bearing in mind how important this power is since there are 1 million acres producing a quarter of an ounce of grass per acre per year suitable for forward planting?
      Mr. Parker: If the hon. Lady looks at Hansard, she will find that there was not one Question tabled by any Member of the SNP in the period I have referred to.
      On the question of compulsory purchase, when Tom Williams was Minister of Agriculture, he introduced such powers to acquire land for forestry purposes but, because of the resistance encountered from many farmers, the powers were never exercised. Much land has been purchased by the Commissioners, but the rise price has limited it in recent years.
      Many of us interested in forestry are not satisfied with the scheme for devolution. While the Forestry Commission will carry out the will of the House, it is not happy and nor are those who own private woodlands in Scotland. I have found only one woodland owner in Scotland who supports the devolution policy on forestry.
      While there is unity in the Forestry Commission at the top, the financial arrangements are split into three, with money allocated separately to England, Scotland and Wales. That means that the funds for Scotland's forestry work will depend upon the amount given by the Assembly. Upon that will depend the number of people employed in Scotland on forestry work. How can the Forestry Commission plan its programme properly if it does not know where the finance is coming from?
      Mr. Fairbairn: The hon Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and I have been
      1332
      on forestry visits together. Under Schedule 10, forestry and afforestation is devolved under Group 15. We have heard that one of the benefits for Scotland has been that those who work in the Commission's headquarters were transferred to Scotland to create employment. If forestry in Scotland is devolved to the Assembly while forestry in England remains the responsibility of the British Government, the Forestry Commission—which has been devolved to Scotland to create employment in Edinburgh and because of the extent of forestry work there—will have to return to England since it will no longer have any relevance to Scotland.
      Mr. Parker: That is not the case at all. The Commission will, rightly, remain in Edinburgh. It will run forestry for the whole of the United Kingdom from Edinburgh. The employees of the Commission will be appointed by the Government here but the running of the work in Scotland, the financing of Scottish planting, and the harvesting of the timber will be done at the expense of the Assembly. The finance will be divided in an unsatisfactory way between the different parts of the United Kingdom but the central organisation will remain in Scotland. How can the Commission work effectively if it does not know ahead where its money is coming from? The organisation should not be devolved. All the finance should come from the United Kingdom Parliament. Each part of the country would then know what moneys it had to spend as part of a national policy. [Interruption.] I am objecting to the financial split at the centre. Most of the people engaged in forestry in England, Scotland and Wales disagree with the whole policy of devolution. They do not want it.
      Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that forestry in this country, devolved or undevolved, in Scotland or in England, compared with Europe and Scandinavia, whether public or private, has been a disgrace for the last half a century?
      Mr. Parker: I fully agree that we have a far smaller area under plantations in this country than there is in any of the other important European countries. Ireland and Iceland are, I believe, the

      1333
      only exceptions. I am strongly in favour of a much bigger planting programme, certainly in Scotland, but also in parts of England and Wales.
      The Scottish nationalists have complained in the past that some of the activities in Scotland were out on a limb as compared with those in England. There is a danger here that forestry in England and Wales might be out on a limb because it is centred in Scotland. I think that the Assembly, if it is to have these powers, should have authority to ensure that funds are made available for the Forestry Commission to carry out its activities and to assist private forestry in any way that is thought necessary in the years to come.
      Mr. John Smith: I should like to answer—
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Surely it would be right for one of my hon. Friends to speak next in this important debate.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not presume to instruct the Chair. The Chair must use its own discretion. If the Minister rises to reply to the debate, I shall call the Minister.
      Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. How can the Minister reply to a debate before it has occurred?
      Mr. Adley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) made his entire speech on the assumption that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was trying to devolve the Forestry Commission. The speech in no way related to the amendment. You did not, in your wisdom, Mr. Murton, see fit to intervene. As a result, those of us who wish to discuss some of the matters arising from the amendment are precluded from doing so.
      The Chairman: These are not points of order.
      Mr. John Smith: My purpose in seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Murton, was in order to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who moved the amendment. With respect to some hon. Members, I think it is the
      1334
      duty of the Minister to seek to catch your eye so that he may endeavour to answer the points made on the amendment which is under discussion. The discussion has been wide-ranging, and the mover is entitled to a comment on it from the Government before the House moves to a Division. I will seek to be brief, although the hon. Gentleman expanded himself a little in moving the amendment. If there is some complaint about lack of time for other matters, I fail to see why the responsibility for that should be laid at my door.
      The hon. Gentleman moved the amendment on the basis that he felt that the House of Commons would lack control over financing. I understand that point, but the effect of the amendment, I believe, would be that orders made by United Kingdom Ministers would not be able to alter the borrowing limits for public bodies operating in devolved fields in Scotland. The ministerial power is in the Bill, and we take the view that the House of Commons should remain responsible for approving the major financial limits on developed expenditure, in particular the annual block funds, dealt with in Clause 46, and the amounts—[Interruption.] We believe that—
      Mr. Jasper More: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The Minister's reply is totally inaudible.
      Mr. Smith: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I am sorry if I am inaudible. I shall try to be audible.
      I was referring to other clauses where there is a general control by the House of Commons. I refer also to Clause 47 which relates to total levels of advances from the National Loans Fund to the Scottish Loans Fund for on-lending to State bodies such as the Housing Corporation and the British Waterways Board.
      Under the amendment, Ministers would not be allowed to alter the financial limits. That would be unacceptable because it would prevent any change in arrangements for setting financial limits for individual public bodies, some of whose activities fall within devolved areas.
      I remind the Committee of the general limits in other clauses. That is the effect of parliamentary control on the matter and it is not affected by the power of

      1335
      Ministers to make individual requirements.
      I understand that some hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Murton. Therefore, that is my explanation of the Government's reaction to the amendment.
      Mr. Graham Page: Before he sits down, will the Minister consider this point? An order can be made by the Scottish Secretary because under subsection (2) (a) a Minister of the Crown can give the Scottish Secretary power to make orders. How can they come before the House under any procedure in subsection (4)? The whole procedure is a shambles.
      Mr. Smith: Parliamentary control is in general limits and not in individual matters.
      Mr. Adley: Many of my hon. Friends will be disappointed that they cannot expand this matter further. I should like to ask the Minister whether I am wrong in assuming that Part V on page 29 of the Bill to which the amendments relate refers to matters other than merely financial matters? Part V is entitled:
      "Devolved Matters and Determination of Questions Relating Thereto".
      You would tell me quickly, Mr. Murton, that I was out of order if I sought to discuss tourism. The Secretary of State for Scotland, on a previous amendment, sought to curtail debate on tourism and rate support grant, because, he said, we could discuss those matters under Clause 67. It is clear that in the next three minutes we shall not reach Clause 67.
      I want to question the Minister on matters relevant to this amendment and referring to the Civil Aviation Authority. I refer back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in a previous debate.
      Clause 38 was not discussed because of the guillotine but it relates to the power of revoking subordinate instruments. I am not wholly hostile to the general proposition of devolution. The Minister must realise that those of us who have tried to conduct this debate in a reasonable manner are being driven against the wall because we are finding we are not able to discuss seriously and briefly some matters which are relevant.
      1336
      That is a criticism of the guillotine and not necessarily of the principle of devolution. I ask the Minister when the Committee will be able to discuss the activities of the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to this Bill, particularly in relation to the powers in Clauses 37 and 38.
      The Minister will be aware that the subject of air services—considering new ones or terminating current services—arouses strong feelings. If he cannot do it in reply to this debate, I hope he will take the opportunity to write to me and tell me what would happen in the by no means hypothetical situation illustrated in the last debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. We could have a Conservative Scottish Assembly and a Labour Government at Westminster, and the Conservative Assembly might want to license, through the CAA or its Scottish counterpart, a new private enterprise airline in Scotland. What powers will he invoke to prevent the Assembly giving powers to establish a new private enterprise airline in Scotland?
      Alternatively, let us suppose there were a Socialist Administration in Edinburgh and a Conservative one here at Westminster. How would they physically expect to get through.—
      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 Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
      Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 13

      PUBLIC BODIES
      Amendment made: No. 144, in page 75, leave out lines 35 and 36.—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I fully appreciate that the Government are entitled, and are almost required, to move their own amendments. But is it in order

      1337
      for them to move such other amendments as they feel disposed to move whether or not those amendments are in their own name?
      The Chairman: The answer is that if an amendment or motion in the name of any hon. Member is moved by a member of the Government, it is in order.
      Amendments made: No. 146, in page 75, leave out lines 39 and 40.
      No. 582, in page 76, leave out lines 5 and 6.
      No. 538, in page 76, line 10, at end insert—
      'The British Waterways Board. The Transport Act 1962, secion 1'.
      No. 539, in page 76, line 28, at end insert—
      'The Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. The Transport Act 1968, section 110'.—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 68

      PLANNING
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 152, Noes 146.

      Division No. 75]

      AYES

      [11.03 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Anderson, Donald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Park, George

      Ashley, Jack

      George, Bruce

      Parker, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Golding, John

      Penhaligon, David

      Bates, Alf

      Gourlay, Harry

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Graham, Ted

      Radice, Giles

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Grocott, Bruce

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hooley, Frank

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Horam, John

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Buchan, Norman

      Huckfield, Les

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hunter, Adam

      Sandelson, Neville

      Campbell, Ian

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Cartwright, John

      John, Brynmor

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Snape, Peter

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Judd, Frank

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kilfedder, James

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Coleman, Donald

      Lambie, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Cowans, Harry

      Lamborn, Harry

      Stoddart, David

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Cryer, Bob

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Davon)

      Dalyell, Tam

      McCartney, Hugh

      Tinn, James

      Davidson, Arthur

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Tomlinson, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      McElhone, Frank

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Deakins, Eric

      Madden, Max

      White, James (Pollok)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Magee, Bryan

      Whitlock, William

      Dempsey, James

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Doig, Peter

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Dormand, J. D.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Dunn, James A.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Eadie, Alex

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Woodall, Alec

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Woof, Robert

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Molloy, William

      Wrigglesworlh, Ian

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Oakes, Gordon

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Flannery, Martin

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Blaker, Peter

      Alison, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Arnold, Tom

      Biffen, John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brittan, Leon

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Brooke, Peter

      Hurd Douglas

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      James, David

      Raison, Timothy

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Buck, Antony

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Budgen, Nick

      Jopling, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhodes James, R.

      Churchill, W. S.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Knox, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Clegg, Walter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cope, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lloyd, Ian

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Corrie, John

      Luce, Richard

      Shepherd, Colin

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Silvester, Fred

      Dunlop, John

      Maclarlane, Neil

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacGregor, John

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Emery, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Spence, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Marten, Neil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Mather, Carol

      Sproat, Iain

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Finsberg. Geoffrey

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Moate, Roger

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan, Geraint

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gorst, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Viggers, Peter

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Wakeham, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mudd, David

      Wells, John

      Half-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neubert, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nott, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Osborn, John

      Younger, Hon George

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Holland, Philip

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 14 agreed to.

    Clause 69

      TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
      Amendments made: No. 561, in page 32, line 23, leave out from 'for' to 'and' in line 25 and insert
      'the Assembly or for or in connection with the exercise of functions concerned with devolved matters'.
      No. 562, in page 32, line 40, leave out '(a)'.
      No. 563, in page 32, line 43, after 'transfer', insert
      or, as the case may be, the granting of the rights concerned'.
      No. 564, in page 33, line 5, at end insert
      'or as land necessarily acquired with any such land'.—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 70

      ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND BY FIRST SECRETARY
      Amendment made: No. 565, in page 33, line 16, leave out 'consists of' and insert 'is concerned with'.—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 71

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PROPERTY VESTED IN FIRST SECRETARY
      Amendment made: No. 610, in page 33, line 40, leave out from 'made' to end of line 41 and insert
      'by, to or with a Scottish Secretary'.—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 72 and 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 74

      CONFIRMATION BY HOUSE OF COMMONS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY IT BUT NOT PASSED BY HOUSE OF LORDS
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 146.

      Division No. 76]

      AYES

      [11.18 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Palmer, Arthur

      Anderson, Donald

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Park, George

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Parker, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      George, Bruce

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Penhaligon, David

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Golding, John

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Radice, Giles

      Bates, Alf

      Graham, Ted

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grocott, Bruce

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Bray, Or Jeremy

      Hooley, Frank

      Rose, Paul B.

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Horam, John

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Buchan, Norman

      Huckfield, Les

      Sandelson, Neville

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hunter, Adam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Campbell, Ian

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Snape, Peter

      Cartwright, John

      John, Brynmor

      Spearing, Nigel

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Judd, Frank

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kilfedder, James

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Coleman, Donald

      Lambie, David

      Stoddart, David

      Cowans, Harry

      Lamborn, Harry

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Thomas, Dalydd (Merioneth)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thompson, George

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Cryer, Bob

      McCartney, Hugh

      Tinn, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      MacCormick, Iain

      Tomlinson, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      McElhone, Frank

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watt, Hamish

      Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Deakins, Eric

      Madden, Max

      Welsh, Andrew

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Magee, Bryan

      White, James (Pollok)

      Dempsey, James

      Marks, Kenneth

      Whitlock, William

      Doig, Peter

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Dormand, J. D.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Dunn, James A.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Eadie, Alex

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Molloy, William

      Woodall, Alec

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Woof, Robert

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      O'Halloran, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Flannery, Martin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Alison, Michael

      Biffen, John

      Brittan, Leon

      Arnold, Tom

      Blaker, Peter

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Brooke, Peter

      Benyon, W.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hurd, Douglas

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Buck, Antony

      James, David

      Raison, Timothy

      Budgen, Nick

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Jopling, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rhodes James, R.

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Knox, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lamont, Norman

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Clegg, Walter

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Cope, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lloyd, Ian

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Corrie, John

      Luce, Richard

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Dunlop, John

      Macfariane, Neil

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacGregor, John

      Shepherd, Colin

      Emery, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Silvester, Fred

      Eyre, Reginald

      Marten, Neil

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Mather, Carol

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mawby, Ray

      Spence, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sproat, Iain

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Forman, Nigel

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Moate, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan, Geraint

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gorst, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gray, Hamish

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Viggers, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Mudd, David

      Wakeham, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neubert, Michael

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nott, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Osborn, John

      Wells, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Holland, Philip

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Younger, Hon George

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pink, R. Bonner

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 75 to 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 15 agreed to.
      Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16 th November].
      Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  Motion made,
  That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1975 shall have effect from 1st January 1978 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution: —
  'That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
  £550 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1·10 for every 200 votes cast
  1344
  for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £165,000.'—[Mr. Tinn.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  HOLIDAY CARAVAN SITES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. Jim Lester: I am pleased to open this debate and to make as my first point the fact that, although we have just had Divisions on the Scotland Bill, in this debate there is all-party unity and support for the matter I wish to put to the Minister.
  I am raising this question because hon. Members have received over 40 letters from their constituents on it. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. White-head) and I have received the same letters because of our special interest in holiday caravans.

  1345
  I am delighted also that listening to the debate is my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), who has taken an interest in the position of caravanners, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) in whose constituency the case I wish to raise has taken place.
  The complaints that I want to put to the Minister emanate from many parts of the country. They come from Oadby, Wednesfield, Tamworth, Uxbridge, Birmingham, Walsall, Smethwick, Stafford, Stockport, Bilston and many areas in Wales. I should particularly like to thank Mrs. Woods of the National Caravan Owners Association who has contributed so much work and interest to this matter.
  The case concerns the Dinas Country Club and Caravan Park in Dyfed, which was until 1st January in the ownership of the Gailey Group Ltd., of Gailey near Stafford. Since then it has been transferred to the ownership of Trellis Scott Ltd., of Carlyle House, Cardiff.
  Perhaps I should explain what has happened in 1978. What I have to say has been reinforced and confirmed by the investigation of the Welsh Consumer Council, and I thank Jean Bowler-Court for all the work she has done in this respect.
  There were on this site 126 caravan owners who on 2nd December 1976 received from the Gailey company the following notice:
  "To: All Residents at Dinas
  Dear Sir,
  We regret any occasion for rent increases but we find it necessary to review rent charges for the coming season.
  The rent for your caravan for the 1977 season will be:
  £165 single unit —inclusive of rates
  £200 twin unit —to 31.3.78
  An invoice for this amount will be forwarded to you …
  Yours faithfully,
  for GAILEY CARAVAN COMPANY LIMITED
  W. A. BODE,
  Personal Assistant to
  the Managing Director."
  In addition, there were people such as Mrs. Higgins of Coventry, who purchased a caravan on behalf of her family from the same firm only four months ago
  1346
  and who has not yet used it, or Miss Hughes, who purchased a caravan in September last year and has a receipt marked under the name of Gailey Caravans, as inclusive of rates and site maintenance for 1978. That would be the normal situation.
  The House can imagine the consternation when, on 3rd January, all owners received a letter from the company Trellis Scott Limited which, in effect, told them that this new company had taken over the site and it was no longer in the business of renting caravans but was now in the business of selling to individual purchasers on lease the 40 ft. by 30 ft. sites on which their caravans rested.
  The letter is a perfectly reasonable business letter spelling out the sort of improvements which the company sought to make upon the site, but the significant fact is that the last paragraph said that it was important for the owners of caravans on the site to let the company know by 14th January whether they would take on the lease and, in addition, pay the company £10 a year ground rent and £165 a year maintenance charge in addition to the rates. The form which people were asked to sign is quite simple, saying "I wish" or "I do not wish" to undertake this responsibility.
  To ask people in that situation to make up their minds over such an important issue in only 11 days is totally unreasonable. Those who requested details of the terms and conditions of the lease were told by staff of the company that they were not in the business of showing leases—"Would you please sign the form?".
  I have evidence in correspondence that many people were telephoned and pestered to sign the form, and when they asked "What is my position if I do not sign?" they were told that if they did not sign by 14th January their caravans would either be towed off the site or be towed on to a hard standing, where they would be required to pay £75 a week until such time as they made other arrangements.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Lester: I understand that even at this stage, in spite of the protests, and in spite of the matter being put by hon.

  1347
  Members to the Minister, who has taken up the question in Wales, those who have not signed the document have had their services chopped off and their television aerials removed without any reference to them whatever. A copy of the lease has since become available.
  Although it is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened, one can understand why Mrs. Higgins of Coventry wrote in the following terms:
  "We have a Down's syndrome child, a mongol child, for whom we struggled to buy this caravan where we could take him and the family for holidays. Having had the van for four months and having had no holiday, we are now faced very suddenly with an immoral lease and a very large amount of extra expense. Trusting you can do something urgently for all people placed in an atrociously expensive situation through no fault of their own."
  The questions that I want to raise with the Minister are both local and national, because I am sure that he is aware, as we are all aware, that there is no protecion whatever for holiday caravanners by law from such site owners. My first question concerns the relative liability between the two companies on the basis of the documents that I have read to the House. First, what right could Trellis Scott have to issue such a short-term ultimatum, in spite of the commitment of the previous owners over the site, and to people who quite legitimately bought caravans from them only on condition that they could leave them and keep them on this site in 1978? Secondly, what right has the previous company, Gailey Caravans of Stafford, to sell the site without making sure in the conditions of sale to Trellis Scott that these people were protected?
  The second matter that I want to raise with the Minister, and to call in question, is this practice of trading. I have been in business for the whole of my life since leaving school, and I have dealt with many caravan sites throughout the country. Never in my experience of 25 years in business have I seen such deplorable trading tactics.
  We must consider not only the short-term nature of the time given to make the decision, and the scale, and the pressure that people have been put under to make this decision, but the choice of a time when there is an inability to look at alternatives, as most holiday sites are
  1348
  closed in the winter. Many site owner-operators go on holiday at this time of the year. In addition, many site operators impose restrictive conditions which say "You cannot put a caravan on my site unless you buy a caravan from me." To put people who have invested £5,000 or £6,000 in a holiday caravan in a situation in which it becomes valueless overnight through no fault of their own is deplorable.
  Also, there is a lack of information about interest rates in the letter, and there can be no knowledge of which company would be offering to buy the lease from Trellis Scott. The people had no knowledge of the leasehold terms before being requested to sign the paper. Considering the average person, one can understand why this is an enormous problem for those unwilling or unable to bear the financial burden. We must bear in mind that many are already committed to hire purchase in buying a caravan, anyway.
  It is small wonder that one of the tenants has died during this period, possibly due to the pressure and the unfortunate shock of all this. There are other letters in the file, which I shall hand to the Minister, indicating the ill health and worry caused to these people.
  Let us look simply at the financial aspects and the difference from last year. Last year, £165 covered all expenses—rates, maintenance and profit for the site owner. But if people took these leases on the terms that the company offered, they would be paying £612 a year for the next five years, and all that they could claim at the end of that period would be that they owned the bit of land, 40 ft. by 30 ft., on which their caravan stood.
  The third point that I wish to raise is the relative position of those who sign these leases between the owner and the tenant. First, I should like the Minister to ascertain whether the Price Commission would be interested in the fact that last year the Gailey Caravan people were paying £165, which included, as I have said, rates, rent and profit, and maintenance of the site and, presumably, it covered the running of satisfactory services, and overnight, with a new owner, people are required to pay £165 for maintenance only, a further £10 for ground rent, and rates and other charges on top of that.

  1349
  Surely that exceeds any index that anyone has in terms of increases in prices, because the cost of services could not increase by that sort of rate, and it is considerably higher than the 10 per cent wage rises that most people are likely to get in the next year.
  We must again look at the terms of the lease. The tenants are required to commit real capital. If they sign this lease, they undertake to make the regular payments in terms of maintenance, which, in the letter, the company suggests kindly will be index-linked with the Government's cost of living index so that it can go up automatically each year with the rate of inflation. If they sign this lease, they also undertake that they will get their insurance through the company and that they will get credit through the same company.
  The tenants also sign that the company has the right to insist that they buy a new caravan from it at least every 12 years, at the full manufacturer's recommended price. Those of us who know something about caravans know that very rarely do people buy caravans at the full manufacturer's recommended price.
  The tenants must pay the company at least one year's maintenance if they seek to assign the lease to anyone else, and, should they be unfortunate enough to default on the payment of any of the sums, they are required to pay 5 per cent, a month—60 per cent, a year. The lease contains 20 conditions, some of which are normal but others of which I find totally unacceptable. In addition, almost as a joke, the tenants are required to pay £50 for the solicitor's fees to sign the lease.
  What does the company undertake and covenant to do in return for the lease? It commits itself—I emphasise "commits"—merely to empty the dustbins, keep the site tidy and maintain the existing roads and services already connected to the caravans. In addition, out of the goodness of its heart, it offers to take back the land after five years from anyone who finds the lease unworkable or unsatisfactory—at the original price he paid, although the charges are index linked. The promises in the letter—of improving standards, a swimming pool, and so on—are not commitments.
  If I were signing such a lease which bought me a piece of land on a site for 49 years, the first thing I would do would
  1350
  be to inquire into the nature of the company. I asked the Library to do this for me, and this is the Librarian's report:
  "I am afraid I have had very little success in tracing information about Trellis Scott Ltd. I have contacted Companies House, who told me that the company was incorporated on 6th April 1976 and they had the registered office as 17 Church Street, Northampton, but this was apparently changed to Carlyle House, 507 Newport Road, Cardiff on 24th March 1977. Companies House have not received any annual reports for the company at all to date."
  All that we know of the company is what we see on its stationery. Mr. S. V. Dunstan is the managing director and a Mrs. Evans is the company secretary. We have no knowledge of its assets, standing or anything else.
  What would be the position of someone who has paid the £1,500 for the lease if after, say, two years the company seeks to go into voluntary liquidation and sell to a new company what is left of the site, which can be only the common services? The new company could impose new conditions. What is the balance between landlord and tenant? Is such a company as Trellis Scott in a position to offer credit, as it did in its letter? Can it be licensed under the Fair Trading Act to offer credit?
  I feel concern that this could be seen as an asset-stripping operation. A company with no parentage moves into a site and in one year can take off a cool £250,000 in cash, committing itself merely, for the maintenance charge that it will make in succeeding years, to maintain the site as it was. Should not the Price Commission look into the profits and charges relative to those of the previous owners?
  Sir Raymond Gower: Has my hon. Friend been able to ascertain from the local authority whether it knows whether the company owns the land freehold or on a long lease?
  Mr. Lester: I am sorry to say that I have not had that opportunity, because everything has moved so quickly, but I intend to do that.
  What protection have the leaseholders should the company default?
  I move on quickly—because other hon. Members wish to support what I have to say—to the inter-relationship between the various companies involved in this site

  1351
  operation. On the previous occasion when this sort of thing happened in South Wales the buyer and seller companies were part of the Julian Hodge empire.
  This case involves Mr. S. V. Dunstan who is managing director and who has long links with the same group. The credit is offered by the same group and the company offering and advertising holidays on this site in Sunday newspapers belongs to the same group. I understand, although it is difficult to check the complex matters of companies and their relationships, that Pyre Corner Caravans, Puppet Sands, Whiteford Bay, St. Dinat's Holiday Estate, and Howell Caravans all belong to the same group.
  I am greatly concerned at this interlinking between credit, sites and holidays, which is a virtual monopoly. I ask the Minister whether it is possible for the Monopolies Commission to look into this lack of choice for holiday caravanners and into the position of a caravanner who signs the type of lease I have described, with such a total commitment. Such a caravanner cannot look outside for competition or for better value than that which this company is prepared to offer.
  If, as I understand, all of this is legal, I am gravely concerned for the future of holiday caravanners. There are over 500 registered sites in the country and 245,000 holiday vans on static sites. I know from my own experience that many of these sites are well run by decent people. Many others, however, operate unacceptable conditions. I know that the Minister has evidence of this as a result of the mobile homes survey which is currently being conducted in different parts of the country.
  Holiday caravanners are not necessarily wealthy people. I have read out a letter from one such person and I could read many more. Many caravanners, particularly in the Midlands, have a caravan because of special family circumstances. I urge the Minister to speed up the mobile homes survey and get work started so that in future there is some minimum protection for holiday caravanners. I consider that such minimum protection should comprise a proper period of notice before major changes render the caravanners' investment valueless, the
  1352
  establishment of reasonable conditions for leases, and security in one form or another for a worried and defenceless group of people.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I say, as the Member in whose constituency this site is situated, that my hon. Friend has my wholehearted support for the protest he has made and the points he has raised? I support his call for action to deal with the disgraceful conduct of this disreputable company.
  11.52p.m.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). I omit all of the usual courtesies in view of the lack of time.
  As President of the National Association of Caravan Owners, I have received many letters saying that the Dinas affair is a public scandal. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State whether he has had Mr. Dunstan in to see him and spelt out the grave concern felt about this issue. Has he been able, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, to look at the ways in which those caravanners who have refused to sign the pledges demanded of them on 14th January have been treated? Has he been able to give any undertakings to them? What can he say to others throughout the country who fear that if the Dinas affair is allowed to go unpunished the same thing will happen to them, too?
  11.53p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) for raising this matter. The attendance in the House of so many hon. Members is a sure sign of the public concern felt over this problem. This is no small matter. It is big business. There are about 245,000 static holiday caravans. I must declare an interest as the owner of such a caravan.
  The investment in a static caravan can run into several thousands of pounds. Those who buy such caravans are investing in British industry and helping British tourism so they ought to have some help from this House. Unfortunately, this business is bringing a good deal

  1353
  of heartache and anxiety and a deep sense of injustice in a limited number of cases. The root of the problem is that a caravan owner cannot negotiate at arm's length and on equal terms because it is physically impossible in most cases for him to take his custom elsewhere by moving a static caravan.
  I turn to the abuses of the operators' powers and emphasise that, although the volume of complaints is growing, the complaints are not universal. No holiday retreat ought to be a nest of stinging anxieties for those who possess a holiday caravan. I want to deal with the complaints about Trellis Scott and other similar complaints which have come mainly from South Wales—Gower, Pembroke and Merthyr.
  I think that the main complaint is about the time for decision. Inequality of bargaining is inevitable, but what I deplore is that any caravan owner should be bulldozed into making a snap decision in a matter of days. I understand that, allowing time for postage, some of these caravan owners have had about 11 days in which to make a major decision on taking a lease, at a substantial premium, which contains a number of dubiously reasonable terms and involves a good deal of expense.
  I use the word "bulldoze" advisedly. These people were told that, if they did not make a decision by 14th January this year, in some cases their caravans would be removed and the services disconnected. I got in touch with Mr. Dunstan, the managing director of Trellis Scott, on the telephone immediately I heard about the matter. He declined to come and meet me, but I discussed the matter with him at length on the telephone. I cannot mention everything that he told me in confidence, but he will not mind my revealing that I expressed my hope that, in view of the concern expressed by the licensees and by many hon. Members, his company would not feel constrained to take precipitate action. In response, he assured me that he would give special consideration to any case of real need or discernible hardship.
  I have no specific power to force a company to act in a particular way towards caravan owners. I am not sure what else I can do to relieve what is an extremely distressing situation for some
  1354
  individuals. I hope that the company and its officers will respond to the deep-seated concern which I have expressed and which has been expressed by hon. Members.
  There are many other abuses which I have not had time to deal with, but any owner of a caravan faced with this dilemma ought to take immediate action. A decision within a matter of 10 or 11 days could not have been within the wildest contemplation of people who had caravans on this and other sites. I hope that the company will heed my request and that the owners will take advice and seek to negotiate on that advice.
  Although views could be expressed on the prudence of accepting certain clauses in the leases, I think it would be unwise of me to try to offer legal advice from the Dispatch Box in the short time available to me. I will, however, study very carefully all the questions of a legal nature raised by the hon. Gentleman and the documents which he proposes to send to me.
  With regard to possible solutions, apart from that of persuasion, I have looked at the Fair Trading Act 1973, but there are problems there over the definition of a consumer transaction and other matters involving land. I have also looked at the possibilities of a code of conduct, but there are so many operations that it would be extremely difficult to get every one within the ambit of the code. These people are suffering from a mini-monopoly situation. There are problems, and I am looking at them very seriously.
  I cannot give the House a view at the moment on whether it is possible to have a reference to the Monopolies Commission, but I shall examine that request very carefully indeed, because the situation shows many of the abuses which usually arise out of a monopoly.
  The major long-term hope is the mobile homes review. The problems have been listed and my Department has asked 10 consumer bodies for their views on how the law might be changed following the review. About half of these bodies have replied. All of them are in favour of greater protection for holiday caravan owners. I am anxious, as are all hon. Members, that once consultations are complete we should push ahead as fast as possible with the implementation of

  1355
  the findings of the review in so far as they are relevant to the problems of holiday caravan owners.
  It has been suggested that there could be amendment of existing laws, but they have shown such loopholes that we probably need a new approach to the matter. Security of tenure is probably at the heart of the matter.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Price Code. We amended the powers of the Price Commission in the Bill which went through the House in the summer. Charges for site licences for holiday caravans in England and Wales are within the scope of the Price Code, although the Price Commission can merely control the profit margins of site operators. It cannot deal with individual transactions between the caravan owner and the site operator, but it can look at the profit margin of the operator.
  The Trellis Scott case and the other cases drawn to my attention have been passed on to the regional offices of the Price Commission. In addition to the details of the case, the sense of urgency felt by hon. Members has also been conveyed.
  1356
  There is, finally, the question of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Having read the letter which was sent to caravan owners, offering to arrange credit terms, I think that there is no doubt that the Director General of Fair Trading has power to grant or to refuse a credit broker's licence to the Trellis Scott company. Whether that happens or not must be left to the Director General. It would not be proper for me to express a view on the grant of a broker's licence since appeals from licensing cases will come to the Secretary of State. It is therefore a matter which I must leave to his judgment, for absolutely proper reasons.
  I am extremely grateful for the speeches made by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. I shall study them with the greatest urgency I hope that, even without the intervention of the law, there will be a change of heart on the part of those who seek to impose decisions in a very short time, involving a great deal of expenditure of money.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence (Shelters)
  Civil Defence (Shelters)
  Myra Hindley
  Myra Hindley
  Arab Visitors
  Arab Visitors
  Royal Abdication (1936)
  Royal Abdication (1936)
  Departmental Banking
  Departmental Banking
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Sex Discrimination Act
  Sex Discrimination Act
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Pornography
  Pornography
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (PAY)
  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (PAY)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  BELIZE
  BELIZE
  NATO HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT
  NATO HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  NATO HEADQUARTERS
  NATO HEADQUARTERS
  PRESTON
  PRESTON
  ETTRICK
  ETTRICK
  CABINET OFFICE PAPERS
  CABINET OFFICE PAPERS
  SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT
  SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  EL SALVADOR
  EL SALVADOR
  BELGRAVIA
  BELGRAVIA
  KELSALL
  KELSALL
  BRUSSELS
  BRUSSELS
  CHEQUERS
  CHEQUERS
  BANGLADESH, INDIA AND PAKISTAN
  BANGLADESH, INDIA AND PAKISTAN
  SMALL BUSINESSES AND SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  SMALL BUSINESSES AND SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  PAY SETTLEMENTS
  PAY SETTLEMENTS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Liberal Party
  Liberal Party
  Departmental Banking
  Departmental Banking
  Government (Supply of Information)
  Government (Supply of Information)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
ENVIRONMENT
  Flood Damage (Wisbech)
  Flood Damage (Wisbech)
  Housing Finance (Hertfordshire)
  Housing Finance (Hertfordshire)
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Lands (Ownership)
  Lands (Ownership)
  Verney and Stevens Reports
  Verney and Stevens Reports
  Liverpool Inner City Partnership Committee
  Liverpool Inner City Partnership Committee
  Crawley (New Town Houses)
  Crawley (New Town Houses)
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Departmental Banking
  Departmental Banking
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Launderettes
  Launderettes
  Offices
  Offices
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  St. Katharine's Dock
  St. Katharine's Dock
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Allowances (Buildings)
  Capital Allowances (Buildings)
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Travel by Car
  Travel by Car
  Tax Threshold
  Tax Threshold
  Divers
  Divers
  Monetary Union
  Monetary Union
  National Savings Bank
  National Savings Bank
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Investment (Employment Effect)
  Investment (Employment Effect)
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unification Church
  Unification Church
  Burial Costs
  Burial Costs
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Mr. A. J. Murphy, Newbury
  Mr. A. J. Murphy, Newbury
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Gallantry Awards
  Gallantry Awards
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Dental and Ophthalmic Services (Costs)
  Dental and Ophthalmic Services (Costs)
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Prescriptions (Administrative Costs)
  Prescriptions (Administrative Costs)
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Students
  Students
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Telephones (Rebates)
  Telephones (Rebates)
  Family Practioner Committees
  Family Practioner Committees
  Pharmacies
  Pharmacies
  King's Lynn District General Hospital
  King's Lynn District General Hospital
  Hospital Services (North Cambridge)
  Hospital Services (North Cambridge)
  North Cambridgeshire Hospital
  North Cambridgeshire Hospital
  Hunter Rowe Bequest
  Hunter Rowe Bequest
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Geriatrics (Norfolk and King's Lynn)
  Geriatrics (Norfolk and King's Lynn)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Violence in the Family (Report)
  Violence in the Family (Report)
  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre
  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Telephones
  Telephones
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
SCOTLAND
  Oil Development Council
  Oil Development Council
EMPLOYMENT
  Kidwelly Employment Exchange
  Kidwelly Employment Exchange
  Government Chemist's Laboratory
  Government Chemist's Laboratory
  Wages
  Wages
  Heating and Ventilation
  Heating and Ventilation
  Plumbing
  Plumbing
  Departmental Banking
  Departmental Banking
EMPLOYMENT
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Electricians
  Electricians
  Fraud (Investigators)
  Fraud (Investigators)
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Shipbuilding and Allied Industries Management Association
  Shipbuilding and Allied Industries Management Association
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Cannock Chase
  Cannock Chase
  Textiles
  Textiles
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  India (Ship Purchasing)
  India (Ship Purchasing)
  Departmental Banking
  Departmental Banking
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Assembly Building
  Assembly Building
  Disarmament (United Nations Special Session)
  Disarmament (United Nations Special Session)
  Departmental Banking
  Departmental Banking
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departmental Banking
  Departmental Banking
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  United Nations Association
  United Nations Association
  Music Colleges
  Music Colleges
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Teachers
  Teachers
INDUSTRY
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Investment
  Investment
  Colwyn
  Colwyn
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Selective Investment Scheme
  Selective Investment Scheme
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Bank Charges
  Bank Charges
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Mail Order Businesses (Code of Practice)
  Mail Order Businesses (Code of Practice)
TRADE
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Oil Tankers (Discharging)
  Oil Tankers (Discharging)
  Motor Cars
  Motor Cars
  Airports
  Airports
ENERGY
  Oil Rig Construction
  Oil Rig Construction
WALES
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Metrication (Road Signs)
  Metrication (Road Signs)
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Strathearn Audio Ltd.
  Strathearn Audio Ltd.
  Accident Reports
  Accident Reports
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Cruise Missile
  Cruise Missile
  Recruiting
  Recruiting
  Pay
  Pay
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Belfast Aircraft
  Belfast Aircraft
  Neutron Bomb
  Neutron Bomb
  Low-flying Aircraft (Wales)
  Low-flying Aircraft (Wales)
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Accommodation Charges
  Accommodation Charges
  HMS "Bulwark"
  HMS "Bulwark"
  Weather Forecasts
  Weather Forecasts
  Army (Manpower)
  Army (Manpower)
  Latin American Countries
  Latin American Countries
  Fire Service Duties
  Fire Service Duties
  Victoria Cross
  Victoria Cross
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Dartmoor
  Dartmoor
  Retirements
  Retirements
  Royal Air Force (Bahrain)
  Royal Air Force (Bahrain)

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

BRITISH RAIL: DELAYED SERVICES
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the stock excuse from British Rail to passengers alighting at their destination from a train arriving late is, invariably, "shortage of staff".
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this is not the stock excuse. Although during the last two months of 1977 some of Southern Region's services were badly affected by staff problems resulting from industrial action, the most common cause of train lateness is equipment failure. May I add that fewer than 10 per cent. of British Rail's passenger services arrive over five minutes late and that the dispute on Southern Region has now been resolved.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether she is aware that the other day I received a letter from a lady who applied for a situation in a Government Department? The location of the work was near a railway station and she was told that no applicants for the job would be considered if they travelled by British Rail. Therefore, would the noble Baroness not agree that British Rail must be rather unpunctual on occasions?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was not aware of the letter in question, but if the noble Viscount will let me have the information I shall certainly take it up with British Rail.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and I can show her the letter.

CROSSBOWS: UNLICENSED USE
2.38 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their refusal to legislate to make the licensing of crossbows compulsory.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, we have no evidence that crossbows have been used for the purpose of serious crime or that they are misused to any significant extent. A licensing system would impose additional burdens on the police, which would be disproportionate to the scale of the problem.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while rather lukewarmly thanking the noble Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is really aware how lethal these weapons are? Is the noble Lord aware that modern crossbows are fitted with telescopic sights and fire a mechanically propelled steel bolt on a flat projectory, and are capable of killing a man at a distance of up to 100 yards? Moreover, would the noble Lord not agree that such a weapon, being silent and relatively cheap to buy, is tailor-made for criminal activities, apart, of course, from being highly dangerous in the hands of irresponsible or young people? Finally, does the Minister realise the hazard to wildlife and domestic stock made possible by these weapons in the prevailing lawlessness in this country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the situation is that there is very little evidence that crossbows are used for any criminal purposes. The noble Viscount says that they can be misused. Indeed they can, but so can many other articles, including carving knives. However, that is not an argument for a licensing system.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether these crossbows could not be supplied to engine drivers on the Southern Region so that they could protect themselves against passengers who ask silly questions?
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that the real point about the crossbow is that, although it is an extremely dangerous weapon—and on this point I agree with the noble Viscount—it cannot be put into one's pocket, and that that is what really makes it not very useful as a criminal weapon and therefore not needing licensing?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in fact, a man was shot by a crossbow not so long ago? Is the Minister further aware that I have seen two animals with these bolts in them? Only a short time ago I saw a young stag that had a crossbow bolt through its neck—it must have died a very unpleasant death.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have no doubt that crossbows can be misused. However, I am saying that I do not think that a case for licensing has been made out.

COAL OUTPUT
2.43 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have been advised that output of coal has not reached the target set by the National Coal Board, what adjustments must in consequence be made in our energy estimates, and what action is being taken.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there is no formal target set for coal output for the current financial year, ending March 1978, but production is expected to be some 117 million tons. The National Coal Board are aiming at the Plan for Coal target of 135 million tons by 1985.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Govern
270
ment are constantly and accurately being informed on what is happening about output? May I ask whether the incentive scheme which is now in operation—although some coalfields have refused to operate it—has proven successful, and to what extent? Further—in order to save me asking another supplementary question, unless the Minister's answer is unsatisfactory—perhaps I could ask when the Government will make up their mind about an energy policy, so that rather than just talking about energy, they telescope together coal, oil, nuclear energy and everything associated with energy and inform the public of the target and the estimate for the future.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, investment projects covering some two-thirds of new capacity under Plan for Coal have already been approved. Although these projects will take a number of years to yield full benefits, the National Coal Board consider that there is no technical reason why the target should not be reached. Furthermore, although it is too early to quantify the benefits that they will bring, it is expected that incentive schemes will make a significant contribution. On incentive schemes—as my noble friend asked—it is a little early to say, as the first payment for properly measured production will be made on 27th January. With regard to the general question, as my noble friend may know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy set up a high-powered Energy Commission, and there is, of course, an important debate in your Lordships' House next Wednesday which will give us a further opportunity to explore these questions.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, although there may be no technical reason why the planned output for 1985 is not likely to be achieved, is the Minister at present advised that industrial relation; in the coal industry are such that only the 135 million ton target can be achieved? If not, what steps will the Government take to try to improve relationships with the unions in the mining industry?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that relations with the miners are much better than they were in early 1974, All but one of the National Coal Board's areas have now accepted the principle of local productivity schemes, and in all

271
cases agreements have either already been signed or are in the course of being negotiated. The exception is the South Wales area which is holding a ballot for the membership tomorrow.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on average coalface workers have increased their output by 4 per cent. on each coal face throughout the country? Is he further aware that the target of 135 million tons could have been reached if we had not had the mad policy that we have had in the last 10 years of closing pits right, left and centre? In the face of the troubles—which are now being settled—that we have had with various coalfields, would it not be far better to allow them to fix the norm of output at the pits and the incentive schemes and to allow the men to reach agreement quietly, without raising any controversy over this matter?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with his great experience of these matters, I believe that there is a great deal in what my noble friend says. He is, of course, perfectly right. One of the great difficulties was the low level of investment in the coal industry, which started in the 1950s, and also the present amount of effort being devoted to development of pits for future exploitation. I agree with my noble friend that the policy at that time to rely mainly on Arabian oil and atomic energy was mad.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any technical reason why the target for 1985 and beyond should not be raised well above the 135 million tons now proposed? Will he not agree that that target is way below the kind of target that we shall need towards the end of the century? Will he not agree that this target, in turn, will call for far greater investment in research and development in extraction without undue use of manpower?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are, of course, many reasons; as I have said future increased output depends on incentive schemes, modern, new mines, a higher proportion of capital investment per coal face, investment on the surface in coal preparation plants, less labour intensive
272
pits and investment in movement underground to save travelling time to the coal face. These are all factors which are being developed by the National Coal Board in partnership with the Government. I may say also that the target for the year 2000, which is 170 million tons, we believe will be met.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, if the target of 135 million tons a year is reached by the mid-1980s, can my noble friend say whether the coal can be sold? Is the Central Electricity Generating Board prepared to increase its consumption of coal by something like 40 per cent., which would be the amount required in order to use the coal that would be produced by the mid-1980s?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, coal will, of course, also be used to replace North Sea gas—natural gas—and North Sea oil.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, would my noble friend find it convenient to state the Government's present policy on underground gasification?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the National Coal Board have reviewed progress in this field since publication of their report in 1976. They note that some progress has been made, but work is not at a stage where a decision can yet be made about underground gasification in the United Kingdom. The position will be clearer in two or three years when the results of certain experiments taking place in the United States and on the Continent are known, when a decision will be made.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, following on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, about the quantity of coal, I am apprehensive that we shall have too much coal before very long. If we get to that position, will we produce coal at a price that will be competitive in the European area?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that is a very speculative question to try to answer at this time. It is one we perhaps could return to next Wednesday.

UN: COMMON FUND CONFERENCE
2.50 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 on what grounds the UNCTAD conference of one hundred developed and developing nations was suspended on 1st December, thus terminating its proceedings.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the second session of the United Nations negotiating conference on a Common Fund was suspended on 1st December 1977 at the request of the developing countries—the Group of 77—in the absence of agreement on the Fund's scope and financial structure. The developed countries of Group B, in expressing their regret at this decision, made clear their readiness to continue the negotiations as soon as all groups can agree to do so. In his concluding remarks, the chairman of the Conference, Ambassador Walker of Jamaica, commented that the Group of 77 did not regard the suspension as a final breakdown; and the Secretary-General of UNCTAD has subsequently been invited to undertake consultations with a view to a resumption of negotiations at an early date.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, as always, may I ask him this? Is he aware that many of us were deeply disappointed that the British representative should not have identified himself with seven Western European countries and should have identified himself with the three hardliners, the United States, Japan, and Germany? Is not the real issue here whether the Common Fund should have comprehensive functions for co-operation rather than becoming just a banking agency?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my noble friend has not, I think, put quite correctly the grouping within the conference. It is true that the United Kingdom, when the final statement was made, was in association with what my noble friend has called
274
the "hard-liners", the United States and Germany, but this was the opinion of a majority of the developed countries. The developed countries which were dissenting from that view of Group B as a whole were the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. I agree that the position of those countries was nearer to that of the Group of 77.
As to my noble friend's second question, of course a main part of the issue is about the functioning of the proposed Fund and the sources of its finance. But it is a view, which I think my noble friend would do well to study, that the existing range of agencies in the United Nations, including a recently established agricultural development agency, is capable of doing many of the things that the Group of 77 would want this common Fund to do. It is not that it is to be just what my noble friend calls a banking organisation. There is an important point of view that I think perhaps he would do well to examine further.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I shall be returning to the broader subject in a Question tomorrow? Meanwhile, may I ask him this. Cannot this very important matter be considered at Cabinet level so that when the Commonwealth Ministerial Conference meets on this subject we may not be in a minority, as we have been before? Is it not important not merely to raise the standard of life in the Third World but, by increasing its purchasing power, to reduce unemployment in this country?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I of course understand that my noble friend is likely to pursue this matter, and it is certainly not for me to decide what matters are considered by the Cabinet. However, I assure him that the attitude of the United Kingdom to this question of the Common Fund has been considered at the very highest level and given the most serious consideration. I do not think at this stage that I can go further than that, except to say to my noble friend that I am with him, as indeed are the Government, in wanting to do all that we can to help the dew loping countries lift up their living standards. If he will consult, for example, the recent White Paper on public expenditure he will notice there that the Government are

275
putting those sentiments into practice for the coming years.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when there will be available to this House, and to Parliament generally, either an analysis or an approximation of the costs and benefits to the United Kingdom of the Common Fund in the form in which it is presently proposed? Secondly, will he assure us that we will not in this round of conferences do what we did at the last; namely, defend our right to reject the principle—in that case of the Common Fund; in this case of the second window and the source fund—to the last possible minute and then, when all good will has been lost from the other side, suddenly give way on it?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I do not think that that is fair. It is true that the position of Her Majesty's Government was what might be termed nearer to a hard-liner position if one looks at the situation a year ago, but we should not underestimate the change of emphasis in our policy and the acceptance during the North/South dialogue of the principle of the Common Fund, and the fact that we have put forward, together with our associates in Group B, practical proposals for the implementation of the Common Fund, which we have accepted.
As regards the noble Lord's first point, he will understand, from the suspension of the negotiations at the moment, hopefully to be renewed as soon as preparations can be made, that this is not the time for the laying of papers explaining the position. I shall take note of his anxiety that as soon as possible Parliament should be informed of the position, but I would assure him that the position of the negotiations is not yet at that stage.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Mission and our delegates there—the men who deal with this matter in the British Mission at the United Nations—are men of exceptional quality with long experience, and that there is no need at all to pass this over to Cabinet level, because they would have to rely upon the experience of the people at the United Nations in dealing with it?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend says about the
276
quality of our representatives. I think my noble friend Lord Brockway, in raising this Question, was just anxious that the matter should be considered at the highest possible level, and I gave him that assurance.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would my noble friend advise noble Lords that they can obtain information from the utterly inspired report of their own Select Committee on this vital question, and that in its report that Committee in fact advocated that Britain should be a little more forthcoming so far as the Common Fund is concerned?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has called attention to that report, which we had the opportunity of debating. However, the comment in the report—and he was a member of the Select Committee—was in relation to the United Kingdom's attitude in March last year. As I pointed out in answer to other questions, that attitude has changed, and I would hope that the Select Committee, if it were now meeting, would comment favourably on that change of emphasis.

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1a.

BLASPHEMY (ABOLITION OF OFFENCE BILL) [H.L.]
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish the statutory and common law offence of blasphemy. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. (Lord Willis.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Report received.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendment No. 1:

277
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Guidance on professional conduct or medical ethics.
(" .The powers of the General Council shall include that of providing, in such manner as the Council think fit, guidance for members of the medical profession on standards of professional conduct or on medical ethics.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the long list of Amendments tabled in my name must seem formidable, but I promise not to delay your Lordships for long. Many of them have been agreed; others are to be taken in groups. I shall speak only to three of them at any length and then for only a few minutes on each. Noble Lords will recall that on 13th December we discussed in Committee three Amendments which I put forward on the functions of the General Medical Council, the duty of its education committee and on the experience required for full registration. On behalf of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, accepted those Amendments of mine in principle, on condition that they were examined carefully and redrafted as necessary by Parliamentary Counsel and reintroduced on Report.
That has been done and the redrafted versions, in effect with the same meaning as the originals, are before the House today as Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and 11 to 24. I spoke to them in Committee and your Lordships discussed them then, so I shall say very little about them now, except that I am of course prepared to accept the revised wording of them all. I wish to thank Lord Wells-Pestell and my noble friend Lord Sandys for all their help, patience and kindness to someone like myself who is comparatively new to the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure. I also wish to thank Parliamentary Counsel for their forbearance and co-operation in redrafting these Amendments which I know have given them much extra work.
The purpose of my first Amendment is to make it clear that the General Medical Council should not only have a judicial role in relation to professional conduct but also he entitled to give guidance to members of the medical profession on standards of professional conduct and medical ethics. I am sure that this power will, by helping the Council to
278
promote high standards of professional conduct, both serve the public interest and contribute to the efficiency of the medical profession.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I support the Amendment, which was ably moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley. I join with him in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the great amount of time and trouble he has taken with Parliamentary Counsel, to which my noble friend referred, and his colleagues in the Government, because this has been a formidable task and it has beer achieved in the short time between Committee and today.
An analogy has been drawn between the Highway Code and what is proposed in this Amendment, and it appears that this would be one of the best forms of guidance to which the GMC could direct its attention in the important matter of professional conduct on medicine and ethics. The Amendment follows closely on the report of Sir Alex Merrison, paragraph 268, and I think it meets all the requirements to which he and his colleagues referred. I do not think it is necessary to add to the argument, but I believe that as a result of what was said in Committee and of the further discussions which have taken place the matter has now been set in the right context.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I too commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, for all his efforts to improve and strengthen the Bill, and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his extremely conciliatory and co-operative attitude towards the attempts to improve the Bill. Having said that, I am bound to say that I have considerable reservations about this Amendment. This matter was discussed very briefly in Committee, and at that time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew a parallel between the General Medical Council and the Law Society and Bar Council, and rightly pointed out that lawyers in difficulty could seek advice in advance from their respective bodies, could find out the right course to pursue and not suddenly find themselves in jeopardy at a later stage, as has sometimes happened with doctors. However, there is a difference. Those two bodies, the Law Society and Bar Council,

279
are entirely under professional control, whereas the GMC has been set up by Parliament to exercise functions which are primarily not professional functions but are functions for the protection of the general public. My fears about the Amendment are lest it should encourage the GMC to intrude into the making of decisions which have not yet been firmly made and which are, in my view, more properly decisions for Parliament or the courts.
In this connection, I would remind the House briefly of two cases, and no doubt others will come to mind. Noble Lords will recollect the case of Dr. Alec Bourne who, many years ago, performed an abortion on a girl who had become pregnant as a result of rape, and later the courts upheld his action and, by so doing, the law on that matter—the law in relation to rape and the law in relation to the consideration of the mental health of the mother—was changed for all time. There is not the slightest doubt that had Dr. Bourne sought the advice of the General Medical Council at that time as to whether he should do what he did, they would have replied, "No"; and knowing of course that the GMC was to be the body that would later decide whether or not he had acted professionally and properly, a wise doctor would heed that counsel if it was given.
Another example: a distinguished surgeon from my area, Manchester, Mr. Wilson-Hay, many years ago took it upon himself to provide morphia and syringes to members of mountain rescue teams and indeed to put morphia in mountain rescue first-aid posts for use in emergencies with extremely shocked casualties. At a later stage his action was upheld in the courts and, as a result, mountain rescue teams are now able to have morphia. There is not the slightest doubt that had Mr. Wilson-Hay at that time put to the GMC the question, "Can I give these people morphia?", they would have replied "No", and probably Mr. Wilson-Hay, as a law-abiding surgeon, would have acceded to their reply.
Noble Lords do not need me to prompt them about possible future cases, so I will merely refer to a few. We now have doubt as to what actually is the law regarding the determination of death in
280
relation to the taking of human tissue and human organs for transplant purposes. That matter will undoubtedly have to be decided firmly and finally. But surely it should be decided by Parliament and the courts and should not be left to a decision to be taken by a GMC which has not been specially constituted and which is not necessarily properly equipped to take that kind of decision. No doubt in the future we shall have arguments about euthanasia and matters of that kind. Maybe further arguments will arise on the abortion law. Again, in my view these are matters to be decided by Parliament or the courts, and not by the GMC.
I appreciate that the Amendment is loose and does not require the General Medical Council to take those decisions; but my feeling is that if it is once invited to do so, the likelihood is that it will take those decisions. If it subsequently transpires that the GMC gives firm advice only to those doctors who seek advice about matters which have already been firmly decided, that is one thing; but if the newly-constituted GMC should then take it upon itself to tell a doctor, "You may do this" or "You may not do that", when these matters have not been finally decided in the proper way, then that seems to me to be a rather different thing.
I hope your Lordships will have those thoughts in mind when considering this particular Amendment, and if the Amendment is later accepted then I hope that those remarks of mine will be considered at a later stage, especially when the GMC are deciding what note to take of these particular powers if they are later given them.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, the wording of this new clause states:
"The powers of the General Council shall include that of providing … guidance …".
Would my noble friend state when he comes to reply, perhaps, what action, if any, the General Medical Council are expected to take if any doctor does not comply with the guidance that they may give? It is simply a directive to provide guidance, and does not impose any penalties upon a doctor who does not necessarily follow that guidance.
3.12 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I

281
wish to crave your Lordships' indulgence for just a few minutes before I attempt to reply to those noble Lords who have just spoken and before I say anything with regard to the Amendment now before your Lordships' House. It must have occurred to those of your Lordships who have very carefully followed this Bill through both Second Reading and Committee stage that a very fundamental change in the character of the Bill itself has taken place. I have already been reminded that at Second Reading I was very forthright in so far as I said, not only that this was a simple Bill which was acceptable in toto to the General Medical Council and various other people concerned but that the Government could not see their way clear, for a whole variety of reasons—and I gave your Lordships those reasons at the time—to extending the Bill. I mentioned that many of the proposals would have far-reaching and deep-seated consequences, and that it would take time to discuss with the various bodies concerned what really ought to be done; and I repeated this at Committee stage. Those of your Lordships who have looked at the Bill and, since, at the Amendments before your Lordships' House this afternoon will have seen that it appears that either I or the Government, or both, have done a complete turnabout, and I feel I owe it to your Lordships to explain what has taken place.
What I said on that occasion was that the Government could not contemplate including certain matters in the Bill. I said that, not because the Government wished to be obstructive or to drag their feet over this important issue but just because there were a lot of important questions to be settled, agreement on which had not at that time been reached and as to which there was some reason to believe agreement might not be reached. The Government said as long ago as July of last year that they accepted the Merrison recommendations on this issue in principle, but did not wish to rush into legislation if there was any danger that the General Medical Council or the medical profession, including, of course, doctors from overseas, were not content with the various proposals. However, during the last month circumstances have changed dramatically and, I am inclined to say, at an unprecedented speed. I have never known so much agreement to be achieved in so little time. The General Medical Council,
282
the British Medical Association and the Overseas Doctors' Association felt it so important that the Bill's provisions should be extended to implement Merrison's recommendations on a variety of matters that an unexpected consensus has emerged on these matters among these groups as to the form the provisions should take.
This consensus is to son e extent reflected in the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; and, as he himself has been good enough to say, the Government have given a great deal of time to a consideration of them. We have been able—and I speak now on behalf of the Government—to satisfy ourselves, not only that these Amendments reflect the Government's views on these matters but that they are also acceptable to the various bodies concerned, some of which had serious reservations about some aspects of the Merrison Report when they first came out. It is because of these changed circumstances, because there has been this consensus and because there has been a good deal of work done, particularly by my Department and by Parliamentary Counsel, that I was able to say at the Committee stage that certain of the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we accepted in principle, but they needed redrafting. That promise has been fulfilled. In the spirit of all the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we have redrafted the particular Amendments he will be moving today, and there is no Government opposition to them. In fact, if I may be permitted to say so, there is no Government opposition to any of the Amendments before your Lordships today, with the exception of the one in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I felt I owed this explanation to your Lordships because noble Lords may have wondered (as some did, because they so indicated to me privately) at the changed nature of this Bill.
Now, my Lords, the Amendment which is before us is one of the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put down at Committee stage which we accepted in principle and said we would redraft. This we have done; and the Government's attitude towards it has not changed at all. We accept this Amendment, which, as I say, we have redrafted. If I could attempt to answer the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, briefly, as I understand it there is nothing in the new

283
clause which will prevent matters of the kind which he described still being for the courts to decide if there is a question of transgression of the law. I think this must always be an overriding factor in any legislation which comes before Parliament: that in the last analysis, if there appears to have been any transgression of the law, it is for the courts to decide.
As to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Segal, I think I can only say that the purpose of this Bill, or perhaps one of the purposes of this Bill, is to give the General Medical Council an opportunity (I hope this will not be misunderstood) to, I was going to say, put their house in order. I do not really mean it in that sense, but to give them an opportunity to do things which they themselves, I think, consider long overdue and which certainly the British Medical Association consider to be long overdue; and I think one must give them an opportunity to do what they feel is required to be done to meet the needs of the day. It is on those grounds that the Government offer no objection to this Amendment. In fact, they accept it, my Lords.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend answer another point? Will the General Medical Council automatically have to take action in the case of a doctor not observing the guidance given to him by them?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I had the feeling that there was something I had not answered. With respect, I suggest that this matter is one entirely for the General Medical Council. If they issue certain instructions or certain directives which are considered by the General Medical Council, as a body, to be relevant to the practice of medicine and the conduct of the doctor, then, if any member of the medical profession decides to ignore it, I would suggest that it is for the GMC to decide whether there should be some kind of disciplinary action.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [The Education Committee of the General Medical Council.]:
3.20 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
284
Page 16, line 36, at end insert ("having the general function of promoting high standards of medical education and co-ordinating all stages of medical education").
Page 17, line 4, at end insert—
(" (3A) For the purpose of discharging their general function under subsection (1) above the Education Committee shall—

(a) determine the extent of the knowledge and skill which is to be required for the granting of primary United Kingdom qualifications and secure that the instruction given in universities in the United Kingdom to persons studying for such qualifications is sufficient to equip them with knowledge and skill of that extent;

(b) determine the standard of proficiency which is to be required from candidates at qualifying examinations and secure the maintenance of that standard; and

(c) determine patterns of experience which may be recognised as suitable for giving to those who have passed a qualifying examination general clinical training for the purposes of the practice of their profession.

(3B) The determinations of the Education Committee under subsection (3A) above shall be embodied in recommendations which may be directed to all or any of the universities or other bodies which are concerned with medical education.
(3C) In the Medical Acts 1956 to 1969—

"the prescribed knowledge and skill" means knowledge and skill of the extent for the time being determined under subsection (3A)(a) above and embodied in recommendations under subsection (3B) above;

"the prescribed standard of proficiency" means the standard of proficiency for the time being determined under subsection (3A)(b) above and embodied in recommendations under subsection (3B) above; and

"a prescribed pattern of experience" means any pattern of experience for the time being determined under subsection (3A)(c) above and embodied in recommendations under subsection (3B) above.")

Page 17, line 5, after ("below") insert ("and to the amendments made by Schedule 5 to this Act,")
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("this section") and insert ("sub-section (4) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 en bloc. These correspond to Amendments that I moved at Committee stage. They are intended to give a general function to the education committee of the reconstituted General Medical Council to promote high standards of medical education, to co-ordinate all stages of medical education, and to provide a more flexible machinery for the determination of the standards to be required during the undergraduate curriculum and on qualification. The

285
Amendments, as redrafted by Parliamentary Counsel, are considerably longer than those which I originally moved. I am, however, assured that the new wording is intended to achieve the same results, but in places it uses a different phraseology.
In particular, the proposed new Clause 14(3A)(c), in Amendment No. 3, proposes that the education committee should
"determine patterns of experience which may be recognised as suitable for giving to those who have passed a qualifying examination general clinical training for the purposes of the practice of their profession".
I understand that this refers to the suitable combination of posts to be held by the young doctor during his pre-registration year and not to any subsequent period of general professional training. This is important because we do not want to interfere in any way with the work of the universities and the Royal Colleges. If any noble Lord should feel any doubt as to the clarity of this wording, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will bring the matter to the attention of his colleagues for consideration in another place.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should again like to support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley in these redrafted Amendments. Your Lordships will recall that they follow very closely on the pattern of Amendment No. 3 in Committee and, of course, on paragraphs 67 and 70 in the Merrison Report and the later comments by Merrison on this highly important subject. Great skill has been displayed—if that does not sound too patronising a comment—by those concerned in the Parliamentary Counsel office, because these Amendments now skilfully enable those bodies concerned, including the Royal Colleges, to accept them as they stand. I feel that a great many people should be heartily congratulated on achieving agreement in this difficult field.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is no need for me to detain the Committee longer than to say that this has been looked at very carefully by Parliamentary Counsel even since the redrafting. It is our view that there is not likely to be any conflict between the
286
phrase "general clinical training" and "general professional training". We would hold that it is patently clear that they are two entirely different things. What we are going to do, notwithstanding the fact that we have already looked at them since they were put down, is to look at them again and will get further advice, if it is necessary and if there is the remotest chance of confusion, so that steps can be taken to provide the necessary Amendment in another place.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
".—(1) In section 15 of the Medical Act 1956
Experience required for full registration
(pre-registration experience) the following amendments shall be made.
(2) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) A person who has been employed as aforesaid may apply to his examining body for a certificate under this section, and if that body are satisfied—

(a) that during the time he his been so employed he has been engaged in at least two branches of medicine prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph for the minimum period prescribed for each branch;

(b) that the terms on which he has been so employed were such as to provide him with the experience required by a prescribed pattern of experience recognised by that body as applicable to persons for whom they are the examining body; and

(c) that his service while so employed has been satisfactory,

they shall grant him a certificate in the prescribed form that they are satisfied as aforesaid".
(3) After subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) The Education Committee may, if they think fit, appoint persons to visit any approved hospital or approved institution.
(3B) It shall be the duty of visitors appointed under subsection (3A) above to report to the Education Committee on the extent to which the general clinical training given by employment in a resident medical capacity in the hospital or institution is such as to provide the experience required by one or more prescribed patterns of experience.
(3C) If the Education Committee is of the opinion that—

(a) an approved hospital or an approved institution does not provide experience required by any prescribed pattern of experience; or

(b) a pattern of experience recognised as applicable to persons by then examining

287
body is not a prescribed pattern of experience; or

(c) employment of persons on terms of a particular description which is accepted by their examining body as providing persons employed on terms of that description with the experience required by a prescribed pattern of experience does not in fact provide that experience,

then the Committee shall notify their opinion to the university or body concerned and that university or body shall have regard to that opinion in discharging their functions under this section.".
(4) Subsections (4) and (5) shall be omitted.
(5) In subsection (6) for the words "surgery or midwifery required" there shall be substituted the words "a branch of medicine prescribed" and for the words from "medicine" to "in his case" there shall be substituted the words "some other prescribed branch of medicine (whether or not one in the practice of which he has already had experience)".
(6) In subsection (8), in the paragraph defining the expression "approved", after the words "this Act", there shall be inserted the words "as providing experience required by one or more prescribed patterns of experience", in the definition of the expression "prescribed", after the word "means", there shall be inserted the words" (except in the expression "prescribed pattern of experience")" and, in the paragraph construing references to employment in a resident medical capacity, for the words "medicine, surgery or midwifery" there shall be substituted the words "any branch of medicine prescribed for the purposes of this section"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. The first purpose of this Amendment is to strengthen the powers of the universities in supervising their graduates during the pre-registration year which follows graduation and precedes full registration. The clause also gives to the education committee of the new Council more explicit powers to control the nature of the experience to be gained during this part of the young doctor's training.
The clause also removes the option of midwifery at this stage of the doctor's training but leaves it open to the education committee and to the universities to arrange, if they think it right, more flexible patterns of experience.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think I can usefully say anything other than what I have said earlier: that this is an Amendment which has been redrafted and that we are perfectly satisfied that it meets what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, intends.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendment No. 7.
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Requirement of linguistic knowledge for the registration of overseas qualified doctors.
" . In section 18(1)(b) of the Medical Act 1956 as amended by the Medical Act 1969 the word "and" shall be inserted at the end and the following paragraph shall be added—
"(c) that he has the knowledge of English specified in section 7B(1) of the Medical Act 1956 as amended by the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1977."."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which stands in my name. Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage of this Bill I withdrew at the suggestion of the noble, Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, four Amendments about the language difficulties of some overseas-qualified doctors and about the part that the General Medical Council might play in their registration. I did not then speak to these Amendments and they were not debated because it was said that they concerned "matters dealing with a complex situation". I told your Lordships I had intended to put them forward as probing Amendments and Hansard reported me as saying then:
"I hope that some of the difficulties may be ironed out and that it may be possible, perhaps on Report, to introduce one or two clauses about the registration of overseas-qualified doctors."—[Official Report, col. 2049; 13/12/77.]
That is what I am doing now in the next three Amendments which are before the House for consideration. I should like to speak to each of them separately for a very few minutes because they impinge upon some very important matters which we have not debated so far and which I think it might be helpful at this stage to put on record. It is possible, if your Lordships wish, that a short discussion on each might prove helpful.
This Amendment No. 7, refers to the linguistic difficulties of overseas-qualified doctors. A whole chapter of the Merrison Report was devoted to criticisms of the present arrangements for the registration of doctors who had qualified overseas, with suggestions for remedying this situation. Many of these doctors, as we all know, speak English extremely well and have done magnificent work for us. Our National Health Service could not

289
have developed as it has, and might even not exist now, without the help they have given us.
The Merrison Report, two and a half years ago, said that a number of them had been admitted to registration in Britain when their ability to speak English was seriously in question. In putting forward this Amendment, I am trying to help our patients and their doctors together; and as soon as possible. Our patients must have first priority. It may be felt that they have not been considered quite enough in our deliberations so far on this Bill. So far as I can tell, they were mentioned only once during our two and a quarter hour debate in Committee. A language barrier between patients and their doctors may be extremely frustrating for both when they misunderstand one another, and find themselves talking at cross-purposes; sometimes it may be a very serious matter indeed, if a patient is gravely ill.
A person, especially a shy young woman who is nervous, with an embarrassing and personal complaint, may do her best to avoid going to her doctor anyway. If she feels that he is unlikely to understand or follow properly what she wants to tell him, and that she, in her turn, is likely to be unable to grasp his advice, she may never go at all. I, myself, have every sympathy for patients and their doctors in these situations. I was born in India, and I am told that when quite young I learnt more Hindustani from my "ayah" (my Indian nannie) than I did English from my parents. I have forgotten it all now. I suspect that I should be more than unhappy and unsure of myself, even after a six-month language course, trying to take a complicated medical history in Hindustani (especially colloquial Hindustani), or advising a patient on a very personal problem in that language.
Colloquialisms are common enough in English medicine, such as: "It's my water-works, doctor", "My ticker is playing me up"; and the more subtle misunderstanding of a patient of mine when she attended an eye hospital for early cataract: "What's the trouble, madam?" the doctor asked. "I can't see quite so well in the dark", she replied. Whereupon the doctor went to the
290
window, drew the curtains across, and said "None of us can, can we?".
In June last year the Medical Acts were changed by the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1977 (Statutory Instrument No. 827 of 1977) which required that a British- or EEC-qualified doctor applying for full registration must satisfy the Registrar of the Council
"that he has the necessary knowledge of English, that is, the knowledge which, in the interests of himself and his patients, is necessary to the practice of medicine in the United Kingdom".
This requirement now applies to doctors qualifying in any Member State of the EEC, such as France, Germany or Italy, including the United Kingdom and Ireland. But it does not apply to doctors seeking full registration from other countries, such as India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and other African States, or anywhere else overseas. The General Medical Council, through reciprocal agreements, still has, by law, to grant full registration to doctors holding recognised qualifications granted in India before May 1975, however much or little English they can speak. During 1976 it registered 1,750 such doctors, and last year 1,335. None of these could be required to take a language test. This will go on until the law is changed.
I must make it quite clear that in this Amendment I am not seeking to discriminate against overseas-qualified doctors from any country in the matter of language, but merely to ensure that they all meet the same requirements. I understand that almost everyone concerned with the medical profession in this country has now accepted that such arrangements are desirable.
My Lords, I am most anxious that neither our patients nor their doctors should have to wait too long for help over this matter of language. In this Bill we have a good chance to put things right quite soon, rather than having to wait for a second Bill to reach the Statute Book; something which we know may take a considerable time. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am in some difficulty because I thought that the arrangement with the noble Lord

291
was that he would move Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together as they relate more or less to the same matter, and then would reply to all three. I did not want to give the same reply to each of the Amendments in turn. I do not know whether the noble Lord is prepared to agree to this arrangement. If so, I shall make the one reply covering all three Amendments.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, may I interrupt? The next Amendment, Amendment No. 10, is in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I happen to know he is on his way here because we flew down in the same aeroplane from Scotland, and if we can "spin out" the discussion he may be in his place at any moment for the next Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Lord Kinnoull's Amendment is Amendment No. 10. I am now talking about Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
Lord FERRIER: Exactly.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, I am very happy to move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 now, if the House agrees.
3.36 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Limited registration of overseas qualified doctors.
(". For section 25(1) of the Medical Act 1956 as amended by section 12 of the Medical Act 1969 there shall be substituted—
"25.—(1) Where a person satisfies the Registrar:

(a) that he holds, has held, or has passed the examinations necessary for obtaining, some Commonwealth or foreign qualification or qualifications recognised for the time being by the Council for the purposes of this section: and

(b) that he complies with such other requirements as to proficiency in English, professional knowledge and competence, good character, and experience as the Council may think to impose,

the Council may if they think fit give a direction that he shall be registered under this section for such period, and in relation to such employment or range of employment as may be specified in the direction.".")
292
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Progress from limited to full registration.
".After section 25 of the Medical Act 1956 there shall be inserted—
"25A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall be granted registration by virtue of the foregoing section after the appointed day for any period which exceeds five years or which, when added to periods of such registration granted to him after the passing of the Medical Act 1978, would in the aggregate exceed five years.
(2) Where a person satisfies the Council:

(a) that he holds a qualification recognised by the Council for the purposes of the foregoing section, and

(b) that he has the knowledge of English specified in section 7A of the Act, and

(c) that it would be proper to grant him full registration having regard to:

(i) the standard of the qualification referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection and of any further qualification of qualifications which he may possess, and

(ii) the range and nature of the professional experience which he has acquired while employed either in the United Kingdom or overseas or both and the standard of professional knowledge and skill which he has exhibited while so employed,

the Council may, if they think fit, direct that he be granted full registration by virtue of this section."."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 8 deals with the limited registration of overseas-qualified doctors. It seeks to give effect to important recommendations in the Merrison Report that the present system of temporary registration should be replaced by a new and more flexible system of limited registration. Arrangements for temporary registration were first introduced by the Medical Practitioners and Pharmacists Act 1947. For some years after that few overseas-qualified doctors took advantage of these arrangements but, recently, the number of doctors seeking temporary registration has increased very substantially.
During 1977 the General Medical Council granted no less than 11,186 periods of temporary registration to overseas-qualified doctors. The number of such doctors holding temporary registration at the beginning of 1978 was 5,982. Amendment No. 8 would change the present statutory arrangements in the following ways. It would enable the Council to continue to adopt a flexible

293
attitude in recognising qualifications for the purpose of limited registration; at the same time it would specifically authorise the Council to impose requirements as to proficiency in English, professional knowledge and competence, good character and experience which at present can be used only by the Council exercising its general discretion for this purpose. In this respect, Amendment No. 8 would simply be tidying up the present law and bringing it more into line with practice.
The present legislation is restrictive in that temporary registration can be given only for the purpose of holding a specific appointment. Accordingly, it needs to be renewed every time the doctor changes his job. This gives rise to a great deal of work, and the cost of this has to be recovered from the fees charged to doctors holding temporary registration. It is of course desirable that the Council should be able to ensure that temporary or limited registration is granted only in respect of work which the doctor is capable of performing: but it is not necessary for this purpose in every case to limit the grant of it to a particular job. Very often the doctor's training and experience are such that he could safely be permitted to engage in a special branch of medicine—for example, paediatrics or anaesthetics—in which he may do several jobs, up to an agreed level of responsibility in the National Health Service, so long as he does not seek to hold appointments in other branches of medicine for which he has not received appropriate training and experience. Amendment No. 8 would therefore enable the Council to be more flexible in this respect. This would save the doctors concerned a great deal of trouble, and benefit them financially; it would help the hospitals for which they work, and it would lighten the burden of the General Medical Council, enabling it to perform its functions more efficiently in this field.
I have been assured on good authority from several sources that the General Medical Council, the executive of the BMA and the Overseas Doctors' Association approve of these Amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, suggested. I should like to express thanks for all the help I have received from them. In a letter to the editor of the British Medical Journal just over a month ago —17th December — the general secretary of the
294
Overseas Doctors' Association in the United Kingdom wrote:—
"I welcome any suitable and just method of assessing the standards of overseas doctors before entry to Britain and the National Health Service…
"Temporary registration should be abolished and a more flexible system of registration adopted. After the Temporary Registration Assessment Board test overseas doctors should be able to pursue their training and career objectives without the inconvenience or hindrance that results from the system of temporary registration, and should also be able to progress to full registration after some time in the light of their experience obtained in this country…"
And he continued in his letter to the editor:
"As you say, it is still not too late to include this clause in the present Bill, and I only hope and pray that the Government is able to do it; otherwise overseas doctors are going to be terribly dissappointed."
Amendment No. 9 deals with progress from limited to full registration. It seeks to implement another recommendation in the Merrison Report—paragraph 197— and is designed to be complementary to the two which I have moved earlier. Like those Amendments it has the support of the General Medical Council, of the British Medical Association, and also of the Overseas Doctors' Association. This Amendment is directed to two different purposes. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause would impose an overall time limit to the period for which, after the passing of the Bill, a doctor could hold limited registration. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid the perpetuation of a sort of second-class doctor, holding limited registration only, as a permanent feature of the medical profession in this country.
The original idea of temporary registration was to meet the needs of doctors who came here temporarily for postgraduate study. It is certainly not my intention to place any obstacle in the way of this entirely legitimate and most desirable practice. Indeed, if my Amendments are accepted, the majority of doctors who will be granted limited registration in future, will be here temporarily before returning to their own countries to practise. The precise length of time which is necessary for this purpose of postgraduate education is open to debate. I do not think that it should be less than five years, which is the period mentioned in this clause.
Many programmes of postgraduate training would require up to that time.

295
However, if it were thought that five years is an insufficient period I personally would have no objection if it were extended to, say, seven years. But I think there is general agreement that there ought to be some limit of time beyond which it is not open to the Council to grant limited registration to any overseas-qualified doctor who intends to stay in this country for good. This Amendment will have the effect of compelling those who wish to make a permanent career in this country to equip themselves for full registration.
The second part of this clause provides a much more practicable and sensible avenue for this purpose than exists at present. Now, a doctor whose qualification is recognised only for the purpose of temporary registration can obtain full registration only by entering and passing the examinations for a primary medical qualification such as the MRCS, LRCP of the Conjoint Board, a general medical and surgical examination which is appropriate for a young graduate leaving his medical school. This can be a very real and rather unreasonable hurdle to a doctor in the middle of his career, especially if he has been working for some years as a specialist in one particular subject.
How many of us professional men—doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on—would relish the idea, in the middle of our careers, of going back to the beginning to take our qualifying examinations once again in another country? And yet this is what we are now asking some of our overseas-qualified doctors to do. At the present time the General Medical Council can recognise an overseas qualification for the purpose of full registration only if the country in which it was granted makes available reciprocal privileges of practice to British-qualified doctors—recognising each others degrees and diplomas, which, briefly, is what reciprocity means. As a result of this the Council is unable to recognise for full registration many reputable qualifications granted in the United States of America or in Canada, and doctors holding those qualifications, however good, can become eligible for registration here only by taking again a qualifying examination.
The Morrison Report recognised that this was unsatisfactory and the second part of my Amendment is designed to
296
remedy that situation. It provides that the Council may grant full registration to a doctor holding limited registration if he can show that he has the necessary knowledge of English and if he has obtained a higher degree or diploma such as, for example, the MCh or FRCS, the MRCP, the MRCOG, or MRCGP, which can be taken into account. He or she must also show that the range and nature of professional experience (acquired either in this country under limited registration or overseas, or both) and the standard of professional knowledge and skill exhibited while so employed are sufficient.
Before leaving the subject of full registration I should mention that the Merrison Report recommended the discontinuance of the system of reciprocity. While I agree with that recommendation I have not on this occasion put down an Amendment to implement it, as I understand that the Government take the view that this must be preceded by consultations with the other countries concerned. Needless to say, if and when the Government introduce a clause to cover this point I should welcome it.
If this Amendment No. 9 is accepted it would mean that all those overseas-qualified doctors in this country who are at present confined to temporary registration would, if their individual qualifications and attainments justify it, but not otherwise, be permitted to proceed to full registration. So far as registration is concerned, this would place them in a position of equality with their British-qualified colleagues and with doctors in the EEC and other reciprocating countries with no discrimination against any group. The decision whether a particular doctor could properly be granted full registration would lie with the only body with which it could properly lie; that is to say, the reconstituted General Medical Council.
My Lords, as I have indicated, these last three Amendments are closely related. If they or smilar provisions, are included, in this Bill the task of the reconstituted General Medical Council in relation to the registration of overseas-qualified doctors will be made much easier and those doctors will receive much fairer treatment than is possible under the present legislation. Therefore I very much hope that, subject to any minor modifications which they think desirable, the

297
Government will agree that these matters, which really are urgent, should be included in this Bill. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley on these three Amendments taken together I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his colleagues for their very swift and helpful attitude to these three Amendments. It has been a matter of great concern how the 19,000 overseas qualified doctors should be placed in the situation as it stands today, especially in regard to the EEC recognition procedure.
This series of Amendments, as my noble friend has said, enables the position to be obtained whereby overseas qualified doctors are on all-fours with colleagues in the EEC. Let us look back at the position prior to the Merrison Report. We had on the Statute Book the whole of Part III of the Medical Act of 1956. If one reads through Sections 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 25 of that Act, one realises what a formidable set of qualifications would be needed and, further, the intricate pattern which had been developed hitherto. The process has now been made more flexible and very much more sensible, in our belief, by having the process referred to; that is, limited registration. We believe that the Merrison recommendations are ones which required early implementation and we are particularly grateful to the Government for acceding to this. Further, we are very pleased that the Secretary of State, in his discussion with the Overseas Doctors' Association only last Friday, reached such a measure of agreement and that it has been possible to proceed on this basis.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I rise merely to express my delight and astonishment on learning that agreement has been achieved on this very complex matter so very rapidly. It always seemed to me that the situation concerning overseas doctors was probably one of the most urgent with which this whole business dealt. At the same time, with many other noble Lords, I was well aware that there was considerable disagreement among all the different parties concerned about precisely what ought to be done. I am sure that your Lordships
298
are aware that you have only to have three doctors together for five minutes for them to arrive at a situation of total disagreement about almost anything, and when in addition they come from different countries perhaps disagreement a dses even more rapidly. But there is no doubt that there were very considerable divergencies of opinion among the many bodies who had a legitimate interest in these proposals The matter is urgent. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, it is very urgent from the point of view of the patient, and it is also urgent from the point of view of the many overseas doctors who have had to continue in a situation of great uncertainty for far too long.
I am delighted to hear that we are now coming towards the end of that situation and I am sure that everyone will benefit. It is not only a question of the language problem: that affects many things. It is a fact that many British doctors with no linguistic ability whatsoever in certain particular disciplines—for example, anaesthetists and radiologists—who do not greatly depend on actually talking to patients, are disappearing to Holland and West Germany almost daily. In those disciplines, they are coping perfectly satisfactorily with their jobs. So the language problem varies according to the discipline, and though there are many areas, of course, in which linguistic ability is crucial there are other matters in this field which are of ever greater concern. The position which has compelled many highly competent and able doctors from overseas to remain in an almost continuous state of uncertainty is not one which I think ought to be tolerated much longer, and I am delighted to hear that we are now coming to a time when it will not have to be tolerated.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, one matter has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley; that is, the question of reciprocity. Perhaps my noble friend could, to some extent, enlighten the House on this, although I can fully understand, of course, if this question is put to him somewhat prematurely. The new Clause 25(b) requires:
"… that he complies with such other requirements as to proficiency in English … ".
I wonder whether my noble friend could inform the House whether other countries

299
of the EEC such as France, Germany and Italy have already laid down any requirements for proficiency in their respective languages with regard to English doctors who may wish to settle in their countries. If any such legislation has been or is to be carried through in those countries, ought not some degree of uniformity to be reached by all the countries of the EEC as to the language requirements, before any doctor rather precipitately expresses a wish to settle in one of those countries?
Lord PLATT: My Lords, just before we decide on these Amendments, I should like to say on my own behalf that I think they are on the whole very wise ones and that I am really surprised at the way in which they seem to be woven into this present Bill: that is something I never thought would be possible. I hope, and indeed have reason to understand, that the Government will accept them, at any rate in principle, perhaps with some minor modifications. I am sure they will ease the position of the overseas doctors very much indeed, to the benefit of ourselves and of the doctors themselves.
3.56 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, knows that these three Amendments are similar to the ones he tabled at Committee stage. At that time I made it perfectly clear that the Government could not then accept them. We have had the opportunity of looking at them again and I would say, not only to the noble Lord but to your Lordships as a whole, that we are unable to accept these three Amendments in their present form.
A number of details remain outstanding as the noble Lord knows; but I have already informed the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that, so far as these three Amendments are concerned, we accept them but not in their present form. We accept the spirit and the principle behind each of them, but it will be necessary for Parliamentary Counsel to give them very careful consideration. That has not been possible up to the present moment and it will not be possible in the foreseeable future because of the pressure under which Parliamentary Counsel have been working. We have had to take up a great deal of their time in order to deal with the other Amendments about which we have already
300
spoken and which the Government have accepted. I want to give not only the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but also your Lordships the assurance that the Government will be putting down these Amendments when they have been redrafted, preserving, as I say, the principle and the spirit of them, when the matter comes before the other place. I believe that position is in fact acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
I think the only thing I need to mention is this: my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health did meet representatives of the Overseas Doctors' Association and discussed this matter with them at some considerable length. Your Lordships will know that Amendment No. 7 contains a requirement of linguistic knowledge for the registration of overseas qualified doctors. Amendment No. 8 deals with limited registration of overseas qualified doctors and No. 9 deals with progress from limited to full registration. As these matters have been dealt with fully by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I do not intend to cross his t's or dot his i's. I think the explanation given has been quite full. We are glad that this has been possible. It is another instance where we did not expect, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said—and if he can say this, as a doctor, perhaps I can be forgiven for saying it too—such complete agreement in so short a time from members of that profession. But we got it, and I am glad that we have got it. As I say, if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be good enough to withdraw these Amendments, as he knows that this is what the Government want, we will put them down in another place when the Bill reaches there.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Segal, the position with regard to the EEC is that, as your Lordships know, any doctor is entitled to come to this country and, as I understand the situation, we cannot impose any test whatsoever, under the Treaty of Rome. As matters stand at the moment, doctors are entitled to come here for a period of six months before any test is applied. I do not know whether that will stand up in the future, because it has been thought by some people to be contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Rome. But this is a matter which will have to be dealt with as and when the time arrives. However, the position is that doctors

301
are permitted to come from the EEC without their having any test, other than the fact that we ourselves apply one after six months.
With regard to reciprocity, we are planning to introduce an enabling clause in the House of Commons to terminate reciprocal agreements, after consultation with the countries concerned. I do not think I need say anything further, other than that, following the conversations that we have had, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these Amendments, on the undertaking which I have given not only to him but to all of your Lordships.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, I am happy to withdraw these three Amendments, in view of the Government's acceptance of them (subject to redrafting by Parliamentary Counsel) and their undertaking to include them in this Bill. But before doing so, may I say, with your Lordships' permission, that I think the addition of these and my other Amendments has strengthened this Bill enormously. The great majority of the recommendations of the Merrison Report are now in it, and I feel sure that this will please many members of the medical profession. On their behalf, I should like to thank your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw these three Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 18, line 27, after ("day") insert ("(not being later than one year after this Act shall have received the Royal Assent)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being in my position at the start of the proceedings on the Report stage. This Amendment is familiar to the House, since it came up in identical form during the Committee stage when it was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He described it as a probing Amendment, but I am sure the House will agree that it tackles a very serious principle. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was good enough to support it at the time. I hope
302
that my raising this Amendment again will give a chance to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to say a little more on the timing and, eventually, to agree some limit.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out in Committee that there is now an increasing feeling that the Executive is taking far too much power in these Bills, and that the power of Parliament is decreasing. What he was really citing was the fact that we are passing Bills which allow the Minister in charge to bring them into force when he wishes to make an order. He referred, in particular, to the Bail Act and I think the whole House will agree that that is a very sorry state of affairs. That Act was brought in in 1976 to meet the overcrowding problems of prisons, but not one section of it has yet been brought into force. Despite the probing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, we are told from time to time that the Government have still been unable to appoint various boards in order to proceed with the Act.
I am sure that this House, and Parliament as a whole, will agree that the principle of some time limit is an important issue. I think it was of interest when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, disclosed to the Committee that he had discussed this matter with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whose words were:
"It is entirely Parliament's own fault; they ought not to let these clauses go through but should insist that there must be a limit." — [Official Report, 13/12/77; col. 2058.]
This Amendment suggests one year, but I do not necessarily suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that one year is satisfactory, as I understand that the appointment of the new General Medical Council will take time. But I think that there should be a limit, and I suggest to the noble Lord that, if one year is not satisfactory, two years might be inserted into this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
4.6 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, this is a matter which was raised initially by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who put down an Amendment in, I believe, precisely the same terms. I

303
think that many of us share the view of my noble and learned friend about this kind of provision being in Bills, as a general run. But I think that this is perhaps somewhat different from the normal run of Bills which come before your Lordships' House. We looked at this matter and considered it very carefully, and I wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, sending a copy of that letter to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
I think that the position is this. Because this Bill is an enabling Bill and its provisions are rather broad, there are a number of orders which can be made under it which will require consultations not only with the General Medical Council but with the profession as a whole. Some rules are to be drawn up by the General Medical Council—this is really what the whole Bill is about: to give them an opportunity of being able to change certain practices and to introduce others—and we have to take into account the fact that they will lose no time over this, because this is what they want. Therefore, the point I want to make is that the speed with which this Bill is implemented is not in the Government's hands; it is rather in the hands of the General Medical Council. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to impose a condition that could not possibly be met, and it raises the question: if a time limit is imposed but is not met, what happens then? I just do not know. What happens to that part of the Bill which has not been implemented?
Within the time scale of two years, it should be possible to reconstitute the General Medical Council on the lines set out in Clauses 1 and 2; it should be possible to set up branch councils under Clause 3, and it should be possible to appoint members of the education committee under Clause 14. It should also be possible to set up the three new committees to deal with professional conduct and fitness to practise. I would remind your Lordships that there are no fewer than eight clauses dealing with this matter alone. It is not something that will be done very quickly.
As regards Clause 4 and the 1927 Agreement with the Republic of Ireland, this is a matter between the United Kingdom and Eire Governments and I cannot give any undertaking that that
304
clause would be implemented within a specific period. Most of your Lordships know how long it takes Government Departments to come to some kind of decision, and it takes even longer when one is dealing Government by Government. Therefore, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we are aware of the position. If there is anything that the Government can do to expedite matters, once the Bill gets on to the Statute Book, I rather imagine—whichever Government are in power—that they will do so. But this, as I say, is primarily a Bill to enable the General Medical Council to reconstitute itself. One imagines that because this is what they want they will get on with it. In the light of the fact that I seem to have satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that I have satisfied him, too, if only with reservations.
The EARL of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, but as he is not here to challenge that remark I cannot speak for him. I was hoping to receive as satisfactory an assurance as that which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, received on his previous three Amendments. The noble Lord is sympathetic towards the issue but has pleaded a special case for this Bill. He asks what would happen if a time limit were imposed which was not then enforced. I should have thought that there was a simple answer to that question. The Minister responsible would have to come to Parliament to amend that time limit, and that would be an excellent thing to happen. I do not intend to press the matter, but I hope that the noble Lord accepts that this is a strong principle which other Bills must follow.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Earl is thinking of withdrawing this Amendment, may I say to him that in view of the fact that he has raised the matter today I will ask my right honourable friend to look at it to see whether anything further can be done along the lines suggested.
The EARL of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments of enactments]:
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 24:
Page 29, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert ("MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL FUNCTIONS").
Page 29, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert— ("2. In section 9(1) of the Act of 1956 the words "not being members of the Council" shall be omitted.
3.—(1) In section 10 of the Act of 1956 the amendments specified in this paragraph shall be made.
(2) Subsection (1) shall be omitted.
(3) In subsection (3), for the words preceding "may appoint" there shall be substituted the words "For the purpose of securing the maintenance of the prescribed standard of proficiency the Education Committee".
(4) In subsection (4), for the words preceding "may attend" there shall be substituted the words "Any member of the General Council and any person deputed for the purpose by the Education Committee".
3A.—(1) In section 11 of the Act of 1956 the amendments specified in this paragraph shall be made.
(2) In subsection (1), in the words preceding paragraph (a) the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery" shall be omitted and in paragraph (d) for the words from "a qualification in medicine" to the end of that paragraph there shall be substituted the words "a primary United Kingdom or primary Irish qualification in a branch of medicine prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Education Committee and one at least entitled to grant such a qualification in a different branch of medicine so prescribed".
(3) In subsection (2), for the words from "a qualification in medicine" to "so registrable" there shall be substituted the words "a qualification registrable under this Part of this Act in a branch of medicine prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Education Committee and one at least is entitled to grant a qualification so registrable in a different branch of medicine so prescribed".
(4) In subsection (3), the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery" shall be omitted.
(5) In subsection (4), in paragraph (b) for the words from "standard" to "qualifying examinations" there shall be substituted the words "prescribed standard of proficiency" and at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added the words "with the approval of the General Council".
3B. In section 13 of the Act of 1956 the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "secure" to "profession" there shall be substituted the words "equip persons going through the course and examinations with the prescribed knowledge and skill"; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "in medicince" to "insufficient" there
306
shall be substituted the words "required from candidates at any qualifying examination does not conform to the prescribed standard of proficiency".

3C. In section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, for the words "medicine or surgery" there shall be substituted the word "medicine".
3D. In section 16A of the Act of 1956, for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) is the holder of a primary United Kingdom or primary Irish qualification and also of a qualification granted outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland which is recognised by the General Council for the purposes of this section as furnishing a sufficient guarantee of the possession of knowledge and skill corresponding with the prescribed knowledge and skill";
and for the words "medicine and surgery, or medicine, surgery and midwifery" t acre shall be substituted the word "medicine".
3E. In section 20 of the Act of 1956, for the words from "the requisite knowledge;" to the end there shall be substituted the words "knowledge and skill corresponding with the prescribed knowledge and skill".
3F. In section 22(2) of the Act of 1956 the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "paragraphs (a) and (b)" there shal be substituted the words "paragraphs (a) and (c)" and after the words" that section" there shall be added the words" and that the terms on which he has been so employed were such as to provide him with the experience required by one of the prescribed patterns of experience"; and

(b) in paragraph (b) for the words "medicine and surgery, or medicine, surgery and midwifery" there shall be substituted the word" medicine".

3G. In section 25(1)(b) of the Act of 1956, for the words from "the requisite knowledge" to the end there shall be substituted the words "knowledge and skill corresponding with the prescribed knowledge and skill".
3H. In section 26 of the Act of 1956, for the words from "the requisite knowledge" to "midwifery" there shall be substituted the words "knowledge and skill corresponding with the prescribed knowledge and skill".
3J. In section 27(1) of the Act of 1956, for the words "medical or surgical" there shall be substituted the word "medical".
3K. In section 28(3) of the Act of 1956, for the words "medicine or surgery" there shall be substituted the word "medicine".")
In sector 28(3) line 38, at end insert ("and in paragraph (b), for the words "a sufficient" there shall be substituted the words "the prescribed"")
Page 30, line 9, leave out ("place in alphabetical order the following definition") and insert ("places in alphabetical order the following definitions")
Page 30, line 11, at end insert—

("" the prescribed knowledge and skill" has the meaning assigned to it by section 14(3C) of the Medical Act 1978;

307

"a prescribed pattern of experience" has the meaning assigned to it by section 14(3C) of the Medical Act 1978;

"the prescribed standard of proficiency" has the meaning assigned to it by section 14(3C) of the Medical Act 1978; ")

Page 30, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
("7. In section 11(4) of the Medical Act 1969 (in this Schedule referred to as "the Act of 1969") for the words from "medicine, surgery and midwifery" to "or surgery" there shall be substituted the words" any branch or branches of medicine".
7A. In section 18(1) of the Act of 1969 the following amendments shall be made—

(a) for the words "the General Council" there shall be substituted the words "the Education Committee";

(b) the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery" shall be omitted; and

(c) for the words from "qualifications" to "Act of 1956" there shall be substituted the words "United Kingdom qualifications does or will conform to the prescribed standard of proficiency "and for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Act of 1956.")

Page 31, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Page 33, line 5, at end insert—
("24A. Section 56(3) of the Act of 1956 shall cease to have effect.")
Page 34, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Page 34, line 14, at end insert—
("42. In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1969, after the word "primary" there shall be inserted the words United Kingdom or primary Irish".")
Schedule 6, page 35, column 3, line 5, at end insert—
("In section 9(1) the words "not being members of the Council".")
Schedule 6, page 35, column 3, leave out line 7 and insert—
("Section 10(1) and (7)
In section 11(1) and (3) the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery".")
Schedule 6, page 35, column 3, line 17, at end insert—
("Section 56(3).")
Schedule 6, page 35, column 3, leave out line 32, and insert—
Schedule 6, ("In section 18 in subsection (1) the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery" and subsection (3).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 11 to 24 which stand in my name. They have all been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel under arrangements kindly made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and they are all consequential on the earlier Amendments which noble Lords have accepted concerning the functions of the education committee of the reconstituted General
308
Medical Council and related matters. Their purpose, as I am advised, is to make the various corrections necessary in the provisions of the present Medical Acts and the Bill in order to be consistent with the Amendments which noble Lords have already accepted. With the leave of the House, I shall move them together. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 11 to 24 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Line 1, after ("constitution") insert ("and functions")
Line 2, leave out from ("Council") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("and certain committees of the Council and to amend or provide for the amendment of the Medical Acts with respect to medical education, the registration of medical practitioners and their professional conduct and fitness to practise")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments standing in my name. I can deal with them very simply. It will be apparent to all noble Lords who have followed consideration of this Bill that, because we have gone beyond the contents and the intentions of the present Long Title, it is necessary to change that Title. In order to make what we have done fit the situation. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS (RESTRICTIONS ON STATEMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1978
4.14 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, apologise that my noble friend Lord Oram is not in his place. He had reason to believe that we would not finish this part of the proceedings so quickly, and this may account for the fact that my noble friend is not here. I do not know whether I am required to go on speaking to your Lordships until he arrives?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, would it not be better if we were to adjourn during pleasure for a few minutes?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if that is the wish of your Lordships, I beg

309
to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes past four o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
4.20 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) (Amendment) Order 1978, laid before the House on 17th January, be approved. The noble Lord said: First, I must apologise to your Lordships for not having kept pace with the rapid progress that was made on the previous matter, but I can assure your Lordships that this particular item of business which I now move will not take up much of your Lordships' time. I beg to move that the Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) (Amendment) Order 1978 be approved. I seek the approval of the House for this order which makes certain amendments to an order called the Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976.
They are merely consequential amendments to that order, as a result of the passing of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Broadly speaking, the purpose of the 1976 order is to prohibit people who sell goods from misleading their customers by means of notices displayed in the store which purport to avoid certain legal obligations and deprive a customer of his rights. For example, the goods supplied to him must be of merchantable quality, and a notice cannot be displayed such as, for instance, "no money refunded", in an attempt to avoid this obligation.
The 1976 order was made under Section 22 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. It implemented the first report of the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. The Director General of Fair Trading had referred to that Committee certain undesirable practices by retailers, like the one I have described. A notice telling customers that no money would be refunded could have no legal effect by virtue of Section 55(4) of the 1893 Sale of Goods Act. The Committee recommended that this practice (as well as other similar practices also referred by the Director General) should be stopped.
310
Hence the 1976 order which prohibited these practices. A similar prohibition was applied to similar notices affecting hire-purchase agreements which are covered by Section 12(3) of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973.
I turn now to the actual terms in which the 1976 order is drafted. The basic prohibition is in Article 3(a)(i). It refers to a term which would be void by virtue of Section 55(4) of the 1893 Act or Section 12(3) of the 1973 Act. Reference is also made, in the definition of a consumer transaction in Article 2(1), to a consumer sale within Section 55(1) of the 1893 Act and to a consumer hire-purchase agreement within Section 12(6) of the 1973 Act.
When the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 was passed last October it implemented the recommendations of the Law Commissions concerning the control generally of contract terms which exclude or restrict liability. In enacting the new general controlling provisions the similar provisions already in the 1893 and 1973 Acts were combined with them. Thus all the provisions relating to the same subject-matter were brought within the one new Act. Accordingly, the relevant provisions of Section 55 of the 1893 Act and of Section 12 of the 1973 Act, were re-enacted in the 1977 Act and consequentially repealed by it. The re-enactment, which made no change of substance to the existing law, was achieved by mans of restating those provisions. This was done by Section 6 of the 1977 Act as regards the law for England and Wales and by Section 20 as regards the law applicable in Scotland.
In making the re-statement and the consequential repeal of the old provisions, the 1977 Act did not amend the 1976 order so as to secure that the references in it to the old provisions were to be construed as references to the corresponding new provisions of the Act. The present references in the 1976 order are to provisions which will be repealed on 1st February 1978; that is the date when the Unfair Contract Terms Act comes into force. Therefore, in order to ensure the continued effectiveness of the 1976 order, this present order is necessary. I assure your Lordships it does no more than to continue the effectiveness of the 1976 order.
Article 4 of the present order changes the definition of "consumer transaction", and Article 5 changes the references to void terms, both changes having been made necessary by the passing of the Unfair Contract Terms Act. I am sorry if this is all a little technical and confusing, but I assure your Lordships that the basis of it is quite a simple continuation of an order which your Lordships approved two years ago. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) (Amendment) Order 1978, laid before the House on 17th January, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
4.27 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for explaining, in his usual clear and helpful way, this somewhat, as he called it, technical and complicated measure. Despite that, I must confess that one needs to do a bit of homework to get to the bottom of it. Nevertheless, I think I can confirm what the noble Lord has said, that in essence this order does not change the legal position, except in two small respects arising out of the passing of the Unfair Contract Terms Act at the end of the last Session. That Act, as the noble Lord said, comes into force very shortly, and it is therefore necessary for us to pass this order before the end of the month. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by my endeavouring to pursue the noble Lord on any of the points contained in the order. I would simply commend it to your Lordships and hope that we shall pass it right away.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECC REPORT: SOCIAL SECURITY AND SEX EQUALITY
4.29 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Equality of Treatment for Men and Women in matters of Social Security (R/48/77) (Fourth Report (HL 23)). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a report on a draft Directive from the EEC dealing
312
with equality of treatment in social security. It has in fact ducked some of the more difficult questions which will no doubt emerge, if not in the discussions which will take place before the Directive is finally accepted, certainly subsequent to that.
The draft Directive as it stands requires very little from the United Kingdom—barring one point to which I wish to refer later; the United Kingdom really does in fact comply with the requirements laid down by the Directive. This is partly because the really controversial issues have been left out. By "the really controversial issues" I mean, for example, the question of retirement ages; the difference in the retirement age as between men and women. That is not a matter that can be swept under the carpet indefinitely. It also leaves out the question of qualification—to what extent periods not in employment because of maternity for example, can or cannot be counted towards pension benefit. It leaves out the question of the equality of treatment for dependants derived from the contributions of the woman equally with the man. Those are the controversial areas. They are excluded, no doubt in part, because they are controversial, but I suggest that they are not matters which can be totally ignored in the discussion of this draft Directive, and if they are they will certainly arise again.
Had the question been one merely of the Directive as it stands, we should not have suggested that this issue be debated in your Lordships' House. Indeed, judging from the attendance this afternoon, it seems as if many noble Lords are of the opinion that it should not be debated in your Lordships' House. However, quite apart from the controversial measures excluded, the draft Directive in fact raises one matter of considerable principle which could well be aired on this occasion because undoubtedly we shall have to return to it in the future.
There is one respect in which our provisions are discriminatory and that is concerned with the position of married women and their dependants in relation to social security and supplementary benefit for children. This might, at first sight, seem a relatively minor matter, although it is not a minor matter to married women who are heads of households

313
but who cannot, none the less, claim supplementary benefit for their children. The principle behind it is quite fundamental and one which I am sure, at present, people are not yet ready to change. However, we shall have to consider it later.
Our social security payments and our supplementary benefit payments are based on the conception of the family with the man as the head of the household. If we were to move away from that idea and towards the idea of benefits payable to individuals rather than to families with the man as the head of the household, many of the issues which arise in this connection would not occur. There are many reasons why we might well be advised to think about a move in this direction, but I shall put it no stronger than that at present. We shall be required to make further steps in this direction, and we need to note that we are not acting in conformity with equal treatment between the sexes as long as we have this difference in the way in which we treat married women who are heads of households.
There is, of course, a supplementary point also of considerable importance which, although it is not directly connected with whether we regard benefit as being paid to the family or to the individual, is related to that matter. I am referring to the size of child benefit. Under our regulations the question of whether the married woman gets supplementary benefit for the child is very important, because the wellbeing of the family and of the child depends so much on that supplementation. If we had here the policy which operates in some Community countries, that we pay very much higher child benefits and do not rely on supplementation in cases of need, then this issue would not be so acute. What is more, a further benefit which would derive from this is that the poverty-trap would be very much less of a problem if our regular payment of child benefits was on a scale more compatible with that paid in some other countries. As will be well known in your Lordships' House, the scale of child benefits in France, for instance, is incomparably higher than the scale here. We, by the provision that we make and the standards we adopt, complicate these problems unnecessarily.
314
Of course, additional money would be required, but it would not all be money lost and it would solve some very difficult social problems to which, at present, we have found no answers.
In the discussions which should take place in connection with this draft Directive, there are one or two other points which we should have liked to raise, but which are not covered as it stands at present. No reference is made to support for low income groups. There is in this country no benefit comparable with FIS. We are also discriminatory as regards FIS in relation to the married woman who is head of the family, because she does not get the supplementary benefit for the child under FIS, which again is paid only to the man, assumed to be the head of the household.
Another small but not unimportant benefit which we should like clarified and as regards which there is an element of discrimination concerns the invalid care allowance. No other country in Europe has that allowance, and so it is not included in the draft Directive. However, there is an element of discrimination because the married woman who gives up employment in order to look after an invalid husband does not qualify for the invalid care allowance. Therefore, I think that, although it is a benefit peculiar to ourselves, one can say that there is an element of discrimination in this connection.
One cannot consider a Directive of this kind without coming back—I mentioned this at the beginning of my remarks—to that major discriminatory element: the differences in retirement age. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who will be replying to the debate has thought a great deal about this matter and we have discussed it on many occasions. I merely say, perhaps slightly out of order in the context of this draft Directive, that this is a very serious form of discrimination. As the noble Lord will know, the possibility of doing anything about realigning retirement ages was ruled out of court on grounds of cost. As I think the noble Lord agreed, the calculations by which the cost was estimated when this was discussed on a previous occasion, based on a publication from the Department of Health and Social security, did, to put it mildly, raise questions as to

315
accuracy. This is a matter of great importance. So, will it not be possible to have a more soundly-based examination carried out as to what the cost in reality would be, so that we can then review, in the light of accurate knowledge, what in fact would be involved in equalising retirement ages? I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Equality of Treatment for Men and Women in matters of Social Security (R/48/77) (Fourth Report (HL 23)).—(Baroness Seear.).
4.39 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am glad to offer a few observations in this debate, because I was so closely concerned with these matters a long time ago when I was in the Government. The first point I should like to raise is how long some of the primary changes in relationships between men and women as regards social security have taken to accomplish. When I first put forward the outline of a review of the Social Security Scheme in 1965 I never dreamed that it would take 13 years to accomplish the removal of discrimination in such matters as unemployment benefit and sickness benefit as between married women and men. Indeed, I believe that on an earlier occasion I mentioned to your Lordships' House that when I prepared the draft of the review of the Social Security Scheme I put women first.
It seemed to me that it was desirable to remove the discriminatory conditions between men and women, and especially married women, in the old scheme before we embarked upon a new one because, as I have so frequently said, and it is still true, social security is mostly about women: widows, war widows, industrial widows, civilian widows, divorcees, separated wives and other conditions. There are about six conditions of women and probably only one of men: men are men; women are single women, married women, divorced women, separated women. There has been discrimination between members of the several groups.
When Mr. Crossman brought forward his National Superannuation Scheme—the extension of work which I had begun—I expressed the profoundest disappointment
316
that there was so little in it to redress the discriminatory conditions between men and women in social security. In my opinion it was not because of difficulties about money, because on the whole the money was to be obtained by a levy on employers and employees—it was to come from contributions. What was lacking at that time—which we have had since—was the courage to take some awkward political decisions. One of them, of course, was to discontinue the married woman's option; that is, to require all women—whether married or single—to come within the Scheme and to have benefits attached to their personal contributions.
As the report of the Committee indicates in paragraph 12, much that the Directive requires us to do will be embodied in the conditions of the new Social Security Scheme due to begin in April. So we have just avoided being run out. I notice how jubilant we appear to be that what they want we have already done, but others have done it long ago, and we should have done it long ago.
Of course, this concept of the head of the household, to which the noble Baroness referred as being the crux of this matter, extends far beyond social security. The present conditions of the taxation of married women and husbands are positively disgraceful. But there again, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplates giving away, as the saying goes, so many thousand million pounds in personal taxation to all and sundry, surely the opportunity should be taken of removing some of the penal clauses of our income tax legislation relating to married women. Fancy in 1978 requiring a wife to declare her income to her husband so that he may include it in his return, and any failure on his part to disclose the full income of his wife renders him liable to punishment.
I shall never forget that years ago when a change in the Finance Act gave the joint stock banks, and the Post Office Savings Bank the duty of disclosing untaxed income on deposits above a certain amount, a number of married women were found out—they had a little nest egg which they had kept secret from their husbands. They had probably saved a little money from the housekeeping and put it aside to have a little financial independence;

317
they had not declared that they had £600 or £700 in the Post Office and, therefore, were receiving interest in excess of £15 a year, which was then the borderline above which the Post Office had to disclose. I remember one occasion when the local tax office discovered this. They wrote a letter to the husband, giving their reference number, requesting that he call to see them:
"Will you please bring this letter and your wife with you".
These are the ridiculous conditions under which a married woman may be placed for the purpose of taxation. But I shall not prolong my remarks on that because, however belatedly, we have a discussion booklet from the Equal Opportunities Commission giving various options, which I outlined at least 20 years ago, for dealing with this question of separate taxation.
Bear in mind that as recently as the Royal Commission of 1955, the late Lord Radcliffe was pontificating upon and defending the principle of aggregation. That is really what we want to destroy. It will have to be done in taxation; it will have to be done in social security, if women are to have their separate personality, their separate dignity and their separate economic resources. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not overlook the taxation side when he looks at his Budget proposals shortly.
Returning to the Directive and the report, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the real problem that now confronts the Social Security Scheme—the attempt that must be made to give the wife a separate position in the scheme of supplementary benefit. That will be most complex because different attitudes will be necessary. So much of this is not concerned with administrative difficulty, the intricacies of insurance or even the amount of money involved; so much of the problem is over attitudes towards the position of women. Regrettably—and the noble Baroness, with her record of work in this field, will surely agree with me—we have been up against the conservatism of men and the submissiveness of women.
The fight has not been the fight that one would have expected from the large numbers of enfranchised women, who, after all, virtually hold the political power
318
in this country in their hands. However the movement to obtain the emancipation of women was scarcely ever a working-class one; it was mostly a middle-class movement. Indeed, a great deal of it was the spearhead of reform which was demanded by many thousands of talented women who were left without menfolk in the First World War.
But I think that this attempt must be made to give the wife a separate standing in the system of social security where means-tested benefits are involved as well as where statutory benefits are concerned. I shall not go into the details of a possible scheme but, as the noble Baroness said, the main provision that must be made, if one is to deal with this problem in terms of equality between husband and wife, is for the children. I suppose that if marriages were universally childless, apart from the demographic consequences, it would not be very difficult to deal with the relationship between husband and wife in economic terms. But when there are children, obligations rest upon both parents to maintain them, and the State must ensure that in whatever scheme of benefits is provided the children will be taken care of. If we can only press ahead with this—and I understand from the report that the review of the Supplementary Benefit Scheme is now in progress—I think we can make a move forward with part of the Directive. But, my goodness! we shall have to be quicker next time than we have been in the past. Wt are not given 14 years in which to do this; we are given only four years, so we have to get a move on.
When the Labour Party says "Labour gets things done", my answer to that in one particular respect is, "Yes, but it took 14 years". I think that we are likely to get a certain reluctance to make haste with this because of the complexities of the position and possibly the difficulty of political decisions to be taken. I conclude by saying that I welcome the Directive. I especially welcome the report of the Committee upon it. It does the Committee great credit to have looked at this in a spirit of reform and realism, and I think that this is one more mark in favour of the retention of your Lordships' House.
4.52 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, five years ago the first British delegation to the

319
European Parliament arrived, and I was the junior member of it. I chose from the beginning to sit on the Social Affairs and Employment Committee. It was a time of great optimism and hope. It was before the quintupling of oil prices and in the era of Heath, Brandt, Pompidou. There was genuine confidence that the social consequences of the economic development and integration of the Community could at last be tackled. Commissioner Hillary, now the President of the Irish Republic, initiated the Social Action Programme, of which we are debating one of the fruits today. Therefore, for me this particular Directive is part of the expression of social concern of the Community that is something new to the 'seventies. I believe that it is something whose intention we should all welcome, even if we may criticise the detail.
Since those days the impetus behind the EEC has died away as a result of the world recession, but that makes it no less necessary, if the European Community is to continue—as I believe it should, and as we in this country confirmed in a referendum—but perhaps even more necessary, to update, overhaul and integrate our social security systems. In some ways the chances of doing so have increased. Without casting any aspersions on the President of the Irish Republic, the new Commissioner for Social Affairs is a rumbustious character, Mr. Vredeling, who has made for himself a distinguished career in the European institutions and has a long record of knowing how the Community works and how to make it work. If our Government are to be constructive and positive, there is a chance that we can build sensibly on the impetus of the early 'seventies.
What I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is whether he can update the situation as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and her Committee. There was a debate in another place on 13th December in which they discussed the Directives we are discussing today in your Lordships' House. I have been told—and it would be helpful to have it confirmed—that the proposals of the Directive debated then and discussed today have been altered by a subsequent Directive numbered R/57/58. That is not available in the Printed Paper Office; I checked half an
320
hour ago. However, I was told on the telephone from Brussels that it altered the time-limits under which Member States have to complete the rearrangements of their social security provisions, and that it made some alteration in the scope, or ambit, of the Directive.
It would be helpful for your Lordships to know whether the proposals which Lady Seear's Sub-Committee discussed have been overtaken by events, and, if so, whether the new proposals dilute the Directive that she was discussing with her colleagues, or strengthen it. It would also be helpful if we could be told whether the Government have come to any firmer conclusions than they revealed in another place on 13th December. What is their view of the Directive now? When do they think it will be implemented, and what sort of arrangements in the Council of Ministers can we anticipate? Is it going to be something that will go on being discussed for years and years, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might expect, or is it something that is going to be decided soon? If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is able to give us some idea of the time scale, it would be very helpful.
If I may be allowed to intervene for a moment as a member of the Select Committee rather than as a Front Bench spokesman, I think it is useful for debates on instruments that have become out of date to be updated by the Government during the debate. Sometimes in matters like this the Committee may feel that it is necessary to go back to the same subject later on to see whether progress has been as much as they hoped, or as little as they feared.
Before going on to one or two points about the actual report itself, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could say whether it is the Government's plan to extend the ambit of the Directive, or not? As I understand it, the draft proposals from the Commission are unlike normal Government Bills. They usually pass with a great deal of amendment, and if amendments are made by Member States who argue their case well, they often become incorporated in the Directive. Indeed, it makes it very difficult for the scrutiny committee to carry out its job when these amendments are copious.
It would be interesting to know, if the

321
noble Lord is able to tell us, whether the Government plan to deal with any of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the working groups or in the Council of Ministers itself. Do the Government intend to extend or strengthen this Directive in any particular way? If so, could we be told, because surely it cannot harm the Government's case to state it out in advance.
I am not an expert on social security in Britain, let alone at Community level. I have found it a subject almost as intractable as the new maths on which I attempt to help my daughter sometimes in her homework. But I should like to know whether it is correct that one of our difficulties is that we have a more comprehensive, if not necessarily a more generous, range of benefits and that this Directive is only directed at equality within benefits rather than the equality of benefits themselves, or whether the range is wide or narrow, so that our position is made more awkward by the fact that we have tried hard, in that there are more benefits here than there are in other Member States and we have to introduce equality into all of them. This Directive does not lay down any extension of the ambit of social security provisions; it merely lays down that they must all be equal as between the sexes.
I should like to know whether the Government have come to a view as to whether this is a wholly satisfactory way to go about correlating social security systems within the Community. If there is equality of treatment for both sexes within provisions that are themselves wholly different between Member State and Member State, it can be an equality between sexes that is more apparent than real if the extent of the provision within the different States is not comparable.
Some anxiety has been expressed about the effect of this Directive on pension schemes. I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, what consultations the Government have been able to arrange on this subject. I wonder whether they are of a mind to agree that a code of practice or persuasion might be equally as desirable as legislation itself, because the whole method by which this Directive seeks to work is a series of steps.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said—
322
as I always am—and I was impressed with the range of his comments and the sincerity with which he drew the points from the wealth of his experience. But I wonder whether he would not agree with me that, if an outside agency like the Brussels Commission is to attempt to herd the Member States in a similar if not the same direction on a matter like this, where there are long traditions of different ways of looking at things, surely it is better to start by setting a series of gradual steps which each country can reach in time rather than to put forward target dates by which everything must be settled to perfection, when some may fall back altogether; whereas, if it had gone more slowly, gradual progress reaching the same ultimate end could have been achieved. I take it as a tribute to the new wisdom of the Commission that they are less prone to say that black must be white tomorrow; if they want to change black to white, or if they get it into their heads that it may be a good idea to make changes in the customs of Member States, they consult and they are open-minded and they suggest a gradual series of steps. I think in this field any other method would be bound to fail.
Nevertheless, I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the feeling that the pensionable age is an issue which cannot be avoided. Indeed it is an essential one and I do not think it is necessary to approach it in a partisan manner. Indeed, I read with great interest—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has done so too—what my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker, speaking for the Opposition in another place, said on this subject on 13th December last. Without quoting her, at that time she was calling for a bipartisan approach to this matter and hoping that even if agreement could be reached there would be flexibility for those who wanted to continue to work beyond whatever date was settled.
I am looking forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has to say, but I wish to support what the Committee has called for in paragraph 17, when they suggest that the Commission,
"…undertake an inquiry into the changing attitudes to retirement within the Community"—
that is, the European Community. If the Commission in Brussels is to make sensible proposals which we have to discuss and

323
debate, then it must be better if they base their proposals on a wide-ranging inquiry into the practice of Member States on these matters. They are a tiny bureaucracy. As the President of the Commission said recently, they have fewer staff than Wandsworth Borough Council and it is necessary for them to undertake inquiries to make sensible proposals. I hope that those who criticise the occasional absurdities which they perpetrate will also be prepared to be constructive and to say that we must support the Commission in their attempt to have inquiries on certain matters because that will stop them being so silly the next time. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to express the enthusiasm of Her Majesty's Government for making the Commission better informed on this subject, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has called for in her report.
This has been a debate of great interest in which I have certainly learned a lot. I feel that there is a danger of these debates turning into a perpetual seminar on the subjects of rights and equality between the sexes. I am equally aware that when I speak there is certainly a danger of the debate turning into a perpetual debate on the virtues of Europe. These debates on proposals from the Scrutiny Committee are, I feel, most valuable when they are closely tied to the proposal which is under discussion. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to tell us how the Government have seen that the proposal has altered since the Sub-Committee looked at it and what progress the Government hope to achieve during their discussions in the Council of Ministers.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask him a question. He was speaking about equal provision throughout all the nations of the Common Market; but Germany, for instance, has double our gross national product. None of the countries has the same gross national product and I do not see how we could have equal provision for social security in all the countries owing to that difference in gross national product.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say
324
that I quite agree with my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the different economic health or illness of the various Member States makes it extremely awkward if any attempt is made to compare social security arrangements between one country and another and to attempt to arrange for them to become equivalent or even equal. To achieve that would be something that the wildest dreamer in Brussels at the moment would feel, with the diverging economies, would probably take a long time. If I may briefly repeat one remark that I made previously, the importance of what we are discussing today is that this Directive is not attempting anything as ambitious as that. It is merely focussing on the equality of treatment for men and women and between men and women in matters of social security, and I think that more limited objective is something for which we can all work.
5.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as was to be expected, the debate has to a large extent referred to matters which are outside the scope of the present Directive. However, it is desirable that we not only look at what is in the Directive but also have in mind various other things which a good many of us want to see happen. May I state the obvious?—at least, I hope it is the obvious. We in this country have one of the, if not the, most comprehensive systems of social security in the world. In most areas there is no discrimination and there has not been any for a good many years. Our health care arrangements are universal and apply not only to the working population but to everyone.
In terms of National Insurance benefits, we are abolishing the last two provisions which impose on married women a reduced rate of benefit, or tougher qualifying conditions. In April of this year a married woman will quailfy for the standard personal rate of unemployment and sickness benefit instead of the existing lower personal rate, and in April 1979 the retirement pension half-test, which applies only to married women, is also being abolished, so we are making some progress in terms of the matters which have been raised. Our own proposals for legislation in the occupational pensions field would go a long way towards satisfying the EEC Directive as at present drafted, and

325
the current review of the supplementary benefits scheme is examining, among other things, ways of achieving equal treatment between the sexes. As I said, these are all matters covered by the draft Directive.
The debate has been much more about what we in this country should be doing on equality in social security than about what the Directive actually says, and that is not a bad thing. That is what we should be doing; we should be looking at tomorrow rather than at today, to see what we can do. We are committed to some sort of directive, as noble Lords know, by the social action programme of 1974 and the text before us by no means represents the full measure of steps which will need to be taken; it does not cover many points of interest raised by your Lordships or by Members in another place. Nor is it perfect. We have some broad reservations about some of the points in it.
The Government agree with the principles underlying the Directive. In our discussions in Brussels we are concerned to ensure that when the Directive finally emerges—and nobody can say when that will be; it has been under discussion for the best part of two years—it will be in a form that will be acceptable to the Government and the people of this country, and in a form that will not make too much of an impact on legislation.
There is only one major area in the Directive which the Government cannot regard as satisfactory. This is the provision which would allow married women to claim increases for the children of the family, in the same way as their husbands do, each time they are sick or unemployed. This is a very difficult problem. When I say we cannot agree with it, what I mean is that it is not something capable of easy solution. If a man is in full-time employment, and I know he has paid his national insurance, and he has a wife who is also in full-time employment, and I know she has paid her national insurance too, on the face of it it seems simple to say one should treat one like the other. However, under such a system many people would not need it because of the full-time employment of the other. I think it would be very difficult to devise a scheme under which one could say that either partner, if sick or unemployed, should be able to claim dependant benefit
326
in respect of the children when the other partner is in full-time work. As I say, in many instances the money would not be needed for the welfare and benefit of the family. Our child benefit scheme, because it will find a more important place in our way of life, will, one of these days, probably, overtake dependency benefits; I do not know, but at least some of us would like to think that will happen.
Returning to what I was saying, so far as we can tell—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is extremely difficult to make accurate forecasts in terms of either money or individuals—it would cost an additional £10 million annually. That may not seem a great sum, but it would rise over the years to about £50 million at current benefit rates as more married women became insured. Virtually all this additional expense would go to families—I have made the point already but I make it again—where the husband was in full-time employment and his earnings were continuing without interruption. One must ask whether that would be reasonable.
As your Lordships know, there are major differences between the social security system in this country and in Ireland and in the rest of the Community, particularly with regard to dependency benefits. Broadly, the other countries do not have dependency benefits as we know them, but they have much higher levels of family benefits, which, as I say, we are moving towards. Our view is that, since we pay dependency benefit only for children so as to supplement child benefit during periods when there is an interruption of earnings, these dependency benefits should be excluded from the scope of the Directive for the present, just as family charges—which, for the purpose of the Social Protection Accounts, have always included dependency benefits for children as well as family allowances—are excluded. This would ease our difficulties considerably.
I think I can say that we are sympathetic to the case in which the husband is not the breadwinner and is not himself entitled to benefit, but since principal legislation is involved, we will need to see precisely what is required under the provisions of the Directive as it finally emerges before embarking on changes in our own social security arrangements for

327
dependants. Meanwhile, the phasing-in of child benefit and specifically next April's substantial increase in child benefit, will mean much reduced rates of dependency benefit for children.
So far as occupational pension schemes in this country are concerned, these are diverse in scope and application. The elimination of certain differences of treatment between men and women must be a gradual process and we agree with our colleagues in the European Community that there should be some exclusions from the scope of this Directive. There are other minor but not insignificant changes to the Directive which we would like to see made and these are being discussed in Brussels.
Perhaps I should say, for the benefit of those noble Lords who do not know what the situation is—and I mention it only for their benefit—that the present Directive is in fact being discussed at official level (I think we tend to use the term "officer level") between the officers of the various countries, and submissions will be made to the Council of Ministers by our own Minister on that Council in due course.
Having discussed some of the points that are within the scope of the Directive, I will now turn to deal with other aspects of equality in social security which I know are of particular interest to noble Lords but are not included in it. The Directive does not apply to provisions for widowhood, maternity and family allowances, and Member States would not be bound to change arrangements whereby women can retire earlier than men, count for benefit periods outside employment—for instance, during pregnancy—and derive rights from their husbands' insurance. I understand that the view taken by the Commission is that the draft Directive would apply only to the present and former working population, including the self-employed and the unemployed, and not to the benefits designed for other groups.
The Directive has been considered by the European Assembly and the European Economic and Social Committees. Both these bodies are fully aware that this Directive does not go as far as your Lordships would perhaps like it to, but this is the first Directive, and in all
328
probability others will follow. In any event, the existence of the Directive would not prevent us from moving further in these directions unilaterally if that were possible. But there are complex problems to be overcome in other countries as well as here, and the Government think it right that we should proceed deliberately one step at a time, and with due regard to the structure of our schemes as a whole.
I do not know whether I shall be able to answer all noble Lords as adequately as they would wish—I want to be brief about it—and if I do not touch on anything I hope noble Lords will let me know, and then, perhaps, I could write to them. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the question of supplementary benefit payable to individuals instead of to households. The problem with this proposal is that many more people would be brought on to supplementary benefit who could not really be said to be in need. This is the Government's view. If we ceased to aggregate the requirements and resources of the family—that is, parents and children—as we do now, it would be possible for a married woman living with her husband, who could well be earning a considerable wage, to claim and receive supplementary benefit. The proposal would therefore cost a lot of money, which would not necessarily go where there was social need. Whether one ought to take that kind of thing into account and say that it is the principle that matters rather than the effect of it, I do not know; but one has to take it into account particularly when there is, and will be for some considerable time, a good deal of money shortage. The amount that we are able to spend on social security must have some relation to the amount of money we earn. I think the two must go together. If they do not, then, of course, if we spend too much in one direction we shall have to cut very severely in other directions.
I think the noble Baroness also raised the question of periods of maternity. Periods of maternity are taken into account for pension purposes. Maternity allowances give rise to credits, and subsequent periods during which a woman or a man stays at home to care for children will entitle her or, for that matter, him to have basic pension rights protected

329
from 1978 onwards. I acknowledge that 20 years' contributions will still be needed before anybody can get a full basic pension.
A noble Lord raised the question of the inability of married women to receive invalid care allowance. The cost of extending invalid care allowance to married women is not an expense which the Government are contemplating—and let me say that quite frankly. In any case, invalid care allowance is not a benefit which is generally available in other EEC countries. It seems likely that it would be accepted that the draft Directive, which is intended to cover people in the employment field and those who are sick, unemployed or retired from work, does not apply to married women, since they are regarded as not being in the employment field at these times.
I wonder whether I ought to say something—I am tempted not to do so—about the question of the equalisation of retirement ages. It is a very complex matter. One could take women up to 65 or bring men down to 60, or try to find something between the two. A good deal of thought has gone into this. Again, I can only give the noble Baroness and your Lordships some figures, and I know they are always subject to contradition, but my Department did publish a memorandum on pension age. We published it in September 1976, and copies were supplied to all Members of Parliament. I know there was a considerable consensus of opinion which challenged a good deal of the memorandum—I remember, I think, the noble Baroness talking to me about it—but it was the best forecast that we could make. The memorandum considered four possible solutions. The first was reducing a man's pensionable age to 60, which we thought would cost approximately £2,000 million a year in the long term, although I know many people do not accept that. The next possible solution was increasing a woman's pensionable age to 65—and, for the life of me, I cannot think that women would agree to that for one moment.
Then there was the question of trying to work out a common pension age somewhere between 60 and 65; and to do that and not involve the country in extra cost would mean that you could not do it much below 64½. Then there was the
330
flexible pension age. A good deal of thought has gone into these matters, and obviously a good deal more thought has to go into them. I will not say it defies solution; what I am saying is that it is extremely difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked whether we knew anything about a new Directive. The answer is that we do, but, to give a perfectly frank reply to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, how soon the Directive emerges from the Brussels discussions depends on the priority given to it during the Danish presidency and subsequently, which I think started this month and goes on until June 1978. Until it comes out, the Government's attitude to it cannot be finalised, and we will not know all the details. Its existence is certainly known to us, but, as I say, there is that particular problem at the moment.
Mention was made of occupational pension schemes. I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, touched on this. The Government have informed occupational pension schemes of the requirement to give equal pensions, and they have sent out a Paper on this—I will not say a Directive. I think it is also true to say that to enforce this it would be necessary to have legislation, and the Government are contemplating, at the appropriate time, introducing legislation to deal with this situation, so I understand, within the field of occupational pensions.
I was asked whether we are preparing to extend the ambit of the Directive. I think that the answer to that is, no. I was also asked whether the Government intend to strengthen the Directive and, if so, in what way. At the moment, I can give no indication at all that we want to strengthen the Directive in any way. The matter is still under discussion. We shall have to examine what comes out of the discussion at what I would prefer to call the "officer level". What we aim to do is to change the Directive so that it is in a form that we can reasonably adhere to; and that is about as far as I can go.
My Lords, I do not think that I have left anything out but, if I have, I hope that noble Lords will let me know, and I will endeavour to write to them and cover the points they have raised. May I say, on behalf of the Government, that we are

331
grateful—and I say this with real sincerity—to the noble Baroness for introducing this Motion. We are not unmindful of the contribution that she has made as the chairman of this Sub-Committee which heard a good deal of evidence and which spent a great deal of time on this matter. I have, obviously, read the report and, I may say, learned a great deal from it.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his reply and for the kind things that he said at the end of his speech. I am bound to say, however, that I am not that susceptible to flattery and that I do not feel that many of the points raised were dealt with satisfactorily. I am fully aware that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, personally might well want to go beyond what it is possible for him to do at the present time. I accept that; but it is disappointing that the Government are not even prepared to look at the position of the woman who is head of the household and who is claiming supplementary benefit. Although not necessarily conceding the point, I can see the difficulties in this connection of granting equal rights to the dependants of both men and women; but where the woman is the head of the household this is, surely, a different situation and it is not one that will involve the same amount of cost.
May I say also that it seems to many of us that even if you cannot take the more radical approach—and, in this case, I think the word is used correctly—towards changing the basis from a family to an individual system, surely with the introduction this year of the child benefits payments, we want to monitor very carefully whether we cannot go along that line and make the child benefit adequate so that supplementation is not necessary. This, as I have already said, would deal with two problems. It would deal with the problem of women's claims to dependants allowances and also, more importantly perhaps, with the question of the poverty trap; because the child benefits would be paid whether the people involved are or are not in work. Can we not ask the Government to keep this very
332
much in mind, to see whether or not they can make a move along these lines, with the reduction in supplementation and the increase in child benefit.
My Lords, before I sit down, I really cannot resist coming back to this question of the report by the Department of Health and Social Security on which the costings for the pensions, the voluntary reduction of pension age to 60 for men, is based. I thought that it was well understood in the discussions at that time that it was agreed by the Department that those costings were based on the assumption that a man of 60, given the option to retire, would behave in the same way as women had behaved when given the option to retire at 60—forgetting two very important factors. They are that women, in fact, to a large extent, do not have the option to retire, for a good many of their jobs terminate at 60 and, therefore, they are not compatible in that respect; nor was the fact taken into account that the personal pension schemes for which many men qualify would give them a considerable incentive to stay on. I protest that those costings were wrongly based and that before assumptions are made about the cost of retirement age, those sums should be done again. I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of the research department of the Department of Health and Social Security to do a better job than they did in that report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CRIMINAL APPEALS: PROCEDURE
  CRIMINAL APPEALS: PROCEDURE
  ECGD: UNDERWRITING DIVISIONS
  ECGD: UNDERWRITING DIVISIONS
  OATHS: TERMINOLOGY
  OATHS: TERMINOLOGY