Sitting of 25 January 1978

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

    Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Irish Foreign Minister.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): My right hon. Friend last met the Irish Foreign Minister at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 17th January.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say what representations were made to the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland about the recent remarks by Mr. Lynch about a demand for a British intent to withdraw from Northern Ireland? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such remarks were an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that the future of Northern Ireland is a matter not for negotiation between Dublin and London but for the express wishes of the majority of the people in Ulster?
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the Government's policy in Northern Ireland quite clear on a number of occasions, and most recently in the House on 12th January, when he underlined that the Government are looking for a partnership administration reflecting the interests of both communities in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made the same point to the Taoiseach at their meeting
    1358
    last September. I refer hon. Members to the Prime Minister's answer on 17th January, when he said that the people of Northern Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom as long as it is their desire to do so.
    Mr. Kilfedder: When the Secretary of State met the Eire Foreign Minister, did he emphasise that the continuing failure of the Eire Government to sign the European extradition agreement gives comfort to the terrorists who have fled from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic after committing atrocities in the Province?
    Mr. Judd: The Government have made clear that they regard extradition as the most effective means of dealing with fugitive terrorists. Our views are well known to the Irish Government.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister in a position to tell us what support the United Kingdom has had from Ireland on renegotiating the common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Judd: It is true to say that there is a great deal of common interest between the position of the Republic of Ireland and ourselves on that issue, and we endeavour to work closely together.

    Anatoly Shcharansky
    Sir David Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that Anatoly Shcharansky, a Russian Jew, has been imprisoned in Moscow without trial since March 1977, that he has been forbidden legal representation unless he pleads guilty to a pending charge of treason which carries the death penalty, and that he is no longer allowed visitors or to receive or send letters; and what steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to draw the attention of the Soviet Government and the Belgrade Conference to the denial of human rights in this case.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I am following this case closely. The Government will continue to ensure that the Soviet authorities are in no doubt about the widespread concern felt in this country over Mr. Shcharansky and other human rights cases, and about the implications of the case for the Belgrade meeting and the whole process of detente.
    Sir D. Renton: May I say that I share that concern? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Russian Government that their inhuman and uncivilised treatment of this man damages their reputation? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask that Shcharansky be immediately released, bearing in mind that the Russians have kept him in custody incommunicado for nearly a year while they make up their minds, or, rather, fail to do so?
    Dr. Owen: I think that the sentiments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are shared by many in the House. On a number of occasions, and some quite recently, I have taken the opportunity privately to make clear to the Soviet authorities that there is very strong public feeling in this country. Although we have no direct status in the sense that some of these people do not have direct links with the British people and the British Government, we have our responsibilities as international citizens, which affects our relations with the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Thorpe: As the Foreign Secretary's commitment to civil rights is not an issue in the House, does he agree that the fact that Mr. Shcharansky has been held incommunicado for nearly a year, without his mother being able to see him, still less his legal advisers, will make hollow any subsequent agreement at Belgrade on human rights with the Russians unless they show some definite movement in this regard?
    Dr. Owen: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to dissociate the overhang effect of some of these cases from what might be said in Belgrade. Many of us have this anxiety. One might make a forthcoming statement at Belgrade hoping for changes in future years, only to see, a few weeks or months later, those hopes suddenly and cruelly dashed. That would breed cynicism among the public about the whole process of détente. That is a matter that the Soviet authorities should consider.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 300 Members, including you, Mr. Speaker, together with the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Canterbury, have now signed a Bible as a token of the concern of the House about the fate of Anatoly Shcharansky?
    1360
    What protest has he made at the refusal of the Soviet Ambassador in Belgrade to receive this Bible from the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and myself and, indeed, at the cancellation of an appointment that he made with us at his convenience? Does he not think that the time has come for some very plain speaking on behalf of the House of Commons in this matter?
    Dr. Owen: Naturally, I regret that an appointment that had been made was not kept. We must keep these issues in perspective. The process of détente involves more than just human rights. Of course, human rights are an extremely important element in it. I do not want to undermine or dissociate myself from the strong commitment to human rights. There are other issues to be discussed in the process of détente—the whole question of disarmament and the threat to peace of nuclear arms escalating. In forming a judgment on these issues, we have to see the process of détente as a whole.
    Mr. John Davies: I fully understand the Foreign Secretary's statement about the broad area covered by détente. Has he made it clear to the Soviet Union that any final communiqué jointly agreed at Belgrade cannot reasonably fail to make some reference to the concern and agony that are felt about this matter unless something is done about Anatoly Shcharansky and his like?
    Dr. Owen: I note and share the right hon. Gentleman's view. That is a factor to be borne in mind. We cannot take too rigid a line until we determine the kind of framework in which we shall discuss this matter. Many people feel that those who monitor the process at Helsinki in any of the member States that signed the Final Act should not suffer for their monitoring.

    Armaments (Expenditure)
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the other member States of NATO to refrain from increasing their expenditure on armaments, in the interests of not prejudicing the outcome of the Special United Nations Session on Disarmament due to take place in May of this year.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of his declaration that Great Britain will play a positive rôle at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in May, he will seek to ensure that no steps will be taken meanwhile to prejudice the success of that conference.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in his consultations with NATO, he will seek to ensure that the organisation should refrain from pressing for increased arms expenditure by its member Governments pending the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): We and our allies intend to play a positive rôle in the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. There is no question of any moves which might prejudice the prospects for the session. Until our objective of general and complete disarmament can be achieved, we and our allies must maintain the military expenditure necessary to ensure our security.
    Mr. Litterick: Does the Minister agree, however, that the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence of real increases in armaments expenditure runs counter to the no doubt sincere hope by the Foreign Office that it can play a positive rôle in the coming United Nations discussions on disarmament? It seems to many hon. Members to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the British Government to exercise any moral authority at all on anyone, particularly in NATO, in this respect. Therefore, does he agree that it would render the United Nations talks nugatory from the start?
    Mr. Luard: There is no contradiction in the two facts mentioned by my hon. Friend. As he knows, we undertook a drastic defence review and cut defence spending by over £8 billion or £9 billion over a nine-year period. Now that our financial situation is somewhat restored, in conjunction with our allies and in accordance with the NATO decision, we have decided to raise defence expenditure by 3 per cent. over coming years. There is no conflict between doing that and
    1362
    taking a positive rôle at the conference, to which we attach great importance. We have our own ideas to present to the conference. I hope that we can play a positive part.
    Mr. Allaun: First, does my hon. Friend feel that an increase in arms spending by East or West inevitably heightens tension and makes peace and arms reductions this year harder to achieve?
    Secondly, if a Soviet nuclear-powered spy satellite can go astray—fortunately, without horrific effects—does he not think that, with both East and West having scores of such satellites, sooner or later one will cause a disaster and perhaps spark off the Third World War?
    Mr. Luard: I agree that all increases in defence expenditure can have the effect of raising tension. But we must be concerned about the balance of armaments between East and West. Unfortunately, increases in defence expenditure on the Eastern side on a fairly substantial scale have been reported, and NATO must take account of them.
    I share my hon. Friend's concern about the danger of satellites coming down and causing immense damage. Therefore, it is all the more important that we act positively at the conference to ensure real progress towards disarmament.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the problems of world poverty, we need a United Nations initiative to bring about an end to the arms race in order to divert resources to help the needy in the Southern Hemisphere?
    Mr, Luard: As I said in my original answer, our aim is eventual "general and complete disarmament." One of the main effects, to which the United Nations has often drawn attention, would be that enormous resources would be available for development all over the world.
    Mr. Powell: What did the Under-Secretary mean by the expression "complete disarmament" in his substantive reply?
    Mr. Luard: The ultimate aim, as I said, is the elimination of all armaments. This is a long-term eventual aim. I do not suggest that it is easy, but it is a matter to which the discussions at the conference will be directed.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the Minister agree that a posture of weakness on the part of the West is as likely to cause increasing tension as a posture of strength? To what extent is increased arms expenditure by this country designed to meet the increased threat to our communications posed by the disposition of hostile Soviet submarines?
    Mr. Luard: Our aim is to assure for the West a position neither of superior strength nor of weakness. Our aim should be to secure a balance of armaments between East and West. We shall not be successful in the talks unless we make that clear before the negotiations take place.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Nations Charter would be at risk unless NATO defined its attitude towards the neutron weapon? Does he further agree that the United Kingdom should press for a mutual denunciation of this ghastly weapon?
    Mr. Luard: I understand that no final decisions have been taken about that weapon. We are in close consultation with all the Powers involved.
    Mr. Thorpe: We all hope for a major advance at the United Nations special session. Is the Minister aware that it is suggested that there is to be a major exhibition at Aldershot designed to promote the sale of British arms to all and sundry? Is it correct that that exhibition will correspond with the last week of the United Nations special session? Is that by design or by accident?
    Mr. Luard: It is an exhibition of all types of Army equipment, including weapons, for an invited audience of defence procurement officials from a wide range of customer States. The last such exhibition took place in the summer of 1976. I am sure that the timing is a matter of accident.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not irrelevant hypocrisy on the part of the Minister's hon. Friends below the Gangway to complain of the Government's modest and belated decision to make a small increase in defence expenditure at a time when the armaments industry of the Soviet Union is out-producing Britain's entire inventory of tanks, aircraft and submarines every four months?
    Mr. Luard: I have already said that the level of defence expenditure in other parts of Europe must be of concern to us in making our own decisions on defence expenditure. What is of concern is the relationship not of Soviet expenditure to our own but of Soviet and East European expenditure to that of the West as a whole.
    Mr. Luce: Although it is hoped that real progress will be made at the United Nations and that the British team will be strongly represented, is it not clear that the lessons of history demonstrate that if genuine progress is to be made it must be on the basis of balanced arms reductions? Is it not therefore imperative that NATO members negotiate from a position of adequate strength?
    Mr. Frank Allaun: That is what the Russians say.
    Mr. Luard: It is our aim to secure a balance at the time when the conference takes place. At the conference we shall also wish to secure substantial reductions, which, of course, must be of a balanced nature.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has on the position of British hotels in the North of Cyprus pending a settlement between the Turkish authorities and the British owners.
    Mr. Judd: In commercial cases such as this, the British High Commission in Nicosia forwards claims, and makes representations, whenever requested to do so by British holders of rights in an undertaking. It will, of course, continue to do this. But these cases need to be considered individually and some companies prefer to deal direct with the Turkish Cypriots.
    Mr. Townsend: Does the Minister appreciate that prior to the forthcoming ruling of the House of Lords and/or a settlement of the Cyprus problem British hotel owners, travellers and tourists are in a difficult position? Can he assure the House that the Government accept that they have a responsibility to give regular information to those most concerned and to protect British interests?
    Mr. Judd: I assure the House that we shall always do our best to answer any queries from whatever quarter. Consular services are available to all three in Cyprus from whatever part of the island they come.
    Mr. Colin Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the possession of British hotels in Cyprus—I am referring in particular to New Famagusta—is intimately linked to a political settlement'? Does he further agree that it is not enough for hotel keepers to settle the problem themselves because without a moving back of the Greek citizens to New Famagusta there will be no political settlement?
    Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend is right. This can be seen as a symptom of the underlying political problem. We are determined to do everything we can to support those who are seeking a political solution.
    Mr. Emery: When he considers the aspect of British property in Cyprus, will the Minister realise that many house owners who have homes in the north of the island have had their houses pillaged and are not allowed to go to the island to see the situation for themselves? Does he agree that it is not enough to approach the authorities individually unless his Department takes action to support individual property owners?
    Mr. Judd: I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member and the House that a senior official visited Cyprus last month to have further discussions with the Turkish Cypriot authorities. He was told that a claims commission would be set up towards the end of the month. The chairman has already been named and members will be appointed shortly. The High Commissioner is pursuing the matter vigorously.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.
    Dr. Owen: The Government, with the full support of the United States Government, are continuing to work for a Rhodesian settlement which will be acceptable to the international community
    1366
    and contribute to peace and prosperity in an independent Zimbabwe.
    I shall be meeting Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe, the joint leaders of the Patriotic Front, in Malta on 30th January. I shall be accompanied by Lord Carver and by Ambassador Andrew Young and the United Nations Secretary-General will be represented by General Prem Chand. The object of the talks is to discuss with the leaders of the Patriotic Front the whole range of questions arising from the Anglo-American proposals, particularly the substantive matters on which we have so far had very little discussion with them.
    Mr. Brotherton: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much longer he will use his continued bad offices to try to prevent a settlement between Mr. Smith and the moderates of Rhodesia? How much longer does he propose to prefer the company of murderers to that of moderates?
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Member must accept that an internal settlement which excludes one of the leading nationalist groups cannot bring about a ceasefire during the elections or bring peace and stability to a newly independent Zimbabwe, nor would it eliminate the threat to international peace and security. It would, therefore, be most unlikely to be recognised by the Security Council. We are signatories to many Security Council resolutions.
    Mr. Grocott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House in his determination to continue talks with Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo? Will he confirm that it would be ludicrous to have any kind of paper settlement that did not involve the full co-operation of the Patriotic Front, whose forces have forced Smith to the conference table?
    Dr. Owen: I have been almost brutally frank with the House about the limitations on the Government's rôle in this matter. I do not delude myself that we can have absolute power. All I can say is that I believe that we must pursue a ceasefire as being the stable way of ensuring an independent Zimbabwe. We have offered, within the framework of the Anglo-American proposals, to administer Rhodesia during a transitional period. We have never administered that

    1367
    territory and it would not be right to administer it unless there were a reasonable guarantee of a ceasefire and a peaceful period during which elections would be held.
    Mr. Blaker: Do the Six Principles still apply? Have they been modified?
    Dr. Owen: We still stand by the basic principles, but they are much more detailed in the Anglo-American proposals. I hope that we shall be able to elaborate them as I promised following the run of consultations. No one is under any illusion that to negotiate a ceasefire between two forces, neither of which has won or lost, is extremely difficult. This has eluded people in the past. It is right for the British and American Governments to try to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nostalgia for the old imperialism that lingers on the Opposition Benches is of no help? Does he agree that certain so-called terrorists such as Nehru, Gandhi and Kenyatta have eventually become world statesmen? Does my right hon. Friend accept that no solution to the Rhodesian problem is possible that does not take into account the aspirations of the Patriotic Front?
    Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Churchill: What, Nehru a terrorist?
    Dr. Owen: I think that in the past when many people opposed the granting of independence under the British Parliament many people ended up in prison. The mere fact that they were imprisoned by a British Government does not necessarily mean that they were terrorists.
    We shall not achieve a settlement if we allow any side to have an absolute veto. If we are to achieve a negotiated ceasefire—which is very difficult—no side can hold to its principles to the exclusion of its readiness to compromise. The problem is that there are a number of parties to the dispute who are unwilling to show the necessary compromise.
    Mr. Amery: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the last 24 hours the internal settlement talks in Salisbury have made somewhat dramatic progress? Will he
    1368
    explain to Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe when he meets them in Malta that if there is an internal settlement which is consonant with the Six Principles it would be extremely difficult for the British Government not to recognise the Rhodesian Government which emerged from such a settlement? Does the Secretary of State agree that he would be deluding the leaders of the Patriotic Front if he did not make that clear to them?
    Dr. Owen: I agree that we should try to talk about principles. The Government and this House alone can confer legal independence on Rhodesia. We would not do so if a settlement did not accord with the basic principles in the Anglo-American proposals.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of some kind of Bantustan under the aegis of Mr. Smith would not be acceptable to the House, the OAU, the Commonwealth or the United Nations? Does he accept that the only thing that matters is free elections under the auspices of the United Nations?
    Dr. Owen: It is necessary for the United Nations to have a crucial rôle in this settlement. It is necessary for it to have both a military peacekeeping réle and a supervisory and observation role to ensure fair elections. Any administration by a British resident Commissioner must be seen to be fair. We cannot ignore the whole weight of international opinion—the Security Council, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the Organisation of African Unity.
    Mr. John Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that for more than a year now I have sought to sustain his efforts to find a peaceful solution in Rhodesia, in spite of some very wide criticism? I am bound to tell him now, and I hope that he will accept, that I fear—and I hope that he will be able to say that it is not so—that the behaviour of Her Majesty's Government does not do honour to us in relation to the efforts currently being made in Rhodesia to find a settlement. Does he understand that, however important the external influences may be, however important the carrying of the United Nations may be, the matter of prime importance is that we here should by every means seek to bring about a

    1369
    peaceful settlement in that country? If there is such a prospect from the discussions now currently in hand in Salisbury, it would be madness indeed for any Government to seek to frustrate them.
    Dr. Owen: I will certainly not and nor will the Government frustrate a peaceful settlement there, from whatever source it comes. I believe that we in this House have a responsibility to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, and I have never deviated from that. Since I decided that it was not incumbent upon me to ignore the problem of Rhodesia, and that it was necessary for me to strive for a peaceful settlement, I have been attacked on many sides and by many different people. It goes on day after day. I will not seek—and here I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies)—as he has not sought, to make this a party political issue in the House. I will seek the maximum degree of consensus possible, but not at the risk of departing from the principles laid down in the Anglo-United States initiative.

    Concorde
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position in the negotiations he is conducting with the Malaysian Government on the question of Concorde's overflying rights of the Malacca Strait on its flight-path to Singapore.
    Mr. Judd: I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Member that talks with the Malaysian Government resumed today in Kuala Lumpur.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the Deputy High Commissioner of Malaysia told me that his Government's attitude was shaped by concern for the unknown effect on fish in the Malacca Strait of Concorde flying overhead? However, most people with any knowledge of the problem believe that it is based upon the splitting of the former Malaysia-Singapore Airlines into two airlines and the determination of the Malaysian Government to prevent Singapore International Airlines from being successful. Will he say what he is prepared to do if the Malaysian Government do not reach a reasonable agreement within a reasonable time?
    Mr. Judd: It is true that the Malaysian Government say that they are principally concerned on environmental and air traffic control grounds. We believe that their action is illegal, and we are making that point plain. But we are certain that in the context of the resumed negotiations a satisfactory solution will be found.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does the Minister think that it would have been a wiser course to have secured agreement with the Malaysian authorities about these rights before rather than after screwing them down to an agreement on air traffic between London and Malaysia which the Malaysians felt was very unfair to their airline?
    Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman's account of history was correct, he would be right in his judgment. But what happened was that contacts were started at official level with the Malaysian Government in January last year. We gave them route proposals last March and again in October. The Malaysian officials did not indicate at any time that this would cause any difficulty for their Government.

    Japan (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. MacFarquharasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the Japanese Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend hopes to see Mr. Sonoda soon, but at the moment there are no definite plans for them to meet. However, the Japanese Minister for External Economic Affairs, Mr. Ushiba, is coming to London on 26th and 27th January and will be meeting a number of Ministers.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: When Ministers meet Mr. Ushiba, will they express to him the interests of Her Majesty's Government in the unfolding of Japan's avowed plans to increase development assistance? Will they urge upon him Britain's desire that extra aid from Japan, when it is announced, should go where it is most needed, namely, to the countries of South Asia—India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?
    Mr. Luard: We welcome Japan's undertaking to double its aid within the next five years. We would welcome, too,

    1371
    any further acceleration of that programme, and we would like to see it spread more widely, with some of it going to multilateral institutions.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When the Minister has discussions with the Japanese Government, will he advance the opinion that Japan, with its great power, should play a large rôle in maintaining the naval security of the Eastern Pacific and the Indian Ocean, and also discuss the possibility of joint Anglo-Japanese ventures in the great nation of China?
    Mr. Luard: That would be a matter for the Foreign Ministers' meeting rather than for the Minister of External Economic Affairs. The hon. Gentleman knows the constraints on Japan expanding its defence expenditure. They lie partly in public opinion and partly in its constitution. The other matter that the hon. Member mentioned is an interesting idea that no doubt could be discussed with the Japanese Government.

    El Salvador
    Mr. Richard Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to El Salvador during 1978.
    Dr. Owen: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his Government's recent decision not to go ahead with the sale of armaments to El Salvador is most welcome to people in this country and overseas who are deeply concerned about the peace and freedom of that area?
    Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the difficulty which arises over the supply of that equipment and the fact that the Government had to seek assurances that it would not be used against neighbouring Belize would never have arisen if consideration had been given at the outset to the wisdom of supplying equipment to any Government who oppressed their own people? Has the lesson now been learned, and in future will British arms not be supplied to regimes that deny fundamental human rights to their own populations?
    Dr. Owen: There are a few administrative lessons to be learned.
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and El Salvador.
    Dr. Owen: There is no change in our relations.
    Mr. Newens: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Government's decision to cancel the arms deal with El Salvador? Will he now press the United States and other Powers not to supply arms to Guatemala or any of its allies until that country recognises the territorial integrity of Belize? Will he make a statement here and now that no undue pressure will be brought to bear on the Premier of Belize to sacrifice part of his territory to meet the demands of Guatemala before a settlement can be arrived at?
    Dr. Owen: There is another Question on the Order Paper to which I hope to reply. No pressure has been or will be applied. The Government have made it clear to many Governments that we deplore the supply of arms to Guatemala in a situation in which we are faced with the current territorial dispute between Belize and Guatemala.

    Belize
    Mr. Speaker: I undertand that Questions Nos. 23 and 26 will be answered after Question Time.

    Uganda
    Miss Joan Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration he has given to stopping flights between the United Kingdom and Uganda from Stansted airport.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The question of the Stansted flights is under active consideration. The Government will soon be in a position to announce their decision.
    Miss Lestor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a degree of urgency about our receiving an answer on this? At the time of

    1373
    the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, when Uganda was occupying more attention than at present, certain promises or hints of promises were given that this Stansted run, which is totally unnecessary, would be stopped. We look forward to urgent action.
    Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate my hon. Friend's points, but a number of very complex issues related to our international obligations and our domestic law are involved here. The Government are seeking advice on them and we hope to make an announcement soon.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it not true that every time we drink Nescafé or Maxwell House coffee we are helping to underpin the régime in Uganda, the coffee sales of which are being remarkably successful? In these circumstances, is there not an argument for the Government to turn their attention possibly to some sort of economic sanctions if we are ever to undermine Amin's régime?
    Mr. Rowlands: I think that it would be a very serious course to embark upon full-scale trade sanctions which would conflict with our own domestic interests—Rhodesia is a very special case—but, also, it would conflict with our commitment to Lomé in EEC terms.
    Mr. Luce: It is quite clear that these regular airways flights from Stansted to Uganda are helping to sustain the tyrannical Ugandan régime by the provision of luxury goods rather than helping the people of Uganda. Is it not time that the Government stopped prevaricating? Will the Minister explain what the obstacles are?
    Mr. Rowlands: The obstacles are fundamental legal ones about international obligations—things like the Chicago Convention and many other provisions internationally—which make it difficult for us to terminate these flights. However, we have been investigating the possibilities and we hope to make an announcement soon. We appreciate and share the strength of feeling in the House.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Commission Officials (Security Vetting)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
    1374
    Affairs if he will raise in the next Council of Ministers' meeting the issue of the vetting of EEC Commission officials for security.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): My hon. Friend has corresponded with both my right hon. Friend and myself about this matter. It is essentially one for the Commission and I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to raise it now in the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the views of certain EEC officials about vetting reconcilable with the management of Euratom?
    Mr. Tomlinson: As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) himself said during a debate in the European Assembly, there is a certain irreducible dilemma between the problem of confidentiality and the need to ensure that the careers of Community officials are not prejudiced. I note what my hon. Friend says about Euratom. I re-emphasise the basic message of our recent correspondence that this important subject is more appropriate for consideration by the Commission than by the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Minister say whether the appointment of Mr. Spinelli as a Commissioner, who is a member of the Communist Party and who had left the Commission to fight the Italian elections as a Communist candidate, was subject to vetting?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The answer is "No." I cannot tell the hon. Member one way or the other.

    Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the main subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the other Foreign Ministers of the European Community.
    Dr. Owen: A monthly written forecast of Council business will be deposited tomorow and my hon. Friend the Minister of State expects to make his oral statement on 30th January.
    Mr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend expect to raise at the meeting of

    1375
    the Council of Ministers the question of Greek entry into the Community? Will he make a comment on the likelihood of that being finally agreed and sorted out by October, as Mr. Karamanlis expressed the hope in this morning's newspapers?
    Dr. Owen: I shall be talking to Mr. Karamanlis this afternoon with the Prime Minister. I will be interested to hear his views. All of us support the principle of enlargement. For political, in particular, as well as economic reasons, we want to buttress the new democracies that are currently applying, which have been through a difficult period.
    I do not wish to hide from the House the fact that there are difficult economic negotiations that have to be undertaken by all people who wish to accede to the Treaty. We have some way to go in regard to those in regard to the Greek application.
    Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that President Sadat's initiative does not appear to be achieving the success it deserves, will the Foreign Secretary discuss with his EEC colleagues the possibility of the Community playing a more active rôle in the Middle East than it has been doing in the last month or two?
    Dr. Owen: It has always been discussed on every occasion when Community Foreign Ministers meet together, and the last Council meeting was no exception. It is often discussed privately. It is unwise to jump to the conclusion that the European member States, in their own different ways, are not having a quite important influence on the situation. But I do not think that it calls for public statements from the Community at present.
    Mr. Gould: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the prospect of enlarging the EEC when it comes to the question of fixing a new date for direct elections? Does he agree that it would be perverse to hold direct elections a few months before the accession of the Greeks, who would no doubt wish to participate?
    Dr. Owen: I am at one with my hon. Friend in believing that all relevant factors should be taken into account in considering the date for direct elections to the European Parliament.
    Mr. Hurd: Following on the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), can the Foreign Secretary shed light on the way the Community will decide the date for direct elections? Will it be the European Council, or will the Council of Ministers have a go first? Will he confirm the Press report that the Prime Minister said that he will not agree to any date for European elections in advance of our own General Election because he fears that the Labour Party might not do too well in it?
    Dr. Owen: I cannot confirm the last statement. I should have thought that the opinion polls showed that that would be a most ill-advised statement to make.
    As to the procedure, it has been agreed that first the officials would look at the whole problem of trying to match up the question of getting a convenient time for the nine member States because they have local elections, referenda and other matters to consider. This will probably be discussed in the Council of Foreign Ministers prior to a meeting of the European Council. It is thought that a decision will be taken at the next meeting of the European Council.
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC Foreign Ministers.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be meeting the other Foreign Ministers of the European Community.
    Dr. Owen: At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th February.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Foreign Secretary feel that it would be helpful to the Minister of Agriculture, who is going to Berlin on Friday to discuss other matters on the common fisheries policy, to make it clear to the Council of Ministers that he will raise a veto to prevent any

    1377
    enlargement of the Community until we have a satisfactory resolution of the common fisheries policy?
    Dr. Owen: My right hon. Friend is going to a "green week", which is held there. I do not think that it is wise to assume that substantive discussions of the kind that the hon. Gentleman indicates necessarily will take place. But I think that the whole House has made clear its concern that we should have a fair and reasonable agreement over fishing.
    It has been openly acknowledged that some progress has been made. My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland are vigorously pursuing the interests of this country with some considerable success. I believe that the whole House wishes them well.
    Mr. Skinner: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) never mentioned Scotland in his supplementary question? He must be slipping. Will the Minister confirm that, with unemployment spiralling throughout Western Europe, the loss of production since we have been a member of the Common Market has been about half the national income of all the developing countries?
    Is it not now apparent that we shall not resolve this problem either here or over there on the basis of the Treaty of Rome? It will be resolved on the basis of planning. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Common Market leaders when he sees them that the only way that they got another stage forward in the direct elections argument was by getting Ministers such as himself to come along to a meeting in a block vote? I almost thought that Arthur Deakin was leading them into the room to support the Prime Minister last night. That will not prevent some of us from voting against the guillotine tomorrow.
    Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend is in danger of becoming the very mirror of the Euro-theologians, whom he attacks so frequently, in Brussels. The sooner he realises that the Treaty of Rome is not an absolute and binding framework within which the European Community develops and evolves, the better. The
    1378
    sooner he sees this as a flexible organisation of nine member States working together in the interests of achieving both industrial and economic policies which will help the member States at a time of a very difficult world recession, the better.
    Mr. Stewart: At the forthcoming meeting, if there is discussion of the possible entry of Greece into the Community, wilt my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one further advantage to be obtained from that entry could be an improvement of the relations between the Greek Government and NATO?
    Dr. Owen: It is a very fair point to make that when we take into account the Greek application we should take into account all the relevant political circumstances. It is in the overall interests of this country that, at a time when Greece wishes to do so, it should come back into full membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But the two are not linked. There are many applicant countries—Spain is one—in which people will be in favour of becoming members of the European Community but not necessarily members of NATO. Therefore, it is an indirect consequence, and it is not absolutely linked.
    Mr. Dykes: On the new democracies—Spain in particular—would it not be a good idea for the Foreign Secretary to discuss with his opposite numbers in the EEC the prospects and methods of nationals voting overseas—or, rather, abroad—in any particular country? Is it not a remarkable fact that in the case of Spain, in their first General Election, several million Spaniards overseas voted, in a country in which they are not used to elections? Should we not emulate that example, at least in the European direct elections, to start with, and consider the repercussions later for our own national elections?
    Dr. Owen: We can have such discussions. They are envisaged. That shows that many people are beginning to realise that before Europe is ready two member States have problems over direct elections. We need a little time to get a reasonable preparation before the direct elections take place
    Mr. Wigley: In the context of Spain's application, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any discussion between himself and his colleagues of independent Basque representation within the EEC? In particular, has France made any representations to try to block Spain's entry because of the uncertainty of the Basque question?
    Dr. Owen: No. I think that everyone considers that that is a matter for the Spanish people themselves to decide. Certainly that is my view.
    Mr. Roper: What does my right hon. Friend expect to discuss on the subject of Spanish and Portuguese membership of the Community at the next Council meeting?
    Dr. Owen: We are awaiting a Commission opinion on the Portuguese application, which I understand is unlikely to reach us before March. We are hopeful that we shall get a Commission opinion on Spain towards the end of the year. I hope that it will not be delayed beyond then. Then I think that the Community as a whole will want to look at the whole question of enlargement. We must look at each individual application on its own intrinsic merits. But I am in favour of a Community of 12. The sooner it can be enlarged to a Community of 12, the better.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he might be in any way embarrassed by the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has today complained about delay on the part of European Ministers agreeing on the devaluation of the green pound, when a few months ago when the Danes applied for devaluation of the green pound he was the person who demanded that there should be a delay for consideration?
    Dr. Owen: That was on a technical point about. MCAs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in the spirit of sportsmanship for which he is famed, recognising that he had lost in the voting, immediately came to the Dispatch Box and said that he would fall in with the view of the House, and, the decision having been taken, in Brussels he feels it incumbent on him to carry it out faithfully on the basis of his long-held belief that Parliament is sovereign.
    Mr. Heffer: When my right hon. Friend next meets the European Ministers, will he tell them that the British Government will not be slavishly following the United States in regard to the internal affairs of countries such as France and Italy, that it is a matter for those countries to decide how to deal with their own problems, and that we do not follow President Carter's interference, which is as bad in some respects as the interference of the Soviet Union in relation to Czechoslovakia?
    Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend and I have been engaged in newspaper columns in certain discussions about our views on Euro-Communism and its development, but on that particular issue I think that he and I agree. I said this in my lecture at Cambridge, and my hon. Friend will have noted the way in which this matter has been handled by the British Government.
    Mr. Hurd: Following immediately on that point, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anyone is at work in the Community on drafting a declaration for Heads of Government, so that they can make clear in April to existing members and to applicants that respect for basic political freedoms is a condition for membership of the Community?
    Dr. Owen: That is already in the Copenhagen statement. It is a fundamental principle that membership of the Community is based on an adhesion to democracy. On this there can be no compromise. Were any country to go against the democratic spirit, I personally believe that it would not be eligible for membership of the Community. As for the practical suggestion to Foreign Ministers that there should be a declaration which should make this clear, I think that a declaration would be one of the ways in which that could be done.

    President of the Commission
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when last he met the President of the EEC Commission.
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC.
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC.
    Mr. Judd: The President of the Commission and my right hon. Friend attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 17th January and my right hon. Friend expects that they will both be at the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th February.
    Mr. Renton: What support does the President of the Commission now have from the Government in his restating the objective of economic and monetary union within the Community? Do the Government now think this a realistic objective in the long term?
    Mr. Judd: Mr. Jenkins himself has compared the idea of the approach and what he describes as an eventual leap to monetary union with the notion of a long-jumper who lengthens his stride as he approaches the take-off point. We shall want to see how the small steps go and to be absolutely certain about where we are being asked to land before we take off.
    Mr. Crawford: Now that unemployment in Scotland has reached 200,000, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Commission will do nothing to dismantle the temporary employment subsidy? We were told at referendum time that there would not be jobs for the boys in Europe. That is a very odd slogan now.
    Mr. Judd: The Government are well aware of the deep commitment of the House to the temporary employment subsidy. We take the feelings of the House very seriously in our negotiations with the Commission.
    Mr. Madden: When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets Mr. Jenkins, will he remind him that he was a member of the Government who introduced the temporary employment subsidy, and in the interests of thousands of workers who have been saved from the dole by the TES and the thousands who will be saved from the dole if TES continues, and in the interests of flexibility, will he tell Mr. Jenkins that the British Government will not tolerate interference from the Commission on this vitally important matter?
    Mr. Judd: I certainly hope that the Commission is well aware that if it were, by its action, to aggravate the serious problems of unemployment in any member country, that would not be furthering the cause of the EEC.
    Mr. Higgins: As Mr. Jenkins clearly needs instruction in the technique of long jumping, may we be told the Government's view in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)?
    Mr. Judd: We see economic and monetary union as a very distant prospect. We would need to know a lot more about how it would work out before giving a commitment in detail.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Foreign Secretary ask Mr. Jenkins about the statement that he made to the EEC Assembly just before Christmas, when he said that he would not wish the Commission to place before the Assembly anything with which the Assembly did not agree? That was in the Official Journal of the EEC. Does that not mean that the EEC Assembly is exercising a very powerful influence on the proposals of the Commission and, therefore, that the Assembly has much greater power than my right hon. Friend and the Government are now claiming?
    Mr. Judd: Mr. Jenkins is responsible for his own analysis and observations on this matter. But, as we have repeatedly made plain in stating our views on the future of the Community, the real political strength will lie in the Council of Ministers, the Ministers of which are accountable to their domestic Parliaments, such as this Parliament here at Westminster.

    Passports and Driving Licences
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Euro-passports and Euro-driving licences.
    Mr. Judd: The European Uniform Passport remains under discussion in the Community. There have been no recent developments.
    As regards Community driving licences, I have nothing to add to the statement of 11th January made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Tranport in response to a Question

    1383
    from my hon. Friend, the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
    Mr. Marten: Does the Minister agree that the proposal for a Euro-passport is only a cosmetic manifestation of a federal State? Scandinavia has a passport union while still using perfectly ordinary national passports. Therefore, this seems to be a question of setting up an unnecessary bureaucracy. The same applies in regard to driving licences. Will the Minister give an assurance that no decision will be taken by the Council of Ministers without the full consent of this House?
    Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that this is not a high priority in the meetings and consultations of the Community. I see no immediate prospect of the Community moving forward on this front, as we have reassured the hon. Gentleman and those who feel as he does. There will certainly be a case for full debate in the House before we move forward.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Could not my hon. Friend manage to sound just a trifle more positive? Is he not aware that it is in measures of this kind, rather than in some of the grand stratagems and schemes—EMU, for example—that the British public can have benefits from the Community? Cannot he push on a bit on these simple matters, which should be capable of agreement?
    Mr. Judd: There are very strongly held views on all sides about this passport, but I agree with those who argue that at least initially its real significance would be purely symbolic. In the time available to us, we want to concentrate on issues which will be of practical and meaningful significance to the people we represent.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the reference to symbolic significance mean that the passport would retain the Royal Arms and the traditional and comforting words that the Minister's right hon. Friend the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs writes into each of our passports?
    Mr. Judd: I can certainly put the hon. Gentleman's mind completely at ease. It would retain almost all the most important features of the traditional passport. It would just make some genuflexions in
    1384
    the direction of the European Economic Community.

BELIZE
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the recent discussions in Mexico on the subject of the Guatemalan claims to part of Belize.
Mr. Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to Belize.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I will, with permission, answer these Questions together.
Accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), I held meetings yesterday and today with the Premier of Belize, the Hon. George Price, who was accompanied by Ambassador Courtenay and Mr. Shoman, the Attorney-General of Belize. There was a frank discussion of the problems facing Belize. The Belizean representatives reiterated the position of their Government that negotiations should continue on the basis of the United Nations resolution and the territorial integrity of Belize.
I confirmed that any settlement must be acceptable to the Government and people of Belize. I said that recent British discussions with the Guatemalans had been exploratory; various proposals, including the possibility of territorial adjustments, had been discussed but no agreements had been made or would be made which were not subject to the approval of the people of Belize. The Premier of Belize asked that the issue should be put directly to the people of Belize and that the Commonwealth should be associated with this process of consultation. I readily agreed to both these requests.
Both Governments agreed that their aim was early and secure independence for Belize.

1385
The British Government will continue their search for a negotiated settlement, which has not yet been achieved, in discussions with Guatemala and other interested Governments.
Mr. Hunt: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's reply, as far as it goes. Will he agree that any ultimate decision to cede the southern part of Belize—which is rich in oil potential—to Guatemala, whose record on human rights and other matters is far from impressive, would be seen as a betrayal of a very loyal and struggling colony? Will he please comment on that?
Dr. Owen: I can say that no decision to cede territory would be made without the agreement of the people of Belize. I think that is perfectly clear. That is the assurance that I have consistently given and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has done so much in the recent negotiations, has consistently and firmly held to that position.
Mr. Durant: I welcome a great deal of what is in the statement, but is the Foreign Secretary further aware that the population of Belize, who are very loyal to this country, look to us to defend their interests? He says that they will be consulted, but will he be a little more expressive as to the form in which he might see this consultation taking place, bearing in mind that Belize has a number of political parties?
Dr. Owen: I think we have to take account of that, but it is primarily with the Government of Belize that we would discuss these issues. I have given an assurance that the method of consultation would be discussed with them, and we would seek to reach agreement on this. I think that that is the fair way of proceeding. But I recognise that we have to take account of all views in Belize on this issue.
Dr. M. S. Miller: I am sure that we are all grateful for the statement. What steps will Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that the people of Belize as a whole approve of what is going on in their part of the world? If the people of Belize indicate that they will have no truck with the carving up of their country, what will be Her Majesty's Government's attitude?
Dr. Owen: If this situation were put to the people of Belize and they decided that they did not want any change, the status quo would continue. It would remain a Crown colony and Britain would defend the territorial integrity of Belize.
The problem we face is that the people of Belize have, for over a decade or more, naturally wanted increasingly to have their independence. We have a problem as to bringing that country to secure and stable independence, with the territorial claims and the associated problems around the boundaries of that country. The issue can either be just left alone or it has to be grappled with. I think that it should be grappled with—with the absolute safeguard that it will be the people of Belize who will decide.
Mr. Thorpe: I think we can welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement unequivocally but we are not absolutely certain and hope that he will answer three questions.
First, will he confirm that he agrees with Mr. Price that the territorial integrity of Belize must be inviolate prior to independence? Second, may we take it that consultation means his preparedness to have a referendum before independence? Third, if there are territorial problems, will he not discuss the possibility of a Commonwealth guarantee of the integrity of the boundaries of that country?
Dr. Owen: Anyone who knows Mr. Price, who has led his people for the last 14 years very successfully, knows that he would never agree to a sell-out, and the British Government have no intention of agreeing to a sell-out. Mr. Price has never changed his position on territorial integrity. He has maintained that and also his position on the United Nations resolution.
I have made it clear to the House that we are discussing, among other things, territorial adjustments. I think that it is right that those should be explored. But any territorial adjustment would be put to the people of Belize. As to the form in which it would be put, the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is clearly one obvious way in which it could be done. I have undertaken to discuss this with the Government of Belize and to take account of the views of the people of Belize.

1387
We have been trying to get guarantees for an independent Belize for many years, and I think it is important to get these guarantees. If I believed it were possible to get a United Nations guarantee, or something of that sort, we should probably not be involved in some of these difficult negotiations.
Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Belize Government was consulted in advance and its permission given in advance before the demarcation of territory with neighbouring countries was discussed?
Dr. Owen: The Premier of Belize and the Government have constantly, consistently and rightly held their position on territorial integrity and on the United Nations resolution. I think they recognise that the British Government have the ultimate responsibility for attempting to bring Belize to independence. Premier Price has attended all the formal negotiations and has been kept fully informed of all our informal discussions with the Guatamalans, but he has not shifted from his basic position, nor do I think it appropriate for him to do so. The British Government do not accept that there should be any claim on the territory of Belize. We are prepared to try to see whether negotiation can resolve the problem.
Mr. Amery: Having had some experience of negotiations with Guatemala on this question, may I ask the Foreign Secretary the following questions? Is he satisfied that the discussion of territorial adjustment on our part is compatible with the Commonwealth communications of 1975 and 1977, when we said that we would stand by the territorial integrity of Belize? When the Foreign Secretary commits himself to seeking the consent of the Belize people, is it not time that we considered what form that would take? Finally, has he had discussions with the Commonwealth Committee—which I think was set up under Mr. Adams, the Prime Minister of Barbados, to monitor and follow all these negotiations?
Dr. Owen: I attended a meeting of the Commonwealth group in New York, and I have always been very frank with them about what has been discussed. I am very grateful to the Commonwealth countries for observing the necessity to keep some of these negotiations private.
1388
I have already said that the matter would be put directly to the people of Belize. I think that Premier Price will want to go back to Guatemala and make his own decisions as to how this should be done. I think that we can resolve that very easily, but I wish to preserve his position and that of the Government of Belize on that question.
As to being satisfied about the territorial adjustment and the Guatemalan attitude, I think that there is beginning to be a recognition in the whole of the region that it would be in the interests of the whole of the region to resolve this issue. I pay tribute to the great help that has been given by many other countries. They have differing views on the justice and rights of the claim, but they are all trying to get a settlement. It will not be easy to get a settlement, and the final decision will be taken by the people of Belize.
Mr. Rose: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his words leave one with a certain amount of uneasiness, not least after what happened in Cyprus? Will he give an unequivocal undertaking to the people of Belize that there shall be no violation of their wishes and that we shall safeguard their interests? Will he further take this opportunity of discussing the economic viability of the area, in particular the problem of citrus fruit developments upon which the economy of Belize so much depends?
Dr. Owen: On the economic problem, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must look seriously—both before and after any possible settlement is achieved—at ways of ensuring the greater economic strength and stability of Belize, particularly if it were to become independent.
With regard to security—let us be frank—one of the difficulties of getting negotiations of this sort on territorial adjustments is the fear that people would hold—were the people of Belize to decide not to accept such territorial adjustments—about the intentions of the British Government in holding particularly that territory which has been discussed.
We have made perfectly clear to the Government of Guatemala that we would be prepared to uphold that territory. Our readiness to discuss this issue and to put it to the people of Belize does not mean

1389
any weakening whatever of the British Government's position. If the people of Belize decide that they do not want a territorial adjustment we shall then defend the territorial integrity of Belize as a Crown colony. That is a firm commitment.
Over the last two years we have gone to the defence of the people of Belize and, if necessary, we shall do so again. I hope that that will not be necessary.
Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that during any referendum which may take place the British Government will not bring any pressure on the people of Belize as to how they should vote in that referendum?
Dr. Owen: I shall not bring any pressure but I certainly think it right to explain the case. The British Government will not put the issue to the people of Belize unless they think that this is an issue which they should discuss. I shall probably make a recommendation—in fact, certainly make a recommendation—otherwise we would not put the issue to them. But there will be no pressure. This will be a free choice. That was one of the reasons why I readily agreed that the Commonwealth should be associated in the process of consulting the people of Belize.
Mr. Dalyell: What is being done to win the good will of the Organisation of American States?
Dr. Owen: The people of Belize, as they have every right, want to be an independent country. They wish to have their independence against a stable background. The Organisation of American States is important if Belize as an independent Belize is to have that stability. We need to make certain that some of the territorial claims on this territory are abandoned, and if the Organisation agrees to preserve whatever boundaries would then be agreed to, I believe that Belize can look forward to a secure independence.
Mr. Newens: I heartily welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Can he tell the House what contacts he has had with the United States and what pre-
1390
cisely is the attitude of the United States? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the United States were prepared to make it absolutely clear that there will be no support whatever for Guatemala's pretences, there would be very little likelihood indeed of Guatemala being able to push ahead in the way that she has in the past?
Dr. Owen: In the past a point of some major disagreement with successive United States Administrations has been the question of Guatemala. I pay tribute to the fact that this Administration, particularly Secretary of State Vance, has taken a great deal of interest in the problem, recognised it and wants to see it resolved. Its help and involvement in it has been recognised by all sides. If agreement could be reached, the fact that it would be underwritten by the United States would be one of the greatest safeguards for an independent Belize.
Miss Joan Lestor: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend has said about Britain defending the territorial integrity of Belize as a Crown colony, may I ask whether he agrees that this is a very different situation from the situation in which Belize might find herself if she went independent? Will he therefore agree that it will be very sad indeed if Belize independence is held up simply because we cannot defend her territorial rights, which we are honour-bound to do?
Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend poses a very fair question. It has been the view of successive Governments over periods of time now, when we have been going through the process of decolonisation, that it is incompatible and impossible to give a defence guarantee to colonies on their becoming independent. That has been one of the problems. If a country becomes independent, it is difficult to give a firm defence commitment to it. One of the reasons we have been involved in these negotiations is to try to resolve this issue. I do not believe that our involvement in Belize would end precipitately at the beginning of independence. If there were a negotiated settlement, we would phase out our involvement, but as a full member of the Commonwealth, Belize would be closely associated with this country.
Mr. John Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that the problem we have is in the reconciliation of the expressions "territorial integrity" and "territorial adjustments"? Will he now confirm to us that if the people of Belize are consulted on a proposal of whatever kind, no duress whatever will be exercised upon them, either through the defence lever or in any other way, in order to force them into accepting what would otherwise have been an unacceptable arrangement?
Dr. Owen: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That would be indefensible, particularly since Belize is one of the last of the colonies. If we are to depart from the strong traditions that we have always held with Belsize, the decision should be freely made. It must be made without duress and freely made, but with the full understanding of the consequences of the situation. I agree that there is a choice between two evils. Many people want independence immediately without any form of territorial cession and no negotiation. That is what we have been unable to achieve over the last few years. They must grapple with the problem whether, in order to achieve independence, they will have to make some compromise. That is a choice which I think they can make.

THERMAL REACTOR POLICY
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about nuclear reactors for the British power programme.
The House will recall that on 28th June 1976 I announced that I was taking stock of progress with the steam generating heavy water reactor programme at the suggestion of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
Since then we have carried out a thorough review of thermal reactor policy. The National Nuclear Corporation has submitted its comparative assessment of thermal reactor systems, which has been made available to the House. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate—NII—has given its advice on the generic safety issues of the pressurised water reactor, which has also been made available to
1392
the House. There has been extensive consultation with all the main parties.
It is the unanimous advice of all concerned that in the changed circumstances of today the SGHWR should not be adopted for the next power station orders. The Government have accordingly decided that it would be right to discontinue work on the SGHWR.
The Government agree with the electricity supply boards that two early nuclear orders are needed and that these must be advanced gas-cooled reactors. The Government have therefore decided to authorise the Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board to begin work at once with a view to ordering one AGR station each as soon as possible.
This decision will enable our nuclear industry to build on our extensive experience of gas-cooled technology. The generating boards have already begun to accumulate operating experience with the AGRs which have so far been commissioned. The completion of the remaining stations in the existing AGR programme and the successful construction of the next AGR orders will be the first priority in our thermal nuclear programme.
The Government also consider, having regard to the importance of nuclear power and present knowledge of the different systems, that the United Kingdom's thermal reactor strategy should not at this stage be dependent upon an exclusive commitment to any one reactor system, and that in addition to the AGR we must develop the option of adopting the PWR system in the early 1980s. This view is also supported by the electricity supply industry.
The electricity supply industry has indicated that, to establish the PWR as a valid option, it wishes to declare an intention that, provided design work is satisfactorily completed and all necessary Government and other consents and safety clearances have been obtained, it will order a PWR station. It does not consider that a start on site could be made before 1982. This intention, which does not call for an immediate order or a letter of intent at the present time, is endorsed by the Government.
All future orders beyond those which I have indicated today will be a matter for decision at the appropriate time. Our

1393
aim is to establish a flexible strategy for the United Kingdom nuclear power programme in the light of developing circumstances. We believe that these decisions will do so.
Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome this long delayed but extremely important statement? Is he further aware that we believe that it was right not to abandon the AGR at this stage of its development, and we hope that it will prove to be successful? We also recognise that the current lack of experience of the AGR makes it prudent to develop the PWR option. Will he tell the House what those paragraphs are supposed to mean in exact terms? Is the Government consent that which applies to the normal financial and technical approvals, or is there still a residual policy decision to be taken whether the Government are prepared to go ahead with the PWR?
Is he aware that the answer to that question is most important if we are to have the confidence of those who will be involved in the development and design work, if there is to be an order at the end of the year? Is he further aware that in respect of the SGHWR we accept the need to cancel that programme, but can he give an indication to those who work at Winfrith whether there will be an ongoing rôle for those workers in a future nuclear programme?
My final question relates to the implications of the design work involved in the AGR and also the PWR. What implication will this decision have for possible fast-breeder development? The House is aware of the unhappy decision-making process in the nuclear industry in the last four or five years. We on this side of the House hope that at last a nuclear policy will emerge on which the industry can plan for the future.
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I shall try to deal with the issues he raised.
I welcome his endorsement of our decision that the gas-cooled technology on which we have been working for 20 or 30 years in this country should be continued in the way I have described. In regard to PWR, if he carefully examines my statement, which was written with great precision, he will see why I do not
1394
want to go beyond it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When people talk about ordering on the basis of PWR, what design have they in mind? We have reflected the view of the generating board, and it wants a valid option to be available, subject to the normal consent procedures which exist in Government and so on. But there must be design for any station, whether PWR or any other which is to go through the nuclear inspectorate and which must go on site and be approved. That is contained precisely in the paragraphs in question.
This is a genuine desire by the generating board that there should be an option available. In its judgment the site work cannot begin until 1982. It will be seen from my statement that the Government endorse that intention.
On the subject of Winfrith, that plant is operating and supplying power to the grid at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about research?"] There are research people working on this matter, and I shall provide a fuller answer to the hon. Gentleman. I did not feel it right to go into the implications for Winfrith in detail before I made my statement to the House. Therefore, I would be grateful if he would give me more time to reply on the fast-breeder reactor. This is the next decision that falls to be made.
In general those who have favoured PWR have inclined to the view that the fast breeder should come later so as not to impact on the PWR, whereas there are those in the advanced gas-cooled reactor school who favour an earlier start with the fast breeder. That is a decision that we shall have to consider in the light of my statement today. That is next on the agenda. I think I have dealt with all the hon. Gentleman's questions.
Mr. Palmer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the first part of his statement, and I accept as inevitable the second part of it. Will he say a few words about the hitherto secret agreement entered into a year or so ago between the nuclear construction company in this country and the American Westinghouse Company for a licence to manufacture PWRs in this country? Will he release details of that agreement and say whether it includes any restrictive

1395
clauses that are against the interests of this country from the point of view of exports?
Mr. Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I congratulate his Select Committee on the work which it has carried out on the difficult problems. I shall make clear that the arrangements reached between the NNC and Westinghouse are not arrangements to which the Government are party, but my hon. Friend will recall that in order to make it possible to give information about the pressure water reactor it was necessary for the safety aspect to be undertaken by Dr. Marshall and the inspectorate. It was necessary to enter into agreement with Westinghouse for that purpose.
However, it is too early to say what would flow from the decision which I have announced today on PWR because the NNC will now have to discuss with the generating board the necesary work for developing the PWR design. Westinghouse is not the only company working on PWR design. I have seen the Kraft Werke Union in connection with these consultations. It does not follow from what I have said today that the design will derive from past agreements. It might be necessary to reach future agreements.
Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his decision is welcome and will be likely to produce the additional energy within the necessary timescale? Will he reassure the House that by this means it will be possible to retain policy-making capacity in this country and also, I am glad to say, to employ the skills and provide badly needed employment for many of my constituents in Renfrewshire?
Mr. Benn: I am grateful for what the right hon. Lady has said and I congratulate her on being the first hon. Member to point out that this is not merely an arid technical decision but involves jobs for people of this country, including the right hon. Lady's constituents, some of whom I visited. It also provides for the British nuclear industry, which has been a leader in this sphere and still retains outstanding skills, a continuing basis for employment and exports. That industry will also fill a key rôle in meeting future
1396
energy needs. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her patience over this long-delayed decision.
Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of what was said a few years ago by his predecessor, it looks as though, in football parlance, we are facing another draw, and that extra time will have to be played between my right hon. Friend—it may not even be him—and whomever else it may be on the other side? Does he agree that employment could also have been created if these power stations had been coal-fired instead of nuclear-powered? Will he acknowledge that this is not a good day for the miners at a time when they are being urged to produce more coal and when there are more than 30 million tons of coal on the ground? Although a decision may be some years ahead, will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that this decision will not create pit closures?
Mr. Benn: I do not know what football team my hon. Friend follows, but I recall the long campaign which he conducted on Drax B. That was a 1–0 victory for the mining industry. Drax B will provide a great deal of work and demand for coal. It was widely welcomed by the National Union of Mineworkers, the Coal Board and those who work in the industry.
My hon. Friend knows that the NUM has strongly registered its support for nuclear power. 'This is an indigenous fuel and it will mean more work for the people in industry, supplying boilers, turbines and other equipment. I regard the announcement as a good thing for the people working in the energy industries. It was strongly pressed upon me at the first meeting of the Energy Commission, which the NUM also welcomes.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: What commercial possibilities are involved in the statement on reactor choice? I understand that Britain has not exported a nuclear system as a whole since 1959 and that export orders would go a long way towards helping the electricity and boiler-making industries. Will the decision to go ahead with early AGRs effectively prevent a commercial fast-breeder reactor from being established at Dounreay, where it would be welcome, once the

1397
inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is completed?
Mr. Benn: I have said that it would not be possible to reach a decision on the fast-breeder reactor until we had a clear decision of the sort that I have announced on the next reactor to be built. I shall come back to that matter when I am able to make a firmer statement. We are spending between £60 million and £70 million a year on the development of the fast-breeder reactor. The 250-megawatt electrical reactor operating at Dounreay is the most advanced and finest fast-breeder reactor to be found anywhere in the world. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit us of having delayed work on the fast-breeder.
Exports are a factor that need to be taken into account. We have a substantial export business in nuclear fuel and, subject to the inquiry, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, we see prospects for that. My announcement means that we shall be generating electricity in Scotland and in England and Wales using a reactor which, in our judgment, is the right choice and which, according to the figures presented to me, will generate electricity very competitively compared with other fuels.
Mr. Rost: Why has the right hon. Gentleman not committed himself more positively to the important proposals put by Rolls-Royce Associates on the design and construction of PWRs based upon British technology and many years of experience in design and construction of PWRs in this country?
Instead of ducking the issue yet again, he should have shown a greater sense of urgency in giving us the PWR alternatives so that we could rebuild our nuclear energy with export potential.
Mr. Benn: I have met Rolls-Royce on a number of occasions to discuss these matters. I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman would suggest that power for this country should be generated on the basis of nuclear reactors that were built for submarines. Rolls-Royce has technology which is of value in the development of PWR work generally. That is widely recognised. However, I hope
1398
that hon. Members will not confuse high pressure commercial lobbying with the real arguments of merit and the practical questions of developing a reactor system in this country. That must entail discussions at great length with the customers, who agree with the statement, and with the industries that will play some part. Rolls-Royce represents 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the potential business, while the boiler industry accounts for 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. I am bound to take seriously the balance of interests in this matter.
As to upgrading the size of the submarine reactors, we saw at Winfrith that one cannot uprate a small reactor to operational size without running into extra problems.
Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a great deal of pleasure in my constituency and in the West of Scotland and the North of England with the decision which has been made? Is he aware that he is correct to stress the importance of a continuing réle for the boiler-making industry? Many of us are pleased that he is going carefully on the fast-breeder reactor, because this raises a number of extremely important issues. Can he give us an idea of the timescale of the work on the ground in relation to the two AGRs?
Mr. Benn: I do not order the reactors or the power stations. That falls on the customer to determine. The Government consider the advice of various bodies concerned in the light of requests from the customers—the generating board and the Scottish board. I must refer my hon. Friend to that fact. I am grateful for what he said. This argument has involved a greater use of pressure on me than I have seen in almost any other issue that I have had anything to do with and it has included a systematic attack upon British technology. There was an example on the BBC's "Nationwide" programme last night which was an outrageously unfair comment.
I hope that the House will recognise that there is real value in all the experience that we have in gas-cooled technology and that for us to write off that, as some have urged, and order a system that we have never developed to British safety standards would be highly irresponsible. I hope that the House and

1399
the country will appreciate the importance of handling this matter with care.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking the first decision in this area for seven years. The question remains whether he has got the answer right. I hope that the decision will be fully debated by the House, especially in the light of the long-term export interests of this country.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are grave doubts about the AGR for export purposes and that there is an enormous potential in the fast-breeder reactor with which the right hon. Gentleman is playing? We need a firm decision about the PWR, and the right hon. Gentleman should be more forthcoming about the fast-breeder reactor.
Mr. Benn: I think that I have dealt with the fast-breeder reactor. There is a general view, with which I am sympathetic, that this might be suitable for international collaboration. We should have to get the framework right.
Exports are an important factor. We already export components for PWRs, particularly heat exchangers and so on, and the House will be aware that in the last three or four years the forecast of installed capacity for PWRs worldwide has been cut by about half while the installed industrial capacity to meet those orders has perhaps as much as doubled.
We have to be realistic about the export possibilities, and the House should be aware that the gas-cooled technology has considerable potential and possibilities. For example, high temperature reactors may turn out to be the choice of the world. Other countries may decide to double bank on their reactor systems, as we shall be doing. It is important that we do not snuff out our experience of gas-cooled technology. These are the factors which led to my announcement.
Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by the whole turbine generating industry? Can he explain how it is that the CEGB has been fighting to get these two power stations while demanding that it should be compensated for ordering Drax B on the ground that it does not need any more power stations?
Mr. Benn: It is partly a question of timescale, but my hon. Friend has put a good question. The AGRs which have been announced are to meet the load in 1987. The coal-fired station at Drax will take some time to build, though it will be quicker to complete. There is on the agenda consideration of further coal-fired stations which I know the National Coal Board and the NUM would be interested to see.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the timing of the fast breeder reactor, given that the PWR will not be on site until 1982 and not generating electricity until five years later? As it will take about 12 years from the time the order was given to get a commercial demonstration reactor in action at Dounreay, does the Secretary of State not think that there is a danger of our lead in the fast-breeder business being lost through a failure to take firm decisions early enough in the light of the difficulties that we are facing with the thermal reactors?
Mr. Benn: I think that one of the arguments which have to be gone into with great care is the extent to which the resources are available to have simultaneously a wide range of reactor systems. Taking the date of 1990, the Magnox stations will still be there, although some of them will be moving towards the end of their operational life. The AGRs will be in the middle of their life. If the PWR proposals that I have announced today go along their expected path, there could be a PWR operating. Then the question is, what about the fast-breeder's relationship with that?
It is for these reasons that we have tried to take each decision in due time and not to accelerate those where further thought is required. In any case, we have announced that there will be and, in my judgment, should be a proper inquiry into the fast-breeder before a decision is made to construct a commercial fast-breeder.
Hooley: How much reliance can we place on the advice of generating boards which fell over themselves to declare that Drax B was not necessary and not wanted and demanded massive subsidies to build it at all and which now fall over themselves to go along the nuclear road? Can my right hon. Friend

1401
say whether this decision will pre-empt serious attempts to develop alternative energy resources because the money will be swallowed up by this perennial demand for nuclear reactors?
Mr. Benn: On that latter point, I do not think that my hon. Friend need fear that. The work which will flow from my announcement today will be building power stations needed for electricity purposes. The money which would be, will be or is going into alternative sources will come from different funds and will not therefore be strictly competed for.
However, my hon. Friend's point is a fair one. In 1973–74, it was strongly urged upon the then Secretary of State for Energy that 18 PWRs would be needed between 1974 and 1983, and here we are, four years later, without having had one ordered, and still the position looks quite different from that in 1974. Therefore, I think it right—and that is why the Energy Commission has been set up—that we should review our forecasts in the light of experience and not commit resources firmly until we are sure that identified need can be confirmed. That is the basis upon which I am proceeding.
Mr. Evelyn King: The Secretary of State has announced a decision which will give the gravest disappointment in Dorset, but he has not been specific about its effects, which may have grave economic repercussions. Is it not at least unfortunate that, his Ministry having a year or two ago announced one decision in respect of Winfrith which was encouraging to it, he has now reversed that decision? Can he say how many millions of pounds the Government have put into Winfrith and how many of those millions, as a result of this decision, will be prove to have been wasted? Can he say whether there are to be redundancies in this area among highly skilled people, what is likely to be the size and effect of those redundancies, and what compensation is likely to be paid?
Mr. Benn: I said something about Winfrith a moment ago. It was not and would not have been right for me to discuss with the Atomic Energy Authority or with the people at Win-
1402
frith the Government's decision that I have announced today in advance of telling the House. Therefore, there was bound to be very limited scope for discussion about matters which concern the hon. Gentleman and his constituency. However, the overwhelming part of the sum spent on the SGHWR was spent on building the Winfrith reactor, which I was present in his constituency to open 10 years ago. It is producing power there.
There is other work going on at Winfrith, and the one part of my statement which should not have surprised the hon. Gentleman was the reference to the decision that we would not proceed with the SGHWR. It became known 18 months ago that Sir John Hill and the Atomic Energy Authority Board were recommending that it should not be continued. I do not think that anyone in the House or even in Winfrith expected me to announce today that the SGHWR would continue. So there was plenty of time for this decision to have been absorbed in that sense by the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The House has indicated its gratitude to my right hon. Friend for at least making the decision which he has announced today, although I am sure that the South of Scotland Electricity Board will be very disappointed by the decision not to go ahead with the SGHWR. However, I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is dealing with the total energy requirements of the United Kingdom. But although it is correct that he should be indicating that the AGR should go ahead, why is he dealing with the PWR? Does he not realise that there are enough energy resources in the country, with oil and coal, to cut out the PWR and go straight to the other sources of energy which we can have much later, including the fast-breeder reactor?
Mr. Benn: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the South of Scotland Board will be disappointed by my statement. It is what it has been pressing very strongly on me. It is true that the South of Scotland Board, when Frank Tombs was the chairman—he has now come to the Electricity Council—advocated the SGHWR. But the South of Scotland Board would not wish to proceed with the SGHWR in the circumstances of the present review.

1403
I also recognise that there are in this country a number of resources. There is oil. There is gas. There is coal aplenty. Therefore, the pace, rôle and speed will be different from those in countries where these resources are not available. But all the forward forecasts, which go to the first quarter of the twenty-first century, indicate a growing rôle for nuclear power. With such a very big dependence on it—we shall shortly be 20 per cent. dependent on nuclear power—there is a case for having this valid option that I have announced today available to us, because the generating boards have a responsibility to see that electricity is available.
Mr. Emery: Everyone realises that these decisions are very difficult. However, will the right hon. Gentleman now say what has been the cost to the nation of the cancellation of the SGHWR programme? Will he also say what is the cost overrun of the existing AGR programme? As we are going into AGRs, I think that we ought to know that. Will the right hon. Gentleman also say by how much that programme is behind schedule? Finally, will he be quite frank with us? Although exports are immensely important, there is next to no chance of Britain exporting AGR reactors.
Mr. Benn: I cannot see what purpose is achieved by making a bland statement to the effect that there is no future worldwide demand for the system that we have worked on for 22 years. I am fed up with reading in the papers that our own technology, upon which we have worked and which has produced electricity for us reliably and ahead of time of any other country has no export value. The Magnox stations and the new AGRs coming on give this country a world lead in technology. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that other countries will want to be dependent for ever on a single system and that there will be no further developments of gas-cooled technology.
The figures asked for by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) are as follows. About £145 million has been spent on the SGHWR, most of it in connection with the building of the Winfrith Station, and about £50 million has been spent since 1974 on the SGHWR. I cannot give figures in relation to the cancellation charges. They will involve commercial
1404
negotiations which I am not able to anticipate. But the hon. Gentleman should also know that worldwide there have been practical difficulties, not confined to the AGR stations, in the development of nuclear power. It would be wrong to suppose that the only problems have been those in this country. There are problems worldwide. British safety standards are probably the highest in the world, and we intend to keep them that way.
Mr. Walter Johnson: Rolls-Royce has acquired skills and expertise which should be used and developed, and the possibility of worldwide orders for this expertise could mean increased employment in the industry. Surely we must take advantage of this.
Mr. Benn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, I have visited Rolls-Royce on a number of occasions. The company was a partner in putting in a bid in 1965. In answering an earlier supplementary question I was making it clear that no one was suggesting that it was possible simply to uprate a submarine reactor. The development of a commercial reactor for the purpose of generating electricity would use the expertise of Rolls-Royce, but it would not simply be built on its present experience. It would have to be utilised, and I have no doubt that it will be.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I make an appeal to the House? I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising—so they need not look sad—but I have a lot of business before we come to the timetable motion, and I shall be grateful if hon. Members could now move a little faster with questions and answers.
Mr. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if this country's industrial strategy is to succeed, we require the cheapest electricity in Western Europe? Is he certain that the AGRs will produce that? Why did he not make a direct offer for a European model under a British-German consortium involving Kraft Werke Union for one of its PWRs? This would help out if the right hon. Gentleman has any antipathy to Westinghouse reactors. Does he not concede that by granting two more AGRs now he has

1405
let the cat out of the bag about the Wind-scale report?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has asked many quesions. First, he says that cheap power matters, and that is right, but safety matters, too—
Mr. Skeet: Ours is the best in Europe.
Mr. Benn: Simply to confine the comment to the cheapest, without regard to safety interests, would be unreal.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman pinpointed the reason why it should not be possible to order a PWR or issue a letter of intent now. It is that there are a number of designs—the Westinghouse design and the Kraft Werke Union design. It would be the task of the NNC to discuss design alternatives with the customers and put them before the nuclear inspectorate.
As to the industrial strategy, which I agree is important in this context, it is building upon our own industrial strength, so that we have a nuclear industry for the future. The importation of reactors from abroad, without regard to our domestic industry, could be absolutely fatal to this country's long-term interests.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: I am sure that everyone wishes the AGR programme well, but would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that within the past few days the Canadians have announced a major programme in collaboration with the Italian nuclear industry to build two large SGHWR stations in Italy and develop a joint programme for exporting SGHW and CANDU reactor technology all over the world? Is not this significant in the light of the kind of unanimity that the right hon. Gentleman implied?
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the understandable postponement of the fast breeder technology, as this implies a 60-to-1 greater dependence on the supply of uranium, is he absolutely certain and happy about the prospects of uranium supply to the conventional nuclear industry?
Mr. Benn: It is true that fast-breeders, by burning fuel produced in thermal reactors, produce for the fuel they burn a 60-to-1 factor of advantage. But in order to secure the advantage of that over the whole utilisation of uranium in this
1406
country one would have to have a balance of thermal and fast-breeder programmes that, even on the most rapid development, could not be available until the middle of the next century. Therefore, some of the writing about the FBR is misleading, in giving people the impression that we could multiply present uranium stocks by a factor of 60 by going on with the FBR in Dounreay, or wherever it is to be built.
We have had a number of discussions with the Canadians about CANDU. It is not correct to describe it as a steam-generating heavy water reactor. It is a different design. The Canadians are pushing it as hard as they can, and good luck to them. But it would involve building a big heavy water plant in this country.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters carefully, will know that none of the solutions advocated in an exchange across the Floor of the House has quite the simplicity that might appear from reading Hansard. We have examined the matter carefully but do not believe that CANDU would represent the right solution to our problems.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Government must have made certain assumptions about lead times for the various systems before coming to the conclusions they have announced today. What lead times from ordering to coming on stream have been assumed for the three principal types discussed today—the fast-breeder reactor, the PWR and the advanced gas-cooled reactor?
Mr. Benn: That is a fair question, but it cannot be answered, because lead times depend on clearance through the nuclear inspectorate. I have spoken to it in the past two days about the modifications that it might be likely to seek for the AGR or the PWR. In the case of the fast-breeder reactor the Government are committed to a full public inquiry, which will be under by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In the event, these could be big factors in determining the lead times.
In general, it is quicker to build what one knows best. It takes longer to build what one has not built before and longest to build what has never been built before. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Michael Latham: Are not the House and the taxpayer entitled to a

1407
rather better explanation of the disastrous decision taken by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in 1974, and of its cost to the public, than "changed circumstances", as the right hon. Gentleman said today? How can we be sure that he has the matter right this time?
Mr. Benn: The party that the hon. Gentleman supports can proudly claim that it remained without a decision of any kind from 1970 to 1974. I do not know whether that was the right decision. It may well be that decisions taken during that period would have been based on forecasts of matters that have so radically changed that now one would look back and say that they were wrong. There has been a complete transformation of the energy scene, largely as a result of the OPEC oil price increases over the past four or five years.
I set up the committee to look at reactor choice in 1970, when I left office, and no decision had been announced when we returned to office in 1974. I should be very surprised if the previous Government did not take the same interest in the steam-generating heavy water reactor as we took when we came back into power, because there was a widespread view then that the SGHWR had a great deal to offer. I think that the decision taken then, in the light of all the circumstances, would not be hard to justify.
Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his vacillation in this matter, and now his failure to press ahead with the PWR, will effectively ensure that Britain's nuclear industry will have no marketable export commodity in the short and medium term? Is not that to be regretted?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is an expert at abuse in lieu of argument or any serious consideration of the facts. If he had devoted two minutes' time to the matter, he would know very well that if we had ordered PWRs now there would have been no industry capable of building
1408
them, for the reason already given, that no design for a PWR has been cleared by the nuclear inspectorate. Therefore, such a decision would have had a disastrous effect on the industry in this country. It was the unanimous view of the industry that two AGRs should be ordered. It is time the hon. Gentleman did some homework instead of merely shouting abuse.
Mr. Tom King: May I press the Secretary of State on one point that he did not make clear? He rightly said that the wording of the commitment to a PWR is extremely carefully prepared. Will he tell the House quite clearly whether, subject to the various safety clearances and other necessary provisions, he genuinely accepts the commitment to building a PWR in this country?
Mr. Benn: This is the central question of the paragraph, and I shall answer it in the way I answered it before. The customers in this case genuinely want a valid option open to them to build a PWR. They have indicated that and the Government have endorsed it. However, the customers do not wish—nor do the possible partners in the case of Westinghouse and Kraft Werke Union seek—either a firm order now or a letter of intent. That is the basis upon which the work will proceed in the spirit that I have indicated.
But it is right, particularly with the timescale of 1982 that the generating board gave me, that there should be added the words:
"all necessary Government and other consents and safety clearances".
I understand the hon. Gentleman's wanting to press this point, but, if he were suggesting that there was some deviousness in the form of words, he will find that we have reflected faithfully what any Government are open to reflect, given the time scale and the necessary uncertainty of the clearance through the inspectorate until it has actually been achieved. That is the basis upon which we have made the statement.

EDUCATION ACT 1944 (AMENDMENT)
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Sections 39 and 55 of the Education Act 1944; and for connected purposes.
For the benefit of the few hon. Members who are not aware of the problems of school transport, I should make it plain that the sections I have referred to are those identified by the Hodges Committee as being of central importance in the whole subject of trying to bring about some amendment of the present system of school transport. The Hodges Committee was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and reported on 25th October 1973. I obtained the leave of the House to introduce a Bill in the same terms two years ago, but since that time we have not been able to make a great deal of progress.
The central item in the Hodges Committee's recommendations was that there should be a break in the connection between the school attendance requirement and the provision of transport. These subjects are linked by the device of the walking distance. The Hodges Committee recommended doing away with any statutory limit. This occasioned some disquiet among local authorities, because they had found this provision a useful hook on which to hang any actions for truancy. My Bill does not go so far as the recommendations of the Hodges Committee in this respect. I merely seek to reduce the statutory distances of two miles and three miles by one mile in each case.
I follow the Hodges Committee in seeking to introduce a flat rate of charge right across the country for all those who wish to take advantage of the provision of school transport. The Hodges Committee, in its report, gave three main reasons for this recommendation. Safety of the children was the paramount reason. It also referred to integration with public transport and the cost to the parent and the local authority. In that part of its report on the safety of children, it referred to the large numbers of mothers tied to homes by small children
1410
or having to go to work to maintain the family income. It referred to the increase in motor traffic and to the dangerous condition of footpaths, particularly in country areas. The report also referred to the menace posed, regrettably, in some secluded areas, to the personal safety of the children.
I cannot believe that anyone in this House could imagine that since 1973 any of these factors I have set out has improved. My postbag has been full of complaints about the absence of footpaths, the unlit condition of many roads and the dangers to children from malicious-minded perverts. The position has been made worse by the cut in the rate support grant for shire counties which has reduced maintenance on all forms of highway.
The cost of providing school transport in England and Wales in 1971 was about £35 million. By 1975, when a circular was eventually issued to local authorities on the subject, it had risen to £68 million. In my own county this year, the expenditure envisaged under this heading is £2·3 million, which was the total amount spent at the time of the Hodges Report on the transport of children under the age of eight. Costs are increasing rapidly. My proposal for a flat rate of charge will admittedly require that parents whose children now receive free transport because they have to travel distances over the statutory limits, will have to contribute something towards the cost of getting their children to school. But the proportion of children so affected is about 3 per cent. in the case of primary pupils who live beyond the limit of the statutory walking distance.
The statutory walking distance has become totally discredited in modem conditions, not by the laziness of the children but by the safety factors to which I have referred and by the increasing element of discrimination, because of the increase in costs, against those children who live, for instance, 2·99 miles from their school. The feeling of anomaly has been exacerbated by the differing practices between local authorities and the varied use of discretionary powers in this area. It is simply no longer tolerable to many parents that these discrepancies should be allowed to continue. They have been made worse since the time of the Hodges Report.

1411
I have a new reason, in addition to those I have put forward, for seeking to introduce this Bill. It is that it will provide parents with an additional element of choice over the school which their child is able to attend. Once the principle of the flat rate of charge is accepted, children will no longer be tied to having to attend the nearest available school. In this way we shall be making some contribution towards making a reality of parental choice and at the same time doing something to preserve the wishes of those who seek to send their children to denominational schools.
When I first sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill in the same terms two years ago, I quoted a letter from my county council which referred to the
"determination we all share about the need to try to break the present impasse nationally on school transport."
It is in that spirit that I ask the leave of the House to introduce the Bill, quoting the words of the Hodges Committee:
"We have been acutely conscious both of the urgency and of the wide range of the problems."
Action groups have been set up to cope with this problem, in counties as far apart as Cumbria and Hampshire. There is a
1412
wide realisation of the need to do something urgently to remedy the situation.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has had the courtesy to explain that she would be unable to be present this afternoon, is due to receive a report from the local authorities' management advisory committee which has been studying the administrative problems. I believe that it will now be possible to give effect to the provisions of this Bill, which I seek the leave of the House to introduce.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hal Miller, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Fred Evans, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar, Mr. Charles Morrision, Mr. John Watkinson and Mr. William Wilson.

EDUCATION ACT 1944 (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Hal Miller accordingly presented a Bill to amend Sections 39 and 55 of the Education Act 1944; and for connected purpose; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th April and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  The following motion stood upon the Order Paper:
  That the Report [24th January] of the Business Committee be now considered.
  Following is the report of the Business Committee:

  Allotted day

  Proceedings in Committee

  Time for conclusion

  Twelfth day

  Clauses 81 to 83

  7 p.m.

  Schedule 17 to end of paragraph 11

  10 p.m.

  Thirteenth and fourteenth days

  Remainder of Schedule 17

  7.30 p.m. on thirteenth day.

  New clauses, new Schedules

  9 p.m. on fourteenth day.

  Schedule 16

  11 p.m. on fourteenth day.

  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of my point of order is to submit that the Government's proposal to change the allocation of time is out of order and should not be proceeded with or voted upon.
  When I received my Order Paper this morning I was not surprised, after the events of yesterday, to observe the first Order of the Day. However, when I came to look for the report of the Business Committee I had some difficulty in finding it. I did not expect to find it under the Orders of the Day, but I expected to find it on the list of Amendments. I refer to the Paper providing the list of amendments to the Scotland Bill. However, the report is not among that list of amendments. I looked for it further, and found it eventually among the items in the Votes and Proceedings, where the Business Committee's procedures are duly reported.
  Never before, as far as I was able to find out this morning, has a procedure of this sort been adopted. The report that the House is now being asked to consider and vote upon does not appear on the Order Paper, but such a report appears, as a general rule, on the sheet of amendments so that the House may know what is expected of it. I know of no precedent for suddenly lifting one item out of the Votes and Proceedings and regarding it as part of the Order Paper when in fact it is not.
  1414
  It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the Leader of the House said:
  "Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman does"
  —the right hon. Gentleman was referring to me—
  "what the Order Paper is for."
  As reported in the following column, Mr. Speaker, you said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 24th January 1978; Vol 942, c. 1184–5.]
  Motion No. 1 of itself may be regarded as in order, but I submit that in fact it is not in order because the attendant report of the Business Committee is not on the Order Paper and not on the sheets of amendments. Therefore, I submit that the Government should not proceed with it, and that it should be withdrawn.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish strongly to support the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It is now nearly quarter to five, and the Government have already dealt with two statements on a day on which the guillotine is to fall at 7 o'clock. The new rule of business has been brought in suddenly at the last moment. It will have the effect of precluding debate on an amendment that is vital to my constituency and of great interest to the House. If we are to conduct our affairs in this way, we shall make an absolute farce of democracy. I

  1415
  ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule the new motion, the new division of business, out of order and to say that it should be withdrawn.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Member. I am required by the House and by Standing Orders to put the Question forthwith. The House gives me instructions, and the Standing Order requires me to put the Question forthwith. However, I have exercised my discretion to allow the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to make his point of order and for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) to do likewise. I propose to allow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who raised the matter yesterday, to make his point of order, after which I must obey the instructions of the House.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I for one accept that, despite the strong and substantial ground for the case being made for the withdrawal of the motion, Mr. Speaker, you have no discretion on the matter. I draw your attention to what the Lord President told the House yesterday. He said:
  "what we are doing is following exactly the procedures which have always been followed by the House by which the decisions of the Business Committee are reported to the House."—[Official Report, 24th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1184.]
  On the basis of that he declined to give any advance indication yesterday of what was going on today.
  I accept that you are bound now, Mr. Speaker, to put the Question, but the House is not bound to pass the Question and the House should take into account what can only be called skulduggery or stupidity—and my right hon. Friends are not stupid. The House is bound to take that into account in deciding whether to pass this monstrous motion.
  Mr. Pym: I fully appreciate the obligation upon you, Mr. Speaker, to put the Question, but if on the basis of the case that I have made the motion is not in order, the Standing Order would not apply. I do not see how you can apply the Standing Order to a motion, Mr. Speaker, if that motion is not in order for one reason or another.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to the points of order, Mr. Speaker. I said yesterday that we were following the procedures that have always been followed in these matters. That was correct, and I think that anyone who considers the facts will understand that I was referring to the way in which the proceedings of the Business Committee are presented to the House. We have followed precisely the way in which that has been done on previous occasions. It was to that that I was referring, and I believe that I was correct in saying so.
  Further—[Interruption.] What I am about to say may assist the House in dealing with the matter. As for the proposals that we took to the Business Committee, which were to be reported to the House under these procedures, we had come forward with those proposals to the Committee in response to proposals and suggestions—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are on a point of order."] If hon. Members will permit me, I am on the point of order. I hope that I shall be able to assist the House. We were responding to requests and representations—
  Hon. Members: You are on a point of order.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Give him a chance.
  Mr. Foot: I am on a point of order. We were responding to requests that had been made—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall not discuss the motion that is before the House. If the Leader of the House wishes to add to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), he is in order to do so.
  Mr. Foot: I was indicating to the House, Mr. Speaker, because there have been misleading statements about the matter, that we were responding to representations that had been made.
  I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I repudiate any charges that he makes about skulduggery. If it assists the House for me not to move the motion but to proceed on the basis of the previous arrangement of the timetable, I am ready to do so. I am quite ready

  1417
  to do so, although I hope that the House will understand that the provisions that we have made under our proposals for considerably longer discussions on some of the matters that have previously been raised will thereby be lost. However, if the House desires that we should not move the motion, I am prepared to take that course.
  I hope that the whole House will join in repudiating any charges of skulduggery against what we did. Anyone who has followed the proceedings at all will know the truth of what I have said.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman not moving the motion?
  Mr. Foot: No, I am not.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the proceedings both yesterday and today a great deal of time has been taken out of the time that would otherwise be available for debate on the Scotland Bill on points of order resulting from the Lord President's action. The right hon. Gentleman now proposes not to do what he originally intended, but the time has still been wasted. Would you, Mr. Speaker, be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment which would make allowance for the time that has been taken up by the Lord President's manoeuvring?
  Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to do that.

  SCOTLAND BILL
  [12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th January].
  [Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Sir Myer—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. In the light of the decision that has just been taken by the House, I inform the Committee that the Chairman of Ways and Means' provisional list of amendments posted today stands. Of course, the lines marking 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. should be disregarded. Mr. Buchan, to raise a point of order.
  Mr. Buchan: In view of the decision that has been taken, Sir Myer, is it in order for me to seek your guidance on some of the later amendments? Those later amendments include one matter which, for many hon. Members, is a make or break issue. May I, through you, Sir Myer, ask the Lord President whether further time will be given so that the whole question of the referendum may be discussed, if not now, on an extra day on Report?
  The First Deputy Chairman: We are on the Committee stage now. That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I think that the Committee should realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is the Member whose amendments lose out as a result of the decision taken by the House. Those of us who are following this matter closely are aware of that problem. There is a perfectly easy way by which it can be dealt with. The Government were prepared to use a little time from the new clauses time next week to benefit my hon. Friend's amendments and also the time after 10 o'clock tonight. It would still be possible to do that without prejudice to the arrangements made for today. I should like to put that matter on record.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that we had lost a considerable amount of time already. The guillotine falls tonight at 11 o'clock as a result of what has been decided by the House. I hope that we may now proceed to discuss the Bill.

  SCOTLAND BILL
    Clause 81

      COMMENCEMENT
      Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 627, in page 37, line 32, after 'Parliament', insert
      'together with a statement setting out the answers given in the referendum held pursuant to section 82 of this Act in each legion and islands area, and the percentage of those eligible to vote who have voted in each region and islands area, as well as the corresponding details for the whole of Scotland'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 628, in page 37, line 33, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 35.
      No. 629, in page 37, line 35, at end insert—
      '(5) Any resolution approving the draft laid under subsection (4) of this section shall have no effect for the purposes of that subsection unless it includes a statement that the House approves the draft having regard to the results of the referendum as set out in the statement laid before Parliament under subsection (4) of this section.'
      No. 625, in Clause 82, page 38, line 3, at end insert—
      '(3) If a resolution under section 81(4) of this Act has been moved in each House of Parliament, but has not been passed, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for the repeal of this Act.'
      No. 626, in page 38, line 5, leave out from 'House' to 'Her' in line 7.
      Mr. Pym: It is undoubtedly a matter of grave anxiety to the Committee that we should start one hour and 20 minutes late on a guillotine day when we are coming to a very important part of the Bill.
      The Committee will be aware that the referendum was forced on the Government originally because the House of Commons as a whole, regardless of whether Members were for or against devolution, was not happy with the
      1420
      scheme proposed by the Government. Originally there was no referendum provision at all in the Scotland and Wales Bill. That provision was introduced on Second Reading in the form of a new clause making it a mandatory referendum. Subsequently, after more pressure and argument from both sides of the House, the Government decided to change yet again and to move to a consultative referendum. I think that they were right to do that.
      Amendment No. 627 and the amendments linked with it cover two substantive issues, each of which would be worth quite a substantial speech. However, I shall be brief.
      Amendments Nos. 627 and 629 emphasise the consultative nature of the referendum. Later this afternoon, I hope, we shall come to the amendments dealing with particular percentages of majorities and of the poll. There are many advantages and disadvantages, to which we shall come.
      The Committee will wish to and, indeed, must take account of all the circumstances surrounding the referendum and the decisions reached. Therefore, it is vital that a full statement of the referendum results be presented to the Committee. That is what the amendment asks for.
      Moreover, the amendment asks for the results to be on the basis of region and Island areas. I am sure that the Committee will wish to take into account and to reflect upon the spread of voting in Scotland. I am certain that Parliament will want to consider the position that might result from the possibility that the central belt of Scotland votes heavily for the Bill and the rest of Scotland votes decisively against it.
      If there were an overall majority in favour of the Bill, would Parliament be prepared to accept that verdict? I think that it would very much depend on the circumstances and on what the exact figures were. It is questionable whether Members would wish immediately to jump to the conclusion that they should accept a straightforward majority verdict. Therefore, it is important that a proper and full statement of all the facts and figures relating to the referendum should be presented to Parliament.

      1421
      I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will not simply say that the amendment is unnecessary, that the referendum is already consultative and that no further words of that kind need to be added. If that is all he proposes to say about the matter, apart from any minor drafting amendments that he may wish to suggest, that is no reason for not including the amendment. I think that it is important at this stage to have an amendment that underlines and underwrites the essentially consultative and advisory nature of the referendum.
      Amendments Nos. 628 and 626 relate to the role of the House of Lords. One of the most fantastic omissions from the Committee stage of the debate so far has been the failure to provide time for a discussion on what is proposed in Clause 74 in relation to the House of Lords. It is a profound alteration to our constitution and to the workings of Parliament. Yet we have not had one word of debate on the matter.
      I do not want to dwell at length upon this referendum clause. However, I am sure that it is right to draw the attention of the Committee to it. Plainly it is of exceptional constitutional importance.
      What Clause 74 and Clauses 81 and 82 in part seek to do is to put another place in a position of irrelevance—incompetence—in relation to the parliamentary processes that flow from the Bill. The Minister smiles, but that is what is being done. The other place is being removed from all responsibility for the parliamentary processes that flow from the Bill, particularly the referendum.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing—I hope he is not—that the non-elected House of Lords should have the opportunity or right to overrule the referendum of the people?
      Mr. Pym: I strongly believe that Parliament as a whole should go through the proper, normal parliamentary processes in considering what action should or should not be taken as a result of a referendum.
      The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, instead of the
      1422
      procedure in the Bill, after a referendum result has been obtained and a resolution of the House of Commons has been passed to implement the Bill, the view of the House of Lords, should it come to a different conclusion, should prevail over the view proclaimed by the House of Commons?
      Mr. Pym: No doubt the Minister in reply will explain why, in New Clause 40 in the Scotland and Wales Bill, there was no suggestion of excluding the House of Lords in any way whatever, whereas in this Bill there is provision to enable the House of Commons by two votes to do whatever it wishes regardless of whether the other place takes any action. I do not think that is a correct, proper or necessary procedure. On the day that we are to debate the referendum I do not want to dwell upon this, although in many ways it is more important than the referendum.
      5.0 p.m.
      I have said what I want to say, and I have been brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. The amendments are important because they emphasise and underline the consultative nature of the referendum and the procedure in Parliament that will follow. I hope that the Government will accept them.
      Mr. J. Grimond: I simply wish to have it confirmed that it is the Government's intention that the referendum will be carried out in the same manner as the referendum on our entry into the EEC. Will the referendum be carried out on a region and Islands basis, and will each result be announced separately?
      Mr. John Smith: I can deal immediately with the question of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The Government's view is that the results should be announced separately for each region and Islands area. That was the procedure for the referendum on the EEC. As hon. Members will have noted, we are following closely the rules for the referendum on the EEC. Our opinion is—whatever hon. Members' views were about the result of the previous referendum—that it is desirable to follow the same rules since there was little dispute about the arrangements for that referendum.

      1423
      The amendments deal with two matters. Amendment No. 627 ensures that the first commencement order is put before Parliament together with a statement setting out the answers given in the referendum in each region and Islands area and the percentage of those eligible to vote who vote in each area. That amendment is unnecessary for the reason that I gave in my reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
      It is our intention that the results of the referendum shall be announced separately for each region and Islands area. This information will be readily available to the public and to the House of Commons. The Government are prepared to consider including in the announcement details of the total electorate for each region and Islands area and to place a copy of the announcement in the Library of the House.
      The second matter raises the question which we were unable to debate on Clause 74. It deals with the rôle of the House of Lords so far as the commencement order is concerned. The Government have arrived at the view that, under the operation of Clause 74, if the House of Commons approves the implementation of devolution following the referendum and then the motion goes to the House of Lords and it reaches a different conclusion, the House of Commons can overrule the House of Lords' decision.
      We can either leave the clause unamended or we can cut out the Lords from the whole procedure. We have decided on this method. We feel that this is a sensible way of dealing with the matter, and I shall resist the amendment.
      Mr. Pym: I should have preferred to press this amendment to a Division and to have had a more substantial debate, but, in view of the time, I shall not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide. I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, particularly since it would stress the importance of the consultative nature of the referendum.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 82

      REFERENDUM
      Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 229, in page 37, line 37, after "a", insert "United Kingdom".
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may discuss the following Amendments:
      No. 231, in Schedule 17, page 88, line 14, leave out "Scotland" and insert "United Kingdom".
      No. 232, in Schedule 17, page 88, line 17, leave out "Scotland" and insert "United Kingdom".
      Mr. Hamilton: The amendments are designed to make the referendum a United Kingdom referendum rather than purely Scottish. I shall try to anticipate what might be the arguments against this proposition.
      No doubt it will be said that a United Kingdom referendum would be more costly and take longer to arrange, that the legislation does not involve the rest of the United Kingdom anyhow and, more importantly, from the Government's view, that to extend the referendum in this way would ensure the defeat of the legislation. There is no doubt that English votes would be overwhelmingly against any such fundamental upheaval in the constitutional machinery of the United Kingdom. My belief is that the majority of working people in England would be opposed to this legislation. Indeed, if there were a free vote in the House of Commons the majority of Members would be against it.
      The argument about cost is trivial. One does not niggle about costs when basic principles are involved. The fact that the Government see fit to conduct an exclusive referendum emphasises the suspicion of the English regions that the Government feel that there is something peculiarly and exclusively Scottish about the problem of devolution and that it does not concern the English regions. To make matters worse, the Government are ensuring that United Kingdom taxpayers will foot the bill for an exclusively Scottish measure.

      1425
      The time factor argument is equally weak, if it is an argument at all. Both the arguments about time and cost, if there is any strength in them at all, could be answered by a decision to hold the referendum on the same day as a General Election, perhaps some time in the spring of 1979 or after the April 1979 Budget. In those circumstances, there would be a minimum of additional cost and delay.
      The third argument is the most untenable of all. It is that these matters do not involve the United Kingdom as a whole. At best it is patently absurd and at worst it is blatant dishonesty. It is a facetious argument.
      There is a great deal of concern about this in England. There is violent opposition to it in Labour circles, particularly in North-East and North-West England. In the North-East the Government have sought to bribe support from hon. Members and from outside, although North-East Members are fundamentally opposed to it. The same applies to the North-West. Whatever statistics one uses for unemployment or social deprivation, there is evidence to suggest that the English regions are at least in as bad a plight as certain areas north of the border. Even in London the streets are not paved with gold, although the impression is created north of the border that everything in London is marvellous. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows that in his city there is a deprivation which is at least as great in pockets as the worst deprivation in Scotland.
      Big and small companies with headquarters in London and elsewhere are intimately affected by what happens to this legislation. Whether we like it or not, they provide the jobs and few of these firms want this legislation. I have seen a letter signed by an SNP official in Fife which says to an oil company which has engaged in a £200 million investment on the Firth of Forth " We warn you that whatever you do, an independent Scottish Assembly will not accept international commitments entered into by a United Kingdom Government." The SNP is saying that it will renounce all of those. That is why no one in England or Scotland can pretend that that kind of consideration does not affect
      1426
      people in England as much as it affects people in Scotland.
      I will quote at length on some other occasion from the great correspondence there has been on that matter. It was raised by one of my hon. Friends at the Scottish Office. Immediately there was a denunciation or withdrawal of it by a member of the SNP. The letter was quoted and it stated that there would be civil disobedience and, presumably, the blowing-up of pipelines by the SNP. That was implied in that letter, and it is no good saying after that that its contents are withdrawn or renounced. By then the damage is done.
      The author of that letter wrote it on official SNP paper with the official approval of the party. It was subsequently withdrawn, but we know that that kind of action cannot and does not go unnoticed south of the border. Therefore, whatever happens in the Scottish context must affect—I believe adversely—people south of the border.
      I believe that the case for having a United Kingdom referendum, in spite of the minor difficulties which might be put in its way, is overwhelming. I ask the Committee to support the amendment. If necessary, I shall force it to a vote.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I wish to raise this point now before the debate develops in order not to interrupt the flow of the debate. I have written to the Chairman of Ways and Means concerning Amendments Nos. 633, 634, 635 and 636—
      The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have seen the letter that the hon. Member has written. The Chairman of Ways and Means has said that he will be looking into the suggestions made in it. I think, therefore, that we should wait until he has had an opportunity to decide what to do about it.
      Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to you, Sir Myer, for saying that and to the Chairman of the Ways and Means for considering the matter. Presumably, if any change is contemplated it will have to be made before the conclusion of the debate on this amendment. Is that the case?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means is fully aware of the limitations and the urgency with which his consideration must take place.
      Mr. John Stokes: I wish to support the amendment. Having differed from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on profound matters in the past, I am happy to agree with him on this. The point which the Committee must stand by is that the Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We have seen that day by day in our debates in this Committee.
      Just to hold a referendum in Scotland on this vital new constitutional change—the first affecting the constitution of the Untied Kingdom since the Act of Union in 1707—would be an outrage and a most dangerous precedent. Certainly it would cause the utmost bitterness in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
      For those reasons, I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: The English have some constitutional rights to be consulted. One reason is that the Bill undoubtedly affects the government of England and the interests of English taxpayers almost as much as it affects those of Scotland. However, it also affects those Scots of either the first generation or of subsequent generations who have come to work and live in England. I am under no illusions about how difficult—perhaps impossible—it is for those Scots who have come south of the border to earn their bread and butter to be consulted. However, there should at least be some Government passing reference to the large number of letters some of us have received from Scots in England asking to be consulted. I know of no other opportunity on which to ask this question.
      All this underlines once again the unsatisfactory nature of the whole ethnic argument—the idea that we talk about Scots and English when more and more as never before people are becoming intermingled. I reckon that I now represent thousands of English people in West Lothian. My hon. Friends, in their various constituencies, find the same.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. David Price: I should like to support the amendment. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is right to keep reminding us that this is a United Kingdom matter. If there is any doubt about it let us consider Clause 1. It states very clearly that the provisions of the Bill would
      "not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it."
      Therefore the referendum must be taken for the Kingdom as a whole. I understand that the referendum is a new departure in our affairs, and this will be only the second we have had, but Clause 1 makes it clear that the Bill specifically covers the whole Kingdom.
      Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member might reflect that relying too much on Clause 1 to assist his argument would be unwise since he voted against it.
      Mr. Price: I am speaking of the Government's intentions, which, irrespective of what Parliament has done, are reflected in the Bill. It is a United Kingdom Bill. In the debate on Clause 1 we all agreed that this was a United Kingdom matter. Therefore any referendum which is held on the subsequent Act, the Bill having passed through both Houses of Parliament must be a matter for all the people of the United Kingdom.
      The Minister of State might argue that that is not the case because his proposals are so minor that they come in the same category as the local drinking hours options in Wales. There was a case there for restricting the rise on the Welsh option to the Welsh. None of us argued that that was a United Kingdom matter and, therefore, should have been the subject of a United Kingdom referendum. I am sure that the Minister of State will not argue that his proposals come into that class.
      Mr. John Smith: Does the hon. Member think that the Northern Ireland border poll should have been carried out on the basis of the whole of the United Kingdom, and that it was wrong to confine it to the electors of Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Price: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) could deploy a strong argument to show that it was wrong to do it that

      1429
      way. Of course, the Ulster border poll was not simply an internal United Kingdom referendum. It was more in the nature of a plebiscite about whether a particular piece of land and its people belong to one country or another. Therefore plebiscites are limited to those in the border areas concerned. That is why the Northern Ireland poll was of a different nature from that of the referendum in this Bill.
      There is no suggestion in the Bill that this issue concerns the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is an internal arrangement of development for Scotland which affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
      Another reason is that the United Kingdom taxpayer is involved throughout. If at an earlier stage of the Bill the Government had followed the argument that the devolution of law making should be followed by the devolution of taxation there might have been an argument for restricting the referendum only to the people of Scotland who would come under the new régime. But that argument did not appeal to the Government. They say that this Parliament and the central Government of the United Kingdom must retain the taxing powers, and, therefore, all of us are involved in the New Scottish proposals.
      There can be no question, therefore, but that all United Kingdom voters are involved in these decisions. As we all know, for many years the Scottish people have received, per head of population, a higher amount of public expenditure than the people in England. Secretaries of State over a long period have quoted figures to this effect in answer to Questions. As of now, the Scottish voter is getting more out of the Imperial Exchequer than the English voter is getting. Under the proposals it is very likely that the English voters will have to pay even more in the future. That takes a good deal of explaining away, but no one can deny that English voters have a vested interest in these decisions about Scotland.
      There is also the question of parliamentary representation. It will be within the knowledge of everyone here that on a purely statistical basis Scotland is overrepresented in the House. If the Bill be-
      1430
      comes an Act we shall face all the problems of different classes of Member about which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is continually reminding us. The position of Scottish Members here will become very difficult and ambivalent. Scotland will then be even more grossly over-represented than it is today. This also must be a matter of deep concern to the English electorate.
      I believe that these are very convicing reasons for arguing that it is right that the referendum should be held over the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that, on all sides, we shall support the hon. Member for Fife, Central.
      Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). When we are in agreement it must mean that what we agree about should commend itself to the Committee.
      It is clear that the creation of an Assembly will affect not only people in Scotland but people in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are several aspects to be considered. First, there is the special advantage that people in industry in Scotland will have as a result of the Assembly being able to exert pressure on the Government, and perhaps in that way getting industry directed to Scotland. These fears have already been expressed by people coming from the remoter parts of England, particularly Northumberland. That is the first reason why people in the rest of the United Kingdom are affected.
      Then there is the curious position that will arise, if the Bill becomes law—I hope it will not—in regard to the Scottish Members of Parliament. This is a matter which is bound to affect people in England, and therefore they ought to be able to express a view on it through a referendum.
      Next, there is the fact that there are many people who live in England purely for business reasons, and therefore have a temporary home here but whose spiritual home is in Scotland. We have the curious position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will not be able to express an opinion in the referendum because, purely for temporary reasons, he does not have a home in Scotland. No one could be more Scottish than the right

      1431
      hon. Gentleman. This seems to be a further reason why people in the rest of the United Kingdom should be allowed to vote.
      There is also the point which has been made about the terrible tendency to pretend that Britain is two countries. It is as though we were playing a perpetual football match between the English and the Scots. It makes me utterly sick. [Interruption.] I may say that each time Scotland gets beaten I am almost jolly pleased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that because in my opinion these endless international football matches do not do any good at all for international relations. They stir things up. No one would like to be living in an area anywhere near a football match taking place between England and Scotland. Anyone who does not admit that is a hypocrite. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Dalyell rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Just a moment, or the referee will have to bring out the yellow card. It is not in order to discuss rugby or football.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) can shout for Scotland with the best of us.
      Mr. Galbraith: When I made my last remark I was beginning to get a little worked up. I am a Scotsman through and through, without an ounce of foreign blood in my veins, and with nothing except Scottish blood in my family for 800 years. I naturally wish my own country to win, but I dislike very much the tendency to pretend that Britain is not one country. It is a united country, and the great constitutional change which the Bill proposes is one that should be determined on a British basis and not on an isolated Scottish basis.
      Mr. Terence Higgins: We have already, as the result of the despicable action taken by the Leader of the House, lost a great deal of time, and therefore I shall speak only briefly on the amendment.
      I find myself in some difficulty because I am totally opposed to the idea of a referendum, and I hope to express that view later in the debate on the clause,
      1432
      but I may have no opportunity to do so because of the very severe restriction of time.
      Being totally opposed to the whole idea of a referendum, I find difficulty in deciding whether I ought to support an amendment which would seek to make the position slightly less objectionable. On balance, I have come to the view that I should support it. It is really quite bizarre to suggest that a referendum should be held, which clearly affects very significantly my own constituents and people in other English constituencies, and at the same time to tell them that they are to express no view on whether they support the Government's proposal. It seems to me that that must be totally wrong.
      I cannot be sure of defeating the Government on the main issue of the referendum, although I hope that, in voting on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", I shall be joined by others who also feel that we have not had proper time for the discussion of these matters.
      In all the circumstances, I think that my right course of action is to support the amendment if it is pressed to a Division, although that will take further time.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Coming from Merseyside, as I do, I can say that we are very happy to have Kenny Dalglish playing football for Liverpool. We were also very happy to have Bill Shankly as the manager of the Liverpool football team. They are fine men and good Scotsmen, but they are also very good Merseysiders, and I feel that this sums up the whole question facing our country.
      I do not particularly like referendums, but I think that there is a very good argument for this one, and I shall certainly support the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Emery: I have not taken much part in the debates on the Bill, but the views that I expressed on the Scotland and Wales Bill were fairly strong. Indeed, I put down an amendment to that Bill which was more or less the same as the one moved today by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I shall be brief, because we are naturally trying to make progress.

      1433
      If the Minister is arguing, as he does strongly, that the Bill will not cause the break-up of the United Kingdom, he must surely accept that that is a subjective judgment on his part. It happens to be my judgment that it will cause the break-up of the United Kingdom. That being so, should not everyone in the United Kingdom have the right to vote on the matter?
      The Bill sets out to be one affecting the United Kingdom, and it seems to me to be entirely incorrect that the Government should limit the decision to Scotland and not allow all the people within the United Kingdom to vote on it. One could go on expanding this argument. The feeling in the South-West that they should have a right on this decision is very considerable. I shall not expand. My point is made quite clearly in what I said. I urge the Government, if they speak as the Government of the United Kingdom, to ensure that the amendment is allowed to go through.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mrs. Margaret Bain: Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), I have not tried to measure the amount of Scottish blood in my veins. So I hope that the Committee will not object to my speaking on the amendment.
      It is amazing that we in the Committee should find ourselves suddenly accepting the principle of referendums when it is a principle against which many hon. Members have spoken previously. Beyond that, we are trying to define the extent of any referendum which should be held within any area of the United Kingdom. Moreover, when Conservative Members say that they will make lengthy speeches on the amendments and that they wish to make rapid progress, this is thought of very ill by Members such as myself, who have to listen to them virtually filibustering their way through—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—and preventing our talking on very important amendments. Last night we spent an hour and a half during which only four members of the Conservative Party were present, two of them being Front Bench Members, with three Scottish National Party Members, two Liberal Members and seven Government Members.
      1434
      At the end of that debate the Conservative Party had the effrontery to withdraw the amendment and not push it to a vote perhaps because the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was addressing a meeting of the NFU and many of the Conservative Party Back-Bench Members were guests. This showed the kind of interest that the Conservative Party has in the Bill.
      Turning to some of the points raised by other hon. Members, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) tried to say that in asking for a referendum to be held only in Scotland on the Scotland Bill and only in Wales presumably on the Wales Bill, we were somehow trying to put forward an ethnic argument. He pointed out that in his constituency of West Lothian many people were not Scots. He is not alone in having people who are not Scottish in his constituency. Many people in my constituency are not of Scottish origin.
      On a question affecting Scotland the SNP is asking for a process of identification of the people with the problems of the country in which they live. For us in the SNP the definition of a Scotsman is an individual who lives and works in Scotland, who recognises the problems of Scotland and is prepared to alter that situation. This is why many people who have come to live in Scotland from South of the border are supporters of the SNP.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does that mean that, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, if the SNP had its own way people such as Kenny Dalglish would not be allowed to play in Scotland?
      Mrs. Bain: It is a process of democracy that one can favour whichever football team one wants. I am sure that Kenny Dalglish, rather like Ally MacLeod, would be taken aback by what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said earlier. Another point which arose in the discussion was that English taxpayers would be asked to finance a Scottish Assembly. Why is it that the protests are loudest from the people who wholeheartedly voted against logical amendments to give the Scottish Assembly the right to run its own affairs and to look after its own problems?

      1435
      The Conservative Party and many Back-Bench Labour Members are being intellectually dishonest in the stance they are taking. Nowhere was this more true in earlier points raised by the hon. Member for Hillhead, who said that he hoped the Scotland Bill would not be passed. I refer also to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who said that he did not believe in referendums but thought that there was a good case for—
      Mr. Heffer: I wish that the hon. Lady would listen to what was said by hon. Members. I said that I did not particularly agree with referendums but thought that we ought to support this. I have supported referendums in the past and will continue to do so in future, but I do not make it a matter of principle.
      Mrs. Bain: The hon. Member for Walton, being a close friend of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), endorsed the view put forward by the letter in The Times of 4th November 1975 on the basis that he felt that the inclusion of a referendum in the debate on the Scotland Bill would mean that the SNP would be dished. I am sure that this would cause a great deal of glee to the hon. Member for Walton if that were the case.
      Mr. Heffer: Absolutely.
      Mrs. Bain: Another Conservative Member complained about the overrepresentation of Scots Members at Westminster.
      Looking at it on a proportional basis, it is a view with which I agree. Statistically, no one can argue with it. That is why it is more logical in discussing the principle of referendums to include the possibility of having an independence option made available to the Scottish people. In an independence situation, there would be no Scottish Members at Westminster. There would be a tier of government at local level, Scottish level and at European level. That would be a much more logical system of government than that proposed in the Bill.
      None the less, it is the Conservative Party which most steadfastly sets its face against the possibility of extending the principle of devolution. We in the Scottish National Party accept devolution merely as a step towards independence.
      Mr. Fairbairn: That is why the SNP is dishonest.
      Mrs. Bain: There is nothing dishonest in holding a view to which we have adhered throughout our existence as a party. The Conservative Party has turned somersault so frequently that Conservative Members must all be suffering from slipped discs.
      The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that he tried to anticipate the arguments which would be used against the amendments by presumably members of the SNP and those members of the Government who firmly believe in devolution. First, he said that there was a great deal of interest in England in the question of devolution for Scotland. I am afraid that the hon. Member has not paid a great deal of attention to much of what has been said in the House of Commons during the various debates over the last three years on this important principle.
      During the progress of the Scotland and Wales Bill, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said:
      "as far as I am aware, my constituents could not care less about the Bill … there is no interest on Merseyside in the contents of the Bill and no demand that the people there should have a voice in the referendums … people have said to me if that is what the Scots and the Welsh want, let them get on with it'".—[Official Report, 16th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 602.]
      If the hon. Member for Fife, Central is trying to tell us that there is a great deal of extended interest in England since the demise of the Scotland and Wales Bill and since the presentation of this one, he will have to come forward with more positive arguments than those that he has produced today.
      The only particularly relevant argument we have had in the past—I understand, though I have not had any verification—is that the Leader of the House is being sued under the Race Relations Act by someone south of the border who feels that she is being neglected by the present Parliament because of the preoccupation of the Leader of the House with Scotland and Wales.
      Mr. Heffer: Has it never crossed the hon. Lady's mind that it might well be that the English people are not interested

      1437
      because they do not understand the whole concept of the splitting off of Scotland and Wales? Is she also aware that if this goes on they may well want a referendum to decide to split away themselves from Scotland and Wales? That might be a turn-up for the book. They might decide that we do not want anything to do with Scotland.
      Mrs. Bain: If this were to be the case, I should have no objection to it, as someone believing in the concept of democracy. If the English people want to change the constitution within which they live, that is their business. The SNP is saying that the people of Scotland—and Wales, for that matter—have already expressed a desire to change the constitution of the United Kingdom and, through the natural processes of democracy—they did at the last election—support parties which were committed to one degree of devolution after the other, including the party of the hon. Member for Walton, which had this as part of its election manifesto as the Labour Party fought on it north of the border.
      It is not my job to try to solve the internal problems of the Labour Party as they were outlined by the hon. Member for Fife, Central when he spoke about the difficulties within Labour circles of coming to a conclusion on the matter.
      I suggest that the concept of the referendum as it is being put forward by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and, presumably, by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), is a wrecking attitude towards the concept of devolution because those hon. Members felt that they were not adequately consulted by their own party.
      Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady made an interesting statement about her belief in democracy. She said that if the people of England want to decide, let them decide; if the people of Scotland want to decide, let them decide; and if the people of Wales want to decide, let them decide. What are her party's views about the people of the Shetland Islands?
      Mrs. Bain: It is always interesting that people try to introduce the question of the Shetland Islands as a disrupting influ-
      1438
      ence in the debate. On the question of devolution, the people of the Shetland Islands and, indeed, of the Orkney Islands, are very flattered by the sudden interest expressed in this place in their future. The SNP attitude has been clear for over 10 years, namely, that we do not wish to see a Westminster system of centralised government transferred to Edinburgh, and that there should be a degree of autonomy awarded to the people of the Shetlands and Orkneys should they wish for that. Perhaps if we had had that kind of consideration from Westminster and the political parties who have presided at Westminster over the centuries, we should not have the present situation.
      Mr. Galbraith: That is not an answer to my question.
      Mrs. Bain: The hon. Member for Fife, Central referred to the problems of the regions of England. I have every sympathy with those who suffer from unemployment, bad housing and so on, wherever they exist within the United Kingdom and throughout Europe, and, indeed, throughout the world. As a nationalist, I am fundamentally an internatonalist. I believe that to be an internationalist one must have respect for one's own country and its institutions before one can believe in the concept of internationalism.
      It is all very well for the hon. Member for Fife, Central to try to make out that we have some kind of racist attitude towards people south of the border who have problems. It is the type of inverted racialism which is likely to cause the problems which he claims he wishes to solve.
      The hon. Member says that the people of Scotland have a misguided idea that the pavements of London are paved with gold. I say categorically that the people of Scotland are under no such illusion, because they are aware of the problems elsewhere. They are also acutely aware of the statistics published by the hon. Member's own Government, which indicate that, although there are Dockets of deprivation everywhere throughout the United Kingdom, there is a higher concentration of them in West Central Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom, in that 97½ per cent. of the worst areas of urban deprivation lie in

      1439
      West Central Scotland, which the hon. Member's party has dominated for a century in Glasgow and for which it must bear a certain amount of responsibility—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is straying wide of the subject matter under discussion.
      Mrs. Bain: I am merely answering points put by the hon. Member for Fife, Central in moving the amendment, Sir Myer. I am just correcting the hon. Member on the statistical evidence on deprivation and poverty.
      I oppose the amendment not because I do not have any wish for the people who are Scots south of the border to have any say in what is happening in Scotland. However, I should like to point out that the matters being devolved to Scotland under the Bill, at the stage at which it now stands, do not affect people south of the border. Education and health are already matters which have been administratively devolved to Scotland for a long time, so why should there suddenly be a need to consult people south of the border?
      Beyond that, many people south of the border are neither acquainted with nor interested in many of the issues. They can hardly be relied upon to give a balanced judgment. Some of the speeches from hon. Members who represent constituencies south of the border show a distinct lack of knowledge of Scottish institutions and the Scottish way of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "So does the hon. Lady."] They would hardly give a balanced view to their constituents on the matter.
      Beyond that, no one has asked that the English or the British should have the right to vote in a referendum on whether any of the other colonies of Britain should be given independence.
      5.45 p.m.
      Finally, I say that the people who wish the referendum to be extended to Scots living south of the border will be causing acrimony. If the English say "No" and the Scots and the Welsh say "Yes", we shall have acrimony. We of the SNP wish to avoid that because we wish to see the constituent nations of the United Kingdom working together as neighbours in harmony and not being forced into a
      1440
      situation that is being deliberately sought by Labour and Conservative Members of false division within the United Kingdom which need never exist in the first place.
      Reducing this argument to the absurd level, we should have to extend the referendum to the whole of the Commonwealth, because there are people from England, from Scotland and from Wales living in every corner of the world.
      I hope that all hon. Members who claim to have any kind of intelligence or logic will reject the amendment and say that the decision on the kind of devolution and the extent of the devolution that is made available to Scotland must be taken by the Scots themselves. We should prefer it to be taken at a General Election, but we are quite willing to have it taken in a referendum. I hope that the Minister will take on board the possibility of including the independence option in the referendum.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I shall be very brief. It is important that, of two of the amendments we are discussing, one is from an hon. Member who is an Englishman sitting for a Scottish seat, and who used to be my Member of Parliament before the boundary change, and one is from a Scotsman sitting for an English seat. The argument is made.
      The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) has just used the argument falsely on the concept that Scotland contains the Scots and England contains the English, and that that is what we are talking about. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an absolutely artificial and historic division of the land of Britain, which now, above that line, has more Englishmen and Irishmen than Scots, and below the line has more Scots than are above the line. Therefore, it is an utterly absurd argument. [Interruption.] Am I a racist? I do not know whether that is a parliamentary term. I am a proud patriot and a proud Scotsman. I do not pretend to make that the interest of those north of the line who are British subjects as compared with those who live south of it. Those who live south of it are just as entitled to a vote as to how the decision on arrangements that affect both should be decided.
      If we were deciding on the independence of Fife, it might be that if we had

      1441
      a Bangla-Fife party, it would wish to secede. I doubt whether the hon. Lady's party would grant that to whatever race happened to live in the county of Fife. But it is not a decision between races who live in different countries. It is an arbitrary decision on a historical line about people who happen to live on one side of it or the other and who happen to belong to all the races or ethnic groups who have ever made up the population. It is wrong that some of them who think that they may benefit should be allowed to vote and that some who think that they may lose should not be allowed to vote. It would be equally wrong if only those who thought that they may lose on one side of the line could vote, and those who thought that they may lose or gain on the other side should not be entitled to vote.
      I am entirely in sympathy with and behind the amendment.
      Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: If I had been called to speak before the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), perhaps I would have said that this has been one of the most brisk and relevant debates that we have had in the whole Committee stage. I include in that comment my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).
      Frankly, I am glad to have been called to speak after the hon. Lady. It is precisely the kind of carping speech that we have heard from her that reduces what might otherwise be a much more constructive element in these debates. I say just two things to the hon. Lady. It makes it very difficult for many of the rest of us that she and her party should arrogate to themselves the belief that they speak for the people of Scotland as a whole.
      Many hon. Members representing Scotland and Scottish constituents have lived, worked and spent all their lives in Scotland. They intend to go on doing so. We do not arrogate to ourselves the right to speak for every person in Scotland. We seek to represent the views of the people whom we represent and amongst whom we work and live. It is that kind of arrogant attitude which inspires in other parts of the United Kingdom some of
      1442
      those feelings which we would rather not have in Scotland in the first place.
      I would also say to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East that we would have a more constructive debate—that is what she was calling for—if she and her party adopted a more constructive attitude towards the subject before the Committee. What inspires some of the things that she does not like is the fact that she and her party approach the Bill as a stepping-stone towards separation and independence. If she and her party—as I and others do—regarded the Bill as a genuine measure of devolution, she would find a quite different attitude on the part of many people in many different parts of the United Kingdom.
      Mrs. Bain: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has made a constructive approach to this subject which is totally different from the approach of the Conservative Party as a whole. Does he accept that the SNP has tabled several interesting and constructive amendments which have been debated and that we have put forward only one speaker per amendment in order to facilitate the Bill through this guillotined stage? That is in amazing contradiction to what the Conservative Party has done. The Conservative Party has put in the usual Back Bench backwoodsmen who are in no way interested in the concept of devolution for Scotland.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The only thing I would say to the hon. Lady is that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. If that were the case, we might have a more constructive debate.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is not often that I come to the aid of the SNP. However, is not the hon. Gentleman being a little woolly? After all, the SNP is about independence. It is very unreal to think that somehow or another the SNP will fall in line with the views of the hon. Gentleman—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that we are going a little wide of the subject under discussion—namely, the question of extending the referendum to the United Kingdom, and not the politics of the SNP.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am simply commenting, Sir Myer, on the previous speech which you allowed to be in order.

      1443
      However, I intend to leave that matter and return strictly to the amendment.
      If it were simply a question of cost or length of time, I might have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). But while I appreciate what motivates the amendment, I appreciated it even more after I had listened to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. I know that some of my hon. Friends will support the amendment because their purpose is to keep the United Kingdom united. That is a purpose which I fully support and one in which I fully believe.
      However, I want to pose a question to hon. Members who wish to support the amendment. Even if we were to have a referendum which covered the whole of the United Kingdom and a majority of the people in Scotland wanted independence, would the effect of holding a referendum in the United Kingdom as a whole make separation or independence any less likely as a result? It is in those terms that I should like to debate this matter, and it is in those terms that I feel that the amendment might be wrong.
      I put this question in purely practical terms, and I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will answer it. In principle, I am against referendums because I believe that they usurp our parliamentary democracy. If, however, we were to have a referendum covering the whole of the United Kingdom, what would be the situation if there were a "Yes" vote in Scotland and a "No" vote in England? In such a situation, would we go ahead with setting up the Assembly in accordance with the Bill, or would we allow the majority of the rest of the United Kingdom to prevent the Assembly coming into effect?
      If those circumstances were to arise, as is quite possible, I believe that we should be contributing more to the break-up of the United Kingdom than by having a referendum, as in the Bill, which applies to Scotland alone.
      For those reasons, I believe that the amendment is wrong. First, because of the purely practical consequences of what is being proposed, we should get into a very untenable situation, which by itself would contribute more to the break-up of the United Kingdom than would the Bill as it stands. Quite apart
      1444
      from that, I believe that the Bill is a measure of devolution rather than one of independence and separation. I believe that those who vote in a referendum of this nature should be those who have chosen to work and live in Scotland. I believe that that is correct.
      Mr. Robert Boscawen: As an English Member who has not over-detained the Committee, the debates have brought home to me the absurdity and deplorable nature of the divisiveness of the Bill which the Government are trying to pass.
      With regard to the amendment, if we were to have a referendum—I do not like referendums—it would make it slightly less divisive and less resented by my constituents if they had some say in what was happening. I represent a Scottish company in which a lot of Scottish-born people work who are dependent on the Scottish economy for their jobs and livelihoods. So, too, do other people in my constituency who work in that company. If they are not to be allowed any say in what happens under this Bill that will add to the divisiveness and resentment, and the feeling that we in this Committee do not represent their views properly.
      The absurdity is added to many times over by the fact that my own daughter, born in England, will have a vote in the Scottish referendum if she is still at a Scottish university. That seems to be utterly absurd. I therefore feel that the amendment should be supported, because it goes some way towards reducing the divisive nature of the whole Bill.
      Mr. Iain Sproat: The Committee is profoundly obliged to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) because she has allowed it to see two things very clearly. First, she spelt out once again that her party sees opposition to the amendment, and to the Bill as a whole, as a stepping stone to the total separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
      I wish the Minister of State well during the referendum campaign when he shares a television screen with the hon. Lady. The hon. Lady's companions will be arguing for a total break-up of the United Kingdom on the one hand while on the other the Minister of State will be saying "I am asking for a 'Yes' vote,

      1445
      too, but I disagree totally with those who are supporting me". That is another reason why the referendum will be chucked out of Scotland as a whole.
      I am also obliged to the hon. Lady for again emphasising the real motives that lie behind her party's support of the Bill. The hon. Lady regards anyone who lives in Scotland as being a Scot but also said that there are Scots in England as well. If I were an English Member, I might ask her whether a Scot who lives in England is not also an Englishman by the same argument. Logically, the hon. Lady contradicted herself, but we cannot expect logic, because the hon. Lady's argument is founded not on logic but on emotion. By talking of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen, as though they were totally separate peoples and not British citizens, members of this United Kingdom, one country, with one Parliament, the SNP indulges in reprehensible emotions which are founded on the sort of racialist rubbish that divides the United Kingdom. We are grateful to the hon. Lady for making that situation quite clear.
      6.0 p.m.
      I wish to support the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) totally on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that it would be awkward if the English decided that they did not like devolution. It might be awkward, but they are entitled to tell us their view, and it is up to this Committee to take that view into account.
      There are two incontrovertible reasons why we should support the amendment. Indisputably, this is a United Kingdom affair, because the whole of the United Kingdom will pay for this Bill. One cannot logically say that somebody who pays for the Scottish Assembly should have nothing to do with it. If a citizen of this country is to be asked to pay for the Scottish Assembly he has the right to cast his vote whether he wants that Assembly.
      Secondly, it is incontrovertible that this referendum should be conducted on a United Kingdom-wide basis, because there are more people who consider themselves British Scots living in that part of the United Kingdom called England than
      1446
      there are British Scots living in that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland. It is intolerable that people who are British and Scottish, living in England, should not have the right to decide the future of their own part of the United Kingdom. If people from other parts of the United Kingdom, such as the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), are living in Scotland and entitled to decide my future, I do not see why British Scots living here should not have an equal right to decide such matters. Therefore, Scots living north and south of the border must be consulted. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
      Mr. David Crouch: Many strong views have been expressed on Amendment No. 234 tabled by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). He put forward his genuine feelings in recognising that this is a United Kingdom affair and, therefore, should be referred to the United Kingdom people as a whole.
      I am glad that we in this United Kingdom Parliament have this opportunity to debate the Scotland Bill. I should not like to see any retraction of that principle. I am glad that I as an Englishman, living in an English constituency, have had the opportunity on a number of occasions in this Committee to express my views.
      However, it is wrong for Members of this Committee or for the people of this country to assume that this Bill will produce a distinct economic advantage for the Scottish people. That is not what the Bill is about, but there are many people in England and a great many hon. Members who seem to think that that is what it is about.
      It has been said that there are many people who take the view that Scotland might gain considerably from this Bill and that envious eyes are being turned on Scotland. The hon. Member for Fife, Central is seeking through his amendment to refer this matter outside this democratic Parliament to a referendum among the whole United Kingdom electorate. He will say to those people "You will have a chance to exercise your decision in your envy of what you think the Scots will obtain through the passage of the Bill." In effect, he is saying "You English men and women will give this Bill the thumbs

      1447
      down because you believe that there is some advantage in the Bill to the Scottish people".
      That is not how I see the Bill. I have never thought that it would give economic advantage to the Scottish people. It might produce economic advantage if the Scottish people were gaining a little political freedom, of which I am in favour, because by giving a little political freedom one gives strength to people not to separate but to gain strength in greater unity—and by producing that greater unity within the United Kingdom. The Committee knows that I have expressed these views on many occasions, perhaps to the dismay of many hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I believe these things profoundly and sincerely as other hon. Members put forward their views. I wish to allow the Scottish people to have an opportunity to express their opinions.
      I am not against a referendum in this case on such a major constitutional measure when views are held so strongly both in Parliament and outside, but we say to the Scottish people "You must decide whether you like what the United Kingdom Parliament has decided is good for you." In other words, we must let the Scottish people decide. Do not let us make the mistake of casting envious eyes on the so-called benefits in this Bill to Scotland.
      Mr. Tim Renton: In November 1974 the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke in support of a motion that I moved and that deplored the holding of national referendums, which I considered were in opposition to the principles of parliamentary democracy. My views have not changed—nor, I think, have the hon. Gentleman's. The purpose of his amendment, I take it, is to see that the referendum, if it is ever held, should be as effective as possible. That means that its result should be accepted by the British people as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) thought that the referendum would be a disaster, if ever it were held, if its result were not followed by the people of Scotland or by the people of England.
      I wish to make two points in this debate. I believe that the referendum
      1448
      would be that much more effective if those voting in it were not only those who live in Scotland but those who are native-born Scots and who still have a family home in, and therefore a living connection with, Scotland. I asked the Minister of State on 16th January whether this was practicable, and he told me that he felt that it would be extremely difficult to identify such Scots and to make arrangements for them to vote. The Minister put forward that obstacle, but it is noticeable that Spain in its 1976 general election gave the vote to expatriate Spaniards. A total of 5 million Spaniards were identified and given a chance to register at their nearest consulate and to vote. None the less, the Minister of State said that it would be impossible to identify Scottish expatriates.
      Mrs. Bain rose—
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady spoke for long enough, and it is time to get on with the debate. I intend to be brief.
      Although the Minister dismissed my suggestion on 16th January, I wish to point out that his job was to some extent carried out for him because his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) produced a calculation showing that about 2 million Scots work among the general population of England. Assuming that that is something like the right figure, are the Government suggesting that 2 million Scots who are now working in England should be disenfranchised from the greatest decision that affects the future of their homeland? That surely would be an intolerable situation for those Scots.
      If, then, they cannot be identified and if native-born Scots cannot be recognised and given the vote, I believe that there is no question but that the vote must be given to the whole of the United Kingdom in this referendum.
      If there is one thing at stake in the referendum it is the Act of Union. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) has made that abundantly plain time and again. I am reminded of the opening remarks of a recent speaker on devolution, who said that he and his wife had always found the act of union perfectly satisfactory. Is it not typical of the SNP that it wishes to change that situation? Members of the SNP are determined to do so, and such a change

      1449
      would involve every person in the United Kingdom.
      There have been benefits to England flowing from economic union with Scotland since 1707. There have been ever greater benefits flowing to Scotland. We can all agree th great benefits have flowed to both countries in free trade and in the stability of the currency. We have had a stable exchange rate between the two countries since the middle of the eighteenth century. That situation would be put at risk following the independence of Scotland that would happen if the SNP MPs have their way following a "Yes" vote in the referendum.
      It is for that reason, and not through any love of referendums, that I shall vote for the amendment. The Minister of State has said that a vote cannot be given to expatriate Scots in addition to the Scots living in Scotland, so I believe that the hon. Member for Fife, Central was totally right to bring forward his amendment. I hope that it will be widely supported.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: Hon. Members should remember that while unity cannot be enforced, disunity can certainly be fomented. I believe in the desirability of retaining the unity of the United Kingdom and, with many other hon. Members, I believe that it is not incompatible with, but is rather necessary to, the continued acceptability of that Union that there should be effective devolution, which, in this case, means self-government for Scotland within the Union. I am not going to argue whether that is adequate or not, but it is the object of the exercise.
      If hon. Members wish to try to pretend that feelings of Scottishness or Englishness do not exist they are being foolish. Such feelings do exist. If they did not, we would have no Bill before us. The emotion exists, and the Bill is about channelling it in a constructive way.
      I do not particularly like referendums. That feeling is shared by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but they are, nevertheless, driven to the view that, because of the nature of the whole history of this matter, we must have a referendum. If the objective of a referendum is to emphasise the unity of the United Kingdom, nothing is more likely
      1450
      to encourage feelings of separatism than a referendu ich produces a "Yes" in Scotland and a "No" in England. We must be politically practical.
      The Bill is called the Scotland Bill. It has been introduced because of the political pressure in Scotland. Let us not argue about the rights and wrongs of that. It is a political fact. It has not been introduced because of political pressure in England, and indeed, the bulk of people in England, as has been demonstrated many times in Committee, are fairly uninterested in this matter. I do not blame them for that since it is not a matter that directly concerns them.
      Mr. Sproat: They will have to pay for it.
      Mr. Johnston: I do not intend to get involved in detailed arguments about payment. There are many sides to that argument and we have been over it many times. I am sure that hon. Members want to complete this part of the Bill.
      People living in Scotland have produced the political steam which has led to the introduction of the Bill. If we extend the referendum outside Scotland, there is a possibility, not because of strongly held beliefs, but because of a certain degree of indifference and ignorance—for which I do not blame people in England—that we shall get different results in Scotland and England.
      The hon. Member for Fife, Central is a practical politician and he should recognise that the Bill could have extremely damaging political consequences. I am sorry I meant to say that the amendment could have those consequences.
      Mr. Sproat: A Freudian slip.
      Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is quick off the mark.
      The amendment could have extremely damaging political consequences for the unity which it seeks to preserve.
      Sir John Gilmour: The referendum cannot take place unless the Bill receives Royal Assent. There are only 71 Scottish Members and, therefore it can only be by the will of English Members that the Bill will receive Royal Assent. If a majority of English Members decide to set up an Assembly, it

      1451
      would be entirely stupid for us to refer the matter back to English voters in a referendum.
      Scots Members are prisoners of this House. On our own, we cannot say that we shall have devolution. We are entirely dependent on English Members. In the interests of the unity of the United Kingdom, I cannot support the amendment that my parliamentary neighbour has moved.
      I do not believe in referendums at all, and I do not intend to vote for the amendment or for the clause that provides for a referendum to be held. The Scottish people are prisoners of English Members and it would be wrong to put this matter back to a referendum.
      Mr. Emery: Will my hon. answer this question—
      Sir John Gilmour: No. I have sat down.
      Mr. Emery: This is a Committee.
      The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has resumed his seat.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: I shall be brief, not least because what I have to say may make me unpopular. I shall not support the amendment. I do not like referendums, and if we had a House that had been elected by proportional representation, we would have had better government for a long time and this Bill would not be before us now, but in present circumstances a referendum is necessary.
      If Amendment No. 586 had not been tabled I should be more inclined to vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but that later amendment will provide a tough test of Scottish opinion.
      What worries me is what would happen in Scotland if we had a "Yes" vote there and a "No" vote in England, when one of the origins of the Bill has been the view, right or wrong, among some people in Scotland that they have suffered for too long from what they consider to be English rule. The reaction in Scotland to such a vote could be very strong.
      Finally, we should not presume too much about the outcome of the refer-
      1452
      endum if the amendment is carried and the Bill is passed. There is more than one possible result. What would happen if England said "Yes" to devolution and Scotland said "No"?
      Mr. Pym: In the interests of time, I shall be brief. I have reservations about the amendment. To some extent, they tended to be removed by what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said, because he alarmed me too much the other way.
      Of course, the Bill affects everyone in the United Kingdom, and to that extent there is a right for all the people to vote, but equally the Bill upsets the balance within the United Kingdom to some extent. It is called the Scotland Bill, and it undoubtedly will have a more direct impact on Scotland than on the rest of the United Kingdom.
      We are all involved, but the impact on Scotland is greater. That is why I share the reservations that were expressed better than I could express them by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I hope that this indicates to the Committee my feeling that, while everyone in the United Kingdom has a real interest in this matter, the interest of the people of Scotland is infinitely greater.
      In making a judgment on who should vote, we must bear in mind what will be the reality of the continuing, unity of the United Kingdom. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for North Angus and Mearns and for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) have indicated positions with which I have great sympathy.
      Mr. John Smith: I shall also seek to be brief in replying, although a large number of hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom have taken part in the debate.
      I admire the courage of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). Any hon. Member sitting for a Scottish constituency who is prepared to say that he does not wish to see Scotland win in Argentina must take full marks for credit.
      Mr. Galbraith: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. William Hamilton: He is going to withdraw.
      Mr. Galbraith: I am not. I mentioned one word in my speech which may not have been heard. That word was "almost". I said that I almost wished Scotland would lose, because I get so fed up with the synthetic feelings of animosity that are created so often.
      Mr. Smith: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be misunderstood on what might be an electorally sensitive topic. I am sure that his addition of the qualifying word "almost" will bring great relief to his agent.
      As usual, the hon. Member was one of the most amusing speakers in the debate. I understand his deep opposition to devolution. He has always taken that position. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), in anticipating the arguments which would be used against him, referred to the cost of his proposal. I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns about that. If my hon. Friend's proposal is considered desirable from the point of view of our democracy and of getting a decision, I do not think that the cost matters very much. If my hon. Friend was seeking to anticipate the arguments likely to be used against him, he could more easily have referred to the report of our debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill when all these arguments were advanced. In that way, he would not have needed to anticipate the Government's view.
      I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the antics of the Scottish National Party in Fife. One could not visualise a more irresponsible and stupid course of action in relation to a very important oil development.
      Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask my hon. Friend what progress the police have made in investigating the matter?
      Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I do not have ministerial responsibility for the police. The matter was reported by some of the citizens in the area.
      I agree, however, with what my hon. Friend said about the antics of the SNP on that occasion, and I tend to agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns about the effect of some of the contributions of SNP Members to our de-
      1454
      bates on devolution. Merely because they take a view about independence, they create unnecessary alarm amongst some English Members who do not understand clearly enough that what the Government are proposing is devolution and is in no way connected with any proposition for independence. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and I both support the concept of devolution, but we equally support the concept of a united kingdom—a United Kingdom which, we believe, will be strengthened by the reform in the constitution proposed in the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) talked about the "despicable manoeuvrings" of my right hon. Friend the Lord President. I thought that that was a most unfortunate tone to bring into the debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will understand that, even with the "chopper" coming down at 7 o'clock, he will get his debate and, if necessary, a vote immediately after we have dealt with this amendment. I hope that he will take the opportunity at some stage to withdraw some of his remarks about skulduggery, which were disgraceful and which lowered the tone of the debate.
      Mr. Higgins: My point was a very simple one. It was that, as a result of the extraordinary proceedings yesterday afternoon and again today in which the Lord President participated, a great deal of time was wasted, yet we came back to the precise position from which we had started. I do not withdraw my remarks at all. As a result, the Committee lost a great deal of debating time which it could have put to good use.
      Mr. Smith: It is not to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he does not withdraw his remarks. Very little time was wasted today. There were a few points of order, but the matter did not take very long. In view of the unfounded accusations that were being made, my right hon. Friend the Lord President decided to not to move his motion. In any event, the proposal to make the change was made to the Business Committee before the Amendment even appeared on the Amendment Paper. That must be the final answer to that absurd accusation.
      Mr. George Cunningham: This is not the time to pursue these matters. I keep telling my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they have 51 out of the 52 cards in the pack and both jokers, and that they must not object when hon. Members use what little—
      The Chairman: Order. I agreed with the first sentence uttered by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) when he said that this was not the time to discuss these matters. I have no views on the remainder of his comments. I appeal to the Committee to concentrate upon the amendment under discussion.
      Mr. Cunningham: I did not start it.
      The Chairman: I make a general appeal.
      Mr. Smith: I shall not refer to these matters further, because I accept your ruling, Mr. Murton. But may I remind my hon. Friend that I did not raise the subject in this debate? It was the hon. Member for Worthing who did so, and I thought that his despicable attack on the Government needed to be answered. I am glad to return to the more healthy atmosphere of the debate, which was for a short period made unhealthy by the hon. Gentleman's comments.
      The main argument against the amendment is the one made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, who asked what would happen and what Parliament would do in a situation in which there was one vote in England and another vote in Scotland. An even more ingenious example came from the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), who asked what would happen if England said "Yes" and Scotland said "No".
      Mr. Emery: Let us suppose that in the referendum there is a very close decision. Everyone suggests that it will be very close. Let us say that the result is 49 per cent. to 51 per cent. either way in Scotland. If there were then a strong view in the rest of the United Kingdom, since the referendum is only consultative, how would it help the House in coming to the right decision?
      Mr. Smith: I thought that right hon. and hon. Members reflected the views of
      1456
      their constituents and it is the Parliament of the United Kingdom which will pass this legislation.
      The difference is that the proposals in the Bill will affect more directly the people living in Scotland. As it is they who will be most directly affected, we thought it wise to consult them before the Bill, which Parliament has to pass on behalf of the whole United Kingdom, is put into effect.
      It has been said constantly in these debates that the people of Scotland do not want devolution. I am advised of that by hon. Members with varying states of knowledge of Scottish opinion on these matters. But no one has a perfect knowledge. We shall not know ultimately until the question is put. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central that his constituents do not want the Bill, yet he seems to want a referendum for the whole United Kingdom rather than one just for Scotland.
      A real difficulty arises when we consider the possibility of getting different answers from different parts of the United Kingdom. It is fair to remind the Committee that the Northern Ireland border poll, taken under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, was one which dealt with a constitutional matter where the Northern Ireland voters were consulted since they were far more directly affected by the proposals than were voters in other parts of the United Kingdom. The necessary legislation was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, and, so far as I know, there was little objection from voters in other parts of the United Kingdom to the fact that it was left to those citizens of the United Kingdom who lived in and were electors in Northern Ireland.
      For practical reasons, there is little merit in this amendment. That is the reason which led the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to advise the Committee in the way that he did. An almost identical amendment was discussed in Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill. It was rejected overwhelmingly, and I hope that that will be the view taken by the Committee of this amendment.
      Mr. William Hamilton: The most important comment that I should put on

      1457
      the record in reply to the debate is that I hope Scotland wins the World Cup in Argentina.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 184.

      Division No. 77]

      AYES

      [6.28 p.m.

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Benyon, W.

      Holland, Philip

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hordern, Peter

      Raison, Timothy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      James, David

      Rhodes James, R.

      Brotherton, Michael

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Buck, Antony

      Jopling, Michael

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Budgen, Nick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Churchill, W. S.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Clegg, Walter

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin

      Cope, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Sims, Roger

      Costain, A. P.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Dalyell, Tam

      Loveridge, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Luce, Richard

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Speed, Keith

      Durant, Tony

      MacGregor, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Emery, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Stainton, Keith

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mather, Carol

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mawby, Ray

      Stokes, John

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tapsell, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Torney, Tom

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mills, Peter

      Vaughan, Dr Gerald

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Moate, Roger

      Walters, Dennis

      Grist, Ian

      Molyneaux, James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Moonman, Eric

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hannam, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Neubert, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Mr. William Hamilton and

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Terence Higgins.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Corbett, Robin

      Ginsburg, David

      Anderson, Donald

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Golding, John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Crawford, Douglas

      Graham, Ted

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Crouch, David

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Bates, Alf

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Bean, R. E.

      Dempsey, James

      Henderson, Douglas

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Doig, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hooley, Frank

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Eadie, Alex

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Bradley, Tom

      Edge, Geoff

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Buchan, Norman

      English, Michael

      Janner, Greville

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Campbell, Ian

      Flannery, Martin

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ford, Ben

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Cartwright, John

      Forrester, John

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

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

      Kerr, Russell

      Coleman, Donald

      Freud, Clement

      Kilfedder, James

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      George, Bruce

      Knox, David

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Lambie, David

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Park, George

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Penhaligon, David

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Luard, Evan

      Perry, Ernest

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Thompson, George

      McCartney, Hugh

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tinn, James

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      McElhone, Frank

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Rooker, J. W.

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Rose, Paul B.

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Madden, Max

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Ward, Michael

      Magee, Bryan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Watkins, David

      Marks, Kenneth

      Sandelson, Neville

      Watt, Hamish

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Weetch, Ken

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Sever, John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Meacher, Michael

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Whitlock, William

      Mikardo, Ian

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Sillars, James

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Snape, Peter

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Spence, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Woodall, Alec

      Newens, Stanley

      Stallard, A. W.

      Woof, Robert

      Noble, Mike

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Orbach, Maurice

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Palmer, Arthur

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. Jim Marshall.

      Pardoe, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It will doubtless have been drawn to your attention by the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means that I raised a point of order regarding Amendment No. 633 and consequential amendments. I asked whether there was any possibility of your giving further consideration to your decision that those amendments be not called, since what they seek to do is to add to the referendum question the consideration of electoral reform, which, while it has certainly been debated, has not been the subject of any consideration in a referendum and is, I would have thought, a new matter.
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) for writing to me today to put his point of view. He will know that I have been as helpful as I could be on the question of amendments which were out of order and have tried to suggest where they might be placed later in the Bill. As regards those amendments which have not been selected, the Chair must reserve to itself the right not to give reasons for this. I can assure the hon. Member that I thought deeply about the amendments tabled in his name and in the names of his right hon. and hon. Friends. It is a question of non-selection, and the Chair must abide by the usual practice that no reason is given.
      Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I beg to move Amendment No. 586, in page 37, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than one-third of the persons entitled to vote on the referendum has voted "Yes" in reply to the question posed in the Appendix to Schedule 17 to this Act he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.'
      The Chairman: With this we can discuss Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 586, leave out one-third ' and insert 40 per cent.', and the following amendments:
      No. 234, in page 37, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      'If less than 60 per cent. of the total electorate vote or if any overall majority voting "yes" is less than two-thirds of all votes cast, the Secretary of State shall deem the legislation null and void, such decision to be laid before Parliament by draft Order in Council.'
      No. 632, in page 37, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 38 and insert—
      '(2) If at the conclusion of the referendum it appears to the Secretary of State that less than one-third of those on the electoral register have voted "Yes" in reply to the question in the Appendix to Schedule 17 to this Act he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.'.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The effect of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State, in the event that less than one-third of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum vote "Yes", to lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this measure. It would still be a matter for the House to decide whether to repeal the Act. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will no doubt point out that it would be open to the Secretary of State in any circumstances to take account of what had happened in the referendum and to propose the repeal of the Act if there were a derisory vote. It would be extremely difficult for the Secretary of State to do that if there had been a majority in the referendum in favour of the measure, even if it was only 10 per cent., or 15 per cent. of the Scots electorate.
      It is absolutely vital to write into the Bill some minimum provision, whether one-third or 40 per cent. as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). The matter is one for the Committee to decide. It would be ludicrous to imagine that we should implement this measure if, when it comes to the referendum, we find that only a small proportion of the electorate has taken the trouble to vote, even though there may be a small majority in favour.
      Mr. James Sillars: Could my hon. Friend refresh my memory of the debates on our entry to the European Community and the subject of the referendum? Can he say whether at that time he moved a similar amendment, using similar arguments, or does he reserve this kind of argument for the Scots?
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: As my hon. Friend knows, political sophistication may come late in one's period in Parliament. Whether my hon. Friend has become more sophisticated or less is a matter for judgment. I did not move such an amendment but I did support the EEC referendum, which at that time was a matter of controversy. On reflection, I think that it would have been desirable to have had a similar minimum requirement provision affecting that referendum.
      1462
      Even if that provision had been included, we should still be in Europe.
      What I propose is a measure which will ensure that we do not have a totally derisory vote in the referendum which nevertheless results in our going ahead with the Act. I regard this amendment as absolutely central to the support I give to the Bill. I abstained on Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill and I voted against the timetable motion for that Bill. By the end of the summer, I had come to the conclusion that if—it is a large "if"—a substantial majority of the people of Scotland were determined on this measure, it was not for English Members to defeat it. I have consistently voted in accordance with that principle and I have consequently supported this Bill until now.
      I was horrified to learn of the business motion which was being put forward this afternoon. At the time we were debating the timetable motion on the Bill, I asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President:
      "May we have an assurance that, after we have had the referendum, when deciding whether to table a motion for the implementation of the Bill or for its repeal he will take into account the size of the vote in the referendum? That would ensure that the Bill did not come into effect after a derisory vote in the referendum."
      My right hon. Friend replied:
      "This matter has already been discussed and will no doubt be discussed afresh in Committee. As I said in yesterday's discussion, of course I believe that it is right and proper that, when deciding how a referendum is to operate, the House should consider carefully how it is to be done and all the circumstances that surround it. That is of great importance, because the referendum, as a new institution introduced into our constitution, has great dangers. I do not deny that. Those dangers must be guarded against carefully. I am sure that when we discuss the allocation of time in the Business Committee that is one of the subjects to which attention must be given.
      To answer my hon. Friend's particular point, I say that this will be debated when we come to it. We shall see what amendments are proposed and the House will consider the matter then."—[Official Report, 16th November 1977; Vol. 938, c. 590.]
      I am glad that we are to have that discussion, but we should not have had it if the business motion had been carried.
      I have always believed that this measure was likely to be disadvantageous to the people of Scotland and England and

      1463
      Wales and would almost inevitably lead, at the least, to a federal State. For the reasons I have given, I accept that, if there is a strong determination in Scotland that this drastic change must go through English and Welsh MPs should not prevent it. My amendment is designed to ensure that it will go through only if there is at least a significant number voting in favour of it. I propose one-third of the electorate. I take into account, in suggesting that figure, that in the February 1974 General Election 79 per cent. of the Scottish electorate voted. In October 1974 74·8 per cent. voted.
      It may be reasonable, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, that we should lay down a minimum requirement that 40 per cent. of the electorate should vote in favour of the Bill before we accept it, or before the House decides that it is not to be repealed. However, having taken soundings among my colleagues, I find that it may be that more people would be willing to support a requirement that one-third of the electorate should vote in favour.
      If we had a referendum in which two-thirds of the electorate voted and slightly over one-third voted in favour, the amendment provides that the Bill would have to come into effect. However, whether we provide for 40 per cent. or one-third, or whatever is laid down in any other amendment relating to the minimum vote in the referendum, we must put into the Bill a requirement that we shall not have this measure forced upon the people of Scotland when only a small proportion of the electorate has taken the trouble to vote in the referendum.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall be brief. I understand the motivation behind the amendments, and I do not intend to go into great detail. I shall deal with this issue as a matter of principle and describe where I stand and why.
      As I have said, I am totally against the holding of a referendum in the first place. I say that on the ground of principle. I believe that the introduction of a referendum into our system of government, whether for the EEC, the Scotland Bill or the Wales Bill, is an erosion of the power of Parliament and the supremacy of Parliament. For those who are opposed to a referendum on the
      1464
      ground of principle, to write into a Bill containing provision for a referendum the percentages one way or the other is not compatible with being opposed to the referendum in the first place. The moment we write into a referendum certain percentages, we strengthen the power of the referendum and move it into the area in which a referendum might become mandatory.
      I am against a referendum in the first place. For that one reason I believe that it is wrong in principle to write in percentages as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) suggests. It follows on from that simple point of principle that in any case the referendum in the Bill is consultative. Where we have a consultative referendum, it is meaningless to write in one percentage or another. That is because the issue must return to the House of Commons at the end of the day. On those two grounds—one of principle and one of practice—I believe that the amendment should be rejected.
      I introduce one final ground that is entirely practical. Though I reject the amendment on the ground of principle, I deal with one matter that would be the effect of it that is worth consideration. In the one referendum that we have had—on the European Economic Community—the turn-out in Scotland was 61·7 per cent. as against 65 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. Of those who voted, 58·4 per cent. voted "Yes" and 41·6 per cent. voted "No". The percentage of the total electorate who voted "Yes" was 35¾ per cent. The proportion proposed by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is close to the proportion who voted in favour in the European Economic Community referendum. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) would require from the Scottish electorate a larger percentage voting "Yes" than was required in the EEC referendum.
      Even if we accept the amendment on the basis that it is asking for a percentage turn-out, although I believe that it is unreasonable, it is surely unreasonable to ask for a higher standard for the Scottish Assembly when a 35 per cent. vote in the EEC referendum was regarded as acceptable. I do not intend to support either amendment, but if one or the other is to be supported I believe that the

      1465
      Committee should support the amendment of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move my Amendment (a).
      The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) declared his opposition to the whole idea of holding referendums, and he questioned whether this was a desirable practice or one which took away from the powers of Parliament. Surely, the criteria appropriate to deciding whether one should have a referendum on any subject are pretty clear. It is desirable to hold a referendum on any major constitutional matter on which the opinion of the electorate cannot be gathered from the way in which the electorate voted in a General Election. That will normally be the situation where there is a division of opinion or a major division of opinion within the main political parties.
      There is no way in which one could have decided what the people of Britain wanted on membership of the Community, for example, by reference to how they voted in a General Election. Some Labour candidates were for membership of the Community and some were against. The same was the case within the Conservative Party.
      Precisely the same situation exists with regard to devolution, on which there is a division of opinion within the parties. Therefore the only way in which we can tell what the electorate wants on this issue, as on membership of the European Economic Community, is to test it directly, otherwise one is forced to realign the parties in accordance with the division of opinion on the issue one wants to test, and that, of course, is not a practical possibility.
      Mr. Higgins: I find what the hon. Gentleman is saying extremely worrying. His remarks seem to imply that on any issue he would vote in accordance with the view expressed by the majority of his constituents. It must be remembered that his constituents will not have had the opportunity that we have had of hearing debates in this place and going into the matter deeply. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is not in this place as a sort of calculating machine to vote in the way
      1466
      that coincides with the view of the majority of his constituents. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to weigh the arguments and to act as a representative and not a delegate.
      Mr. Cunningham: I did not, with respect, say anything of the sort. But before deciding how I should vote, on which it may have been observed that I am not in the habit of taking orders from anyone, I wish to know what my bosses, the electorate, want. Whether I then follow that is for me, the Member, to decide, taking into account that they are acting as the major factor. But there are also other considerations as well, including the Member's own conscience, that being one of the factors involved, but only one of the factors involved.
      The other point made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns was to compare a referendum on devolution with the referendum on the EEC held within Scotland. I think that this can be a misleading comparison, for two reasons. First of all, the referendum on membership of the Community was a referendum put to the United Kingdom as a whole. There was no question that Scotland would have a separate right to remain in the Community or not.
      With regard to the referendum on membership of the Community for Britain as a whole, the referendum result passed the test imposed by the amendment of my hon. Friend and also the tougher test proposed by my sub-amendment, and passed it comfortably. It is true that, had the question been put separately for Scotland, the Scottish figure would not have passed the test. But the question was not put separately with respect to Scotland.
      7.0 p.m.
      The second matter which was different in nature in that referendum was that we were deciding not whether we should enter the Community but whether we should come out. I think that the imposition of a minimum level to make a referendum effective can be different in those circumstances. If we had had a referendum with regard to going in in the first place, it would have been different. But when we start in the middle of the game and do not have a referendum on whether to go in and we say that we shall have a referendum to decide whether we stay in, it is a different test.

      1467
      This is only the second referendum that we have had, or are to have, on a major constitutional issue. Therefore, it is reasonable to learn from our own experience and not necessarily to follow the precedent that we adopted before.
      Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend indicated that his amendment might not have been applicable to the EEC referendum because it was a matter of coming out rather than going in. Surely, one would require a minimum to upset an existing constitutional arrangement approved by Parliament and embodied in the Treaty.
      Mr. Cunningham: I only say that it is a complication in that case which does not exist with regard to the present one.
      The reasons why, in my opinion, it is right to have a referendum on this issue can be quickly stated. First, it is a major constitutional change. Second, it is one on which the parties are divided within themselves. The division of opinion on the subject is not congruent with the division between the political parties. Third, it is in practice an irrevocable step. No one knows that more than the SNP. The SNP knows that, though this Parliament could tear up the devolution Bill after it had been brought into force, that is not a matter of practical politics.
      Then we have the fact that we all know that, if devolution goes ahead, we shall all, to put it at its most modest, have to cross our fingers and hope (a) that it does not lead to constant haggles between Edinburgh and London, as many of us think it will, and (b) that those haggles will not lead to a progression towards independence without the people of Scotland wanting independence but always feeling that they can achieve a more logical arrangement by taking one further step and then one further step. Those are the considerations that make me feel that there should be a referendum on this issue.
      Then there is the question of what kind of minimum test we need to impose. There is, of course, a minimum test implicit in having a referendum at all—namely, that more people should vote "Yes" than should vote "No". The only question is whether we impose a minimum majority.
      There are two ways in which to do that. First, we could require a minimum
      1468
      percentage of the electorate to vote, however they voted, and, secondly, we could require a minimum majority of those who vote "Yes" over those who vote "No".
      The formula adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) combines elegantly those two requirements, because, as he pointed out, if the poll is twice the percentage stated in the threshold, a majority of one vote will be sufficient for the referendum to count as a "Yes", as it were. If, however, the poll is lower than twice the proportion stated in the threshold, a larger majority is required in order to make the referendum count as a "Yes". That surely is as it should be. The more people who stay at home and do not vote at all, the larger the majority of the "Yeses" over the "Noes" amongst the rest of the population that we ought to require. So it is a question of what figure we should put in.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden suggests 33⅓ per cent.; I suggest 40 per cent. We should all recognise that there is nothing magic or sacred about any figure in this context. If there were any very natural figure to be found, it would be 50 per cent. One might say that, on a matter of this importance and of this irrevocable nature, we should require that 50 per cent. of the electorate should vote for it or we do not go ahead. But no one is proposing that. We could have gone for a more modest proposal—that ·45 per cent. of the electorate should vote for it. We are not going for that. I am suggesting a very modest figure—that 40 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland should declare positive support for the proposal, or the referendum does not bind us morally to go ahead with devolution.
      I do not think that that can be called a wrecking amendment for devolution, first because it is not a figure which was not met in the EEC referendum. The EEC figure for the whole of the United Kingdom was that just under 43 per cent. voted "Yes". That is, 43 per cent. of the electorate in the United Kingdom as a whole voted "Yes". Therefore, my test, if imposed in the referendum, would have been very comfortably met.
      Secondly, if the Government are right, if the SNP is right and if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for

      1469
      the SLP is right—that the people of Scotland overwhelmingly want devolution—there is no problem. If they overwhelmingly want devolution, far more than 40 per cent. will presumably vote for it. I am not asking that the overwhelming majority, or even that the majority, should vote for it, but only that 40 per cent. should be prepared to go out and vote for it.
      Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend mentioned the Common Market referendum several times and said that, even on his threshold, it would quite comfortably have made it in United Kingdom terms. Will he give the facts to support that contention on his part? I understand that it would just have made over 40 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 36 per cent. in Scotland. Everyone accepted that that was a pretty overwhelming vote on the count, but on my hon. Friend's test it is far from an overwhelming vote.
      Mr. Cunningham: With respect, if one takes the figures one finds that a very large number of votes result in a not very large increase in the percentage. I confirm the figure given by my hon. Friend. My figure for Scotland shows that just a shade under 36 per cent. of the electorate voted "Yes". For the United Kingdom as a whole I make it 42·9 per cent. In England it was 44·2 per cent. I regard the figure for the United Kingdom—that is what matters, because it was a United Kingdom referendum—as a comfortable majority over the threshold that I am suggesting. It is certainly over the threshold that I am suggesting. Whether one chooses to call it "comfortable" or not is a matter of semantic judgment.
      Mr. John Smith: There was a widely expressed opinion, when the result of the EEC referendum was announced, that it was a decisive, almost overwhelming, decision in favour of staying within the Common Market. But, according to my hon. Friend's reasoning, it just scraped by on his test. Has there to be such a decisive result in this referendum as there was in the Common Market referendum before devolution is brought into effect?
      Mr. Cunningham: No. Instead of the 42·9 per cent. outcome on that threshold, there needs to be a 40 per cent. outcome. I invite the Minister to recollect how
      1470
      many times since the EEC referendum people have invoked the fact not only that the country voted to stay in but that it overwhelmingly voted to stay in. The people have not simply relied on the fact that the "Yeses" were more than the "Noes"; they have relied on the strength of the majority. The validity of that decision has always been based on a provable assertion that it did not just scrape through but was a significant majority. What I am saying is that a similarly significant majority, or something within 3 per cent. of it, ought to be required before going ahead on this issue.
      Mr. Sillars: I think that all who took part in the referendum campaign in Scotland, irrespective of the side on which they took part, would concede that the Scottish results was overwhelmingly in favour of the Common Market. Therefore, those in favour of devolution could score exactly the same overwhelming vote for devolution as the "Yes" campaign for staying in the Common Market but on this occasion would lose.
      Mr. Cunningham: With great respect, the vote in Scotland on the EEC referendum was nothing like an overwhelming vote when compared with the vote in England or with the United Kingdom as a whole.
      Let us look at the kind of polls which are achieved in Scotland. Let us not take just the last year or two but look back over a prolonged period of time and take the figures for the last quarter of the century, omitting 1945 because that was unusual at the end of the war and there was an out-of-date register. Over the nine General Elections, the average poll in Scotland was 77·4 per cent. If that were the poll in the devolution referendum, my test would require that the "Yeses" should get 51 per cent. of those who actually vote. Only 51·7 per cent. is a very, very modest margin above a fair majority.
      The lower the poll, the larger the majority needs to be. That is in the nature of things. If the poll were 70 per cent., the "Yeses" would need to obtain 57 per cent. of the votes cast. If the poll were 65 per cent.—and surely it cannot be as low as that if the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people want devolution—the "Yeses" would have to

      1471
      get 57·5 per cent. of the votes cast. I hope that no one is proposing to impose devolution if the poll is actually less than 65 per cent.
      If the poll were only 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the Scottish people cared so much about devolution that they stayed at home, it would be necessary to obtain two-thirds of the votes cast. Some would believe that that was perfectly natural for a constitutional change such as this.
      I quote these statistics to show that if there is anything like a reasonable poll, if there is anything like a normal poll in Scotland, even my test is one which requires the "Yeses" to exceed the "Noes" by a tiny margin, by not much more than 50 per cent., which any threshold would require.
      The SNP has been telling us for a long time that the people of Scotland over the last quarter of a century have not really had the full range of choice before them. After all, in most of the elections most electors have had what the SNP would regard as a poor choice—between the Labour, Liberal and Conservative Parties. They have not had the SNP. Nevertheless, they have voted on average to the tune of 77·4 per cent. If they did that with their restricted choice, we must assume that, faced with devolution—which we are told they are dying to have—they will surely come out in these numbers at least.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member has said that we say that the Scottish people are dying to have devolution. I do not know where he has been. Perhaps he has been in Islington all his life. What the SNP has been saying is that the Scottish people should have control over their own affairs. They are being offered devolution by the Government, but not the choice that we want.
      Mr. Cunningham: We all know that the SNP will try to get its supporters to vote for devolution, not because it believes in devolution—the SNP at least is perfectly honest about this—but because it wants its supporters to vote " Yes " in the referendum because it knows—it is honest enough to admit it—that getting devolution is not only the easiest way of getting independence but is the only way in which
      1472
      they stand a cat in hell's chance of getting independence.
      Those who want independence will be voting "Yes" and those who genuinely want devolution—although they are limited in number—will also vote "Yes". They are faced with that choice—not a choice of individuals but a choice of a system of government which, we are told, they want either in its own right or as a paving stone to independence. If the people do not come out at least in their normal proportions, that will tell us something and we are entitled to take that into account and say that a majority is required of the "Yeses" over the "Noes".
      This referendum will not be mandatory. Nothing will be legally binding upon the House of Commons. Whatever comes before the House in the way of an order from the Government will be passed or not passed according to the discretion of the House. Anyone who feels that a referendum is all right if it is not binding should not be worried about my amendment, because these changes would have no effect upon that point.
      Equally, the failing of the test does not mean that devolution does not go ahead. I want to stress that strongly. Let us assume that only 37 per cent. or whatever the figure is, votes "Yes" in the referendum. That does not mean that devolution necessarily stops. All it means is that the Minister has to produce an order which has the form of repealing the Act and to put that order before the House. It would then be entirely up to the House whether to pass it. I can certainly foresee circumstances in which, because the test had not been met but had nearly been met and the number of "Noes" was particularly low, the House would decide that in all the circumstances it would not repeal, although the matter had been brought to the House to consider repeal.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member proposes to lay down certain minima for the votes in the referendum and then says that, if the vote falls just short of the standard he has set, the House would still have a discretion and would be acting on an order which had an impact. Does the hon. Member accept that those who can best gauge the opinion of the

      1473
      Scottish people are the Scottish Members of Parliament and that only they should have the right to vote on such a motion?
      Mr. Cunningham: I take the view that only the Scottish people, in the way defined by the SNP, are entitled to decide whether Scotland becomes independent. The question is whether Scotland should become independent. Only the Scottish people, as defined by the SNP, are entitled to take that decision, and not English Members or English Members with Scottish accents.
      But that does not apply to devolution, because devolution does not affect only Scotland. It affects the whole of the United Kingdom. If it is a half-and-half thing which messes up our system, we are entitled to have a say in it. If we did not, the cry would soon go up "You have got votes in our Parliament and we have not got votes in yours." That entitles the English to have a say in the matter.
      The only effect of this threshold is that, if the threshold is not met, the House has to reconsider the matter the Government would have to bring in an order which required the House of Commons to reconsider the matter. It does not seek to terminate devolution automatically, and in practice it would not necessarily do so. It simply imposes a level and provides that if that level is not reached the House of Commons will want to look at the matter again. In my view, it would not be fair to hold a referendum without giving any indication to the Scottish people that we propose to take account of the size of the poll and of the size of the majority, both of which are involved in this type of amendment.
      The test is a reasonable one for such a fundamental and irrevocable change as is being proposed. The figure is even perhaps a shade too modest. If the SNP and the Government are even remotely right in saying that a significant majority of Scottish people want this change, they have nothing to worry about. Yet we are observing that they are worried. The Scottish Labour Party is to vote against my amendment, and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will no doubt make his own points.
      1474
      The SNP, which says that Scotland wants this change, is against the amendment, and so are the Government. The only people who should be against it are those who, whether they say so or not, suspect that there is not a majority of people in Scotland positively in favour of the amendment but who are determined to impose it whether that majority exists or not. If they believe in what they have been told about opinion in Scotland, they have absolutely nothing to fear from my amendment.
      Mr. Sproat: Like the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), I have been truly amazed by the reaction his amendment has drawn from the SNP Bench. I thought that the SNP's reaction would be to say that the amendment would not matter either way because, it believed, the people of Scotland were so overwhelmingly in favour of the change. But we can see nervousness creeping in. The SNP Members know that their support is falling away in Scotland. They know, too, that support for the Bill is falling away. This evening they will put their feet where their mouths are by voting against the amendment. They will prove that they are nervous. We shall be grateful to hon. Members for these amendments, if for no other reason, because they enable us to see the fears that are beginning to surface in the SNP.
      I support the amendments in principle, although I do not agree with the figures. I believe that the greatest peril of all the perils that this Bill could bring to this country is the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is something we should never lightly put at risk. We may dispute how great the risk is, but it certainly exists. I believe it is a great risk and, therefore, it is totally reasonable to write in figures of this nature.
      As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury showed in his comprehensive mathematics, these are not unreasonable figures. They were met in the only other referendum we have experienced, so it is not unreasonable to seek either the lower percentage or the 40 per cent. figure. That is a reasonable safeguard to protect us from the great danger of break-up. It is only right that we should ask for a substantial vote from the people of Scotland if they want to make this substantial change.

      1475
      There are many elections that return very low polls. I am sure no one in this Committee thinks that in local elections the polls are ever high enough. Ultimately, however, they relate only to a term of four or five years, after which matters can be changed. This referendum relates to an irrevocable issue, and there is no way in which, once the people of Scotland have been given their own Assembly, any Government in this Committee will take it away.
      With such an irrevocable decision in the balance it is not unreasonable to ask the people of Scotland to come out in substantial numbers. If I had a complaint to make it would be that the figure of 40 per cent. is too low.
      Mr. John Smith: Surely the hon. Member would accept that the decision to stay in the EEC was of considerable constitutional importance. Did he advocate such a proposition as he is now supporting at the time that the Bill on the EEC referendum was debated by the House?
      Mr. Sproat: I give the Minister the answer that was given to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) by one of his hon. Friends. He said, candidly, that length of days in the House brings maturity. No doubt if I had thought of that matter then I should have been happy to have supported a minimum vote requirement, but that minimum vote was achieved anyway, and so the argument does not arise.
      Two interesting points arise. The first is the fear shown by the SNP. The second is the fact that the Minister of State is relying on what must be one of the feeblest of debating points. He has been reduced to asking a question on something that happened five years ago.
      Mr. Sillars: May I advance the hon. Member's maturity into the policy area mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of certain difficult industrial disputes in the future, in which cases she would seek to resolve the matter by the introduction of a referendum? In those circumstances would the hon. Gentleman argue the 40 per cent. threshold, or would he roll himself back to be a juvenile again?
      Mr. Sproat: It is not necessary to be offensive in order to be irrelevant. For
      1476
      me to answer that question would be totally irrelevant.
      I support both hon. Members and whichever amendment goes to the vote. If the people of Scotland support devolution, I believe that they must do so in numbers. I do not believe that they will, and therefore I am happy to support the amendments.
      Mr. William Hamilton: I prefer to confine my remarks to my amendment, but it covers the same point as the other proposals except that the mathematics are slightly different. I was disturbed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) say that when there was a division within a party we should have a referendum. If one accepted that principle, one would be taken on to extremely dangerous ground. If that position pertains to anything which might be raised in this place, the obvious solution would be not a referendum but a free vote—
      Mr. George Cunningham: They are all free votes.
      Mr. Hamilton: So far as I am concerned, they are all free votes, but many hon. Members appear to be frightened of the Whips. I do not know why, but that kind of animal appears to be about.
      Before I move on to the substance of my speech, may I seek clarification from you, Mr. Murton, on whether we might have separate votes on these amendments if we so wish?
      The Chairman: After consideration, I think that the best thing I can do is to reserve my position on that matter. We are in fact debating Amendment No. 586 plus Amendment (a). The hon. Member is speaking to his own amendment. I must leave for the time being the question about Divisions on other amendments.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Hamilton: I am much obiged, Mr. Murton. That clarifies the position. We shall have to wait to see how far it has been clarified. In general terms the reason for the amendment, and, I suspect, the reason for the amendments proposed by my hon. Friends—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury had some reservations—is

      1477
      that a referendum is an undesirable innovation in our constitution. But, having been landed with it, any question put to the people is an indication that we are throwing the ball of sovereignty into their court. We are saying that we cannot in this Committee decide, and we are asking the people to tell us what they want. If that is so, it must be seen to have massive support in Parliament and outside.
      No such claim can be made for the guillotine. There has been far too much arm-twisting, bullying and threatening for that argument to be sustained. It might be argued against any attempt to put percentages in as to who supports the legislation and who does not that we do not do such a thing in a General Election. It might be asked why it should be done in a referendum. The answer is that a referendum is very different from a General Election. In a General Election, although a Government might be elected with a majority of members in the House of Commons, that result can he overturned in five years or less. Whatever injustices there are usually balance out over a period. But this legislation, if passed, would produce a state of affairs which would be irrevocable. It is quite true that Parliament, being sovereign, could overturn it. But it is a bit like falling off a cliff. One cannot change one's mind and go back.
      That is precisely what we are doing here. For good or ill, Scotland will be stuck with its Assembly for ever. This is where the difference of opinion comes in. The SNP takes the view that it wants the Assembly because it is on the road along which it wants to go. The Government take the opposite view. They say that it is precisely to stop that legislation that they are insisting on this guillotine and getting the legislation through, despite the fact that the majority of the House of Commons is against it.
      That being the state of play now, it seems that it is vital to get decisive and irrefutable evidence that there is the wholehearted consent, to coin a phrase, of the Scottish people. That wholehearted consent must mean more than 50 per cent. It cannot be defined as less than 50 per cent. So that will not do. We cannot regard silence as being consent. It might be boredom or just solemn, helpless hostility.
      1478
      Despite what everybody from the SNP says, there is a lot of boredom in Scotland with the Bill. In Scotland the people are much more concerned with bread and butter issues than with the machinery of Government. That has always been so. There is no enthusiastic support for the legislation. That is why a considerable amount of worry is being expressed lest these fairly reasonable precautions are put into the Bill. To thrust this medicine down the throats of obviously reluctant patients would be the action of the worst kind of witchdoctor.
      Let me pose some possible results from this referendum. There might be a poor turn-out of, say, 25 per cent. The SNP would say that that was impossible—far too many people are just raring to go. Let us assume that it is 25 per cent. and 13 per cent. of the people are for and 12 per cent. against. The Secretary of State has to come to the House of Commons, according to subsection (2) of Clause 82,
      "If it appears to the Secretary of State…"
      a very generalised term, the meaning of which I do not know and neither, I suspect, do the Government—
      "—having regard to the answers given in the referendum and all other circumstances".
      So it is a consultative referendum in any case.
      But supposing the Secretary of State got that result of 13 per cent. for and 12 per cent. against. Does anybody seriously believe that the Secretary of State could say "This is overwhelming evidence that the Scottish people are just wanting nothing more than an Assembly in Edinburgh"? I do not believe that the Government could do that. Even if the result was 25 per cent. against nothing—if 75 per cent. of the people said that they were so bored with it because it was so irrelevant and they wanted nothing to do with it—the Secretary of State would be hard pressed to justify any action designed to get the legislation on the statute book.
      Let us take the other extreme. Supposing there is an 80 per cent. turn-out and it is narrowly divided 40–40 or 41–39. What then? What would the Secretary of State recommend to the House of Commons? I suppose that the most sensible course in that event would be to

      1479
      say "All right, there has been divided opinion in Scotland. The ball is passed to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom and there shall be a free vote here." Maybe only Scottish Members should vote. I would be in favour of that, so long as it was a free vote. There would be no doubt about the result then. Therefore, I would accept the argument that we should let only the Scottish Members vote and let the Whips mind their own business. Then we should see what the result would be.
      Supposing we had the other alternative of a high turn-out, a clear majority for or against. I ask my hon. Friends how they define a clear-cut majority. They have not stated figures, but they clearly must have something in mind when the result is known. The Secretary of State who comes back to the House of Commons with the result will have it in mind whether he has a clear mandate to continue and ask that the legislation be pursued. He must have some figures in mind. The Government cannot pretend to push on regardless of the figures.
      I come specifically to my amendment. It is very reasonable. There are important differences between my amendment and those of other Labour Members. My amendment says three things. If there is less than a 60 per cent. vote, or if less than two-thirds of those voting have voted "Yes", the Secretary of State will recommend to the House of Commons, which will take the final decision whatever the result, that the legislation he null and void. But I take account of the possibility—I put it no higher—of there being a turn-out of less than 50 per cent. If there were, I require only 34 per cent. to vote "Yes"—two-thirds of that 50 per cent.—which is not overwhelming enthusiasm for the legislation. If there is only a 30 per cent. vote, 20 per cent. or 20 per cent. plus would carry the day. That does not seem to me to be an extravagant proposition.
      Hon. Members ask me where the 60 per cent. figure came from. It did not just come out of my head. I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has been in Transport House. He knows that we cannot get anything in our manifesto unless it has been passed
      1480
      by a two-thirds majority at our conference. Therefore, what applies to our party should not be unacceptable to the Government who are in office because of that conference. That is a fairly good reason why the amendment should be considered.
      We must have some explanation from the Government of their thinking on this matter. If by moving these amendments we get some clarification of the vague phrase in subsection (2), the debate may have served a useful purpose.
      Mr. George Gardiner: I should like to speak very briefly in support of Amendment No. 586 and, indeed, of Amendment (a). I would marginally prefer the figure suggested in the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), but in the absence of that being agreeable to the Committee I would happily settle for that which is suggested in Amendment No. 586.
      As an amendment in the name of one of my right hon. Friends and in my name is included in this group, I should like to make a very similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), namely, to ask whether in certain circumstances, Mr. Murton, you would consider a request from us for a separate vote on Amendment No. 632. I would expect that those circumstances are most unlikely to arise. It will not have passed the observation of hon. Members that the terms of Amendment No. 632 are very similar to those of Amendment No. 586. However, in the event of the Committee not having a clear opportunity to vote on Amendment No. 586 as it stands now, we would wish, Mr. Murton, to ask you for a separate vote on Amendment No. 632.
      On the general point, we are dealing here with proposals for yet another referendum. It is obvious from the debate that uppermost in the minds of us all are the arguments and discussions that we all went through not long ago over whether there should be a national referendum on the question of our membership of the European Community. We recall the very strong opposition that was then expressed by myself and many of my hon. Friends to the introduction of the concept of the referendum into our British constitutional practice.

      1481
      The argument made at the time was as follows: "These are most exceptional circumstances. This is a once-for-all exercise, so this referendum proposition is being brought forward solely in this context and we could not expect it to arise again." However, sure enough, in a couple of years, as a result of a rather different set of political circumstances, party convenience and all the rest of it, the proposition was made again, and it is before us tonight.
      Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is referring, as so many speakers in the debate have done, to the two referendums. Would he allow that there is no real comparison between them? The European referendum was to seek confirmation of a step that we had already taken and a step that Parliament had taken. The referendum being sought here is something which, if by one means or another a majority is given, will be not merely irrevocable but could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is something that touches upon the interests of every man, woman and child in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the argument that so many others have pursued, quite irrelevantly, of drawing a comparison between the two referendums. We are faced here with a proposition that could mean the destruction of our country.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Gardiner: I accept that point. I was not seeking to draw a comparison between the two referendums. The point I was seeking to make is that a practice that was introduced only two or three years ago, under cover of the argument that it was a once-for-all exercise, has arisen again. Clearly we must take cognisance of the fact that calls for referendums will probably be made in the future, in different combinations of political circumstances. I am arguing that, it we are to embark upon this course, we should fairly soon begin thinking of some of the ground rules that should apply in referendums.
      Mr. Buchan: A great deal of the burden of the hon. Member's speech, and of the speeches of other hon. Members, has been about the necessity or otherwise, or the desirability or otherwise, of a
      1482
      referendum, qua referendum. To deal with that and with the hon. Member's fear of a pattern developing because there was a referendum two or three years ago and one is proposed now, let me say that the point, surely, is that in those situations in which the sovereignty of the House of Commons and of the State is in question the matter can only be passed to the people for them to decide. It is only proper that they should decide, because we have not been elected to this place to supervise the break-up of the United Kingdom, nor to pass sovereignty from this place to the Common Market headquarters. Therefore, it was proper, and seriously proper, to put the matter to the people.
      Having said that, in relation to the independence question it was because of the case for both the necessity and the constitutional propriety of a referendum on the independence question—that is, sovereignty—that the campaign for a referendum was ever raised.
      Mr. Gardiner: I understand that point. I do not wish to develop now an argument for or against referendums as such, or to talk about the situations in which they should rightly or not rightly be held. I am only saying that now that we see the idea of the referendum recurring in political arguments of this kind it would be as well for us to start working out some ground rules for their application.
      Related to that is my second point. I again refer back to the arguments of two or three years ago. We remember all the warnings about the uses to which referendums have been put in the past in other countries by Governments and régimes with which we in this place would have no sympathy. It seems to me that we must not walk into this situation with our eyes closed. We must at least allow for the fact that it is quite possible for a Government to misuse the idea of the referendum.
      A hedge against that, at least, is to build in the concept that a certain proportion of the electorate must vote positively for what is suggested if the referendum is to have validity. That is my general point.
      I come to my more specific point, which echoes what has been said from the Government Benches. We have been

      1483
      told time and again that there is a great head of steam in Scotland for this and that popular enthusiasm is bubbling over for some kind of Assembly. However, my Scottish colleagues bring back very different evidence to me. It is very interesting, and I find it plausible.
      Looking at public opinion polls that have been conducted, polls of the kind that invite people to place issues before them in order of importance, we see that the issue of devolution tends to rate very low in Scotland. That is for understandable reasons. Many other issues come ahead of it. Therefore, it seems that there is a serious prospect or danger of a referendum of the kind proposed in Scotland producing a very low turn-out.
      In these circumstances, it seems to me inconceivable that we should accept a verdict from a referendum which was based on a very low turn-out, and consequently, whatever its result, a very low majority verdict in relation to the total size of the electorate.
      The point has been made that by putting figures into the referendum provisions we undermine the consultative nature of the referendum. I just cannot understand that argument. Amendment No. 586 provides specifically that if less than one-third of the persons entitled to vote have voted "Yes" in reply to the question posed the Secretary of State
      "shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act."
      It says nothing whatsoever about what Parliament should do, and it will be entirely up to us to decide, just as it would be if the Bill went through as at present drafted.
      Obviously, all Members, in the event of the amendment being passed, or in the event of the Bill going through as at present drafted, would take into consideration, in casting their votes in those circumstances, such matters as the degree of turn-out in the referendum and the proportion of the electorate voting "Yes". I for one would have no hesitation in voting against an order of the kind suggested under the Bill if the proportion of the electorate in Scotland voting "Yes" were less than 40 per cent. or, even worse, less than one-third of the total electorate.
      If that is my position—and I fancy it would be the position of a great number of Members—then surely the elec-
      1484
      torate, in joining in a referendum, should have some idea of the criteria which have to be met if that referendum verdict is to be taken seriously.
      I submit that amending the Bill in the way proposed would at least ensure that we are dealing honestly with the electorate. We would be telling them that it is no use having a 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. lead in a 40 per cent. turn-out. We would be telling them what, in the eyes of Parliament, is likely to constitute a valid referendum verdict. In all these matters, the more honest we can be with the electorate, the better.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: When the referendum takes place, as I am sure it will, I shall be campaigning vigorously for a "No" vote. I shall also be campaigning vigorously for a high turn-out, because I think that both are mutually acceptable and mutually necessary.
      I am astonished at the sudden cold wind which has been blowing through this Chamber as people have suddenly thought that there might be a low turnout. I echo the words of many other hon. Members who say that we are always told that there is tremendous enthusiasm, and anticipation of an Assembly coming into being—that the Scots are champing at the bit outside, in Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and everywhere else, to bring the Assembly into being.
      One or two hon. Members have questioned the need for a referendum and, indeed, the reason for having some kind of proportion of votes. It has been said that one reason why we must have a referendum is that there are differences among the main parties with regard to the possibility of devolution, but it is not simply that. There is a curious amalgam taking place. On the Government side, there is a division of opinion for and against devolution. The same applies to the Opposition Benches. But there is a curious consensus view between the two Front Benches in that they are in favour of something called devolution. Although they cannot quite agree what it is, they are all in favour of something called devolution.
      The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), for example, made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that he and his party officially were in favour

      1485
      of devolution. In the winding-up speech on that occasion we heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). We all know him, and it is tempting to think that even he sometimes does not believe a word of what he says. Nevertheless, we must take him at face value when he is speaking from the Dispatch Box, and he said specifically that a vote against the Second Reading of the Bill was not a vote against devolution.
      There is a consensus view, therefore, between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Cathcart on the principle of devolution, although they have their quarrels about the details. It is this almost contradistinction of ideas which makes it necessary to have a referendum, and necessary that, once we have the referendum, we obtain a decisive result.
      Even if perchance the Bill were to fall on Third Reading because of lack of time, or through being overtaken by another event, or otherwise, I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are so wedded to the idea of devolution that they would bring it back either in the next Session of this Parliament or in the first Session of a new Parliament.
      Similarly, I believe that if the Conservative Party were unhappily to become the Government, it would, having made so many wonderful promises about some kind of devolution, feel bound to try to do something.
      The only way in which we can properly decide the issue of devolution, therefore, is away from the House of Commons in Scotland as a whole. That is the only place in which it can be done.
      What worries me most about the devolution debate—which has taken place not since the report of the Kilbrandon Commission but since a certain by-election in Hamilton—is that it has distorted the whole spectrum of Scottish politics. We have never been arguing about the real questions. We may disagree about the solutions, but all of us know that unemployment is unacceptably high. That is what we ought to be debating here day after day after day.
      Why are not questions such as the economic future that Scotland faces, and the issues affecting shipbuilding and steel,
      1486
      available to us for discussion? It is not just because the Bill is before us. It is because so many people have posed devolution as being the primary concern of the Scottish people. I do not believe that it is, and we never really get to grips with the basic political arguments about politics, which are concerned with economics and class. At least my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and I agree about that.
      As to the basic question of independence posed by the Scottish National Party, I notice that it never at any time campaigns on the issue of independence, for good or ill. From its point of view, only good can come from it. I have always said and accepted, on the basic question of independence, as posed by the SNP, or devolution, that if the majority of the Scottish people want it and vote for it I shall accept that result.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: What makes the hon. Gentleman think that a referendum would settle the question? If we had a referendum and devolution or separation were rejected, the campaign would go on just as hard as it had ever done.
      Mr. Hughes: The campaign, either for devolution or for independence, of course, will not go away. I do not pretend for one moment that it will go away. There will be arguments about it, but they will not be in this Chamber all the time, nor will they be in Scotland all the time, because people will be forced to turn their attention back to the basic issues which I have tried to explain. What I am certain about it that unless we have a decisive result in the country as a whole for or against it will not go away from here. We must, therefore, have a decisive result.
      Why are we saying that we should in these circumstances provide some kind of threshold? I think it is necessary to have a threshold because, despite all the fine words said about it, and whatever the legislation may say. I am satisfied in my own mind that there is no such thing as a purely theoretical consultative referendum. Legally it is not mandatory. But if it could not be argued that a majority of those who voted—irrespective of the size of the poll—were in favour of devolution it would

      1487
      be difficult to deny that result by bringing the Assembly into being
      8.0 p.m.
      It is essential to have this threshold so that we can say two things to the Scottish people who will vote in the referendum. First, we are saying "If you want this Assembly, you must positively demonstrate that you want it. You must not just grumble about the kind of Government you have". Goodness knows, it is easy to grumble about that. It has always been the case that whatever Government we have had there have been grumbles. We must ask the people to show positively that they want devolution and they must be prepared to take the trouble to go out and vote for it.
      Secondly, we are saying that this is a really important issue. It will possibly decide for a decade at least the future of Scotland as well as the future of the United Kingdom and, much more importantly, the future of politics in this country.
      We are saying to those people, whichever side they are on, that there can be no excuses afterwards and that there is no point coming back the day after the referendum is over and stating "If I had known it would be like this I would have gone out and voted". People must positively decide, show their enthusiasm and recognise that what is at stake in the referendum is make or break with regard to devolution.
      In a sense, the referendum campaign has already started. I am concerned about the kind of letters appearing in the Scottish Press—both the daily Press and the weekly journals—referring to anti-devolutionists and asking "What kind of friends have you got?". I hope we can at least hold the referendum on a basis of policy and not snide remarks. I hope that snide remarks such as "Whose bed were you in last night?" will be ended after tomorrow when, I understand, a great umbrella organisation will be set up comprising SNP, SLP, Labour Party members, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
      Mr. John Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that the argument should be conducted on the merits of the case on either side. But surely he is already departing from his own stricture, because
      1488
      although he hoped there would be no criticism, he has made such a criticism already of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and myself.
      Mr. Hughes: I did not know that my hon. Friend was joining some umbrella organisation. The trouble with my hon. Friend is that he wants the argument all his way and the slightest breath of what he regards as criticism prompts him to his feet. I shall defend myself by saying that I hope these trivialities which have emerged over the last two or three weeks, such as "What kind of friends have you got'?", will end, especially since if accusations are to be made they can be made on both sides. I want nothing more to do with that, but if people want to play this dirty then by God they will get it.
      Mr. Sillars: I hope my hon. Friend will be the first to admit that neither myself nor any of the people mentioned as being potentially involved in that umbrella campaign have attacked unfairly. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will be campaigning for a "No" vote for different reasons. I hope they will not think that because Scottish people may reject that view there is something about that which is not strictly politically clean. I hope that my hon. Friend will acquit me of accusations of that kind, because I would not expect them from him.
      Mr. Hughes: I shall look with great interest to see who appears tomorrow, I shall also see whether any have been involved in this sort of thing. I agree entirely that we ought to stick to the politics of the argument. I hope this will be the end of remarks like "Whose bed were you in last night?", or variations of that.
      I end as I began by saying that I shall campaign for a "No" vote in the referendum. I shall also campaign for a high turn-out. I believe that is consistent with supporting the amendment tonight in order to have a threshold clause.
      Mr. Julian Amery: The amendments that we are considering go to the very heart of what the Bill is about. Why has the Bill been brought before the House at all? Why are the

      1489
      Government, so far as I can see, resisting the amendments? It happens sometimes in constitutional government—indeed, quite often—that a Government decide that something is right in itself and that even though it is unpopular the House of Commons should be asked to support a measure which is believed to be in the public interest. All of us have had experience of Governments bringing forward measures which to our certain knowledge would be defeated in a referendum, yet we support them because we think they are right in themselves.
      The Government have never claimed that this grotesque Bill is the brainchild of some philosophy which ought to be enforced and put into practice regardless of the view of public opinion, whether in Scotland or in the United Kingdom as a whole. It has never been the view that some disciple of Plato sat round the Cabinet table dreaming up this wonderful scheme and that it ought to be introduced and supported by the House of Commons on its own perfectionist merits.
      The argument all the way through has been that it was necessary to produce the Bill in response to Scottish opinion. There has been a division in the House about whether Scottish opinion wants the Bill. But the basis of the Government's case in the beginning has been that unless we introduced a measure of devolution—and this particular measure of devolution—the unity of the Kingdom would be at risk.
      Many of us have taken the opposite view—that the unity of the Kingdom would be at risk if the Bill went through. But the Government's case has been that, unless the Bill goes forward, the unity of the kingdom will be at risk, because they believe that the feeling in Scotland is strongly in favour of a measure such as this.
      If that is their view, I simply cannot see how they can in honesty oppose the amendments that we are now debating. If it is not a philosophy brainchild argument, if Ministers are telling us that the Bill should go through, even if it is unpopular, if what they are doing is responding to genuine substantial feeling in Scotland, surely there is no reason why they should be in any way afraid of putting it to the test.
      1490
      Personally, I think it wrong to put it to the test of purely Scottish opinion. I think that this is a United Kingdom matter. I do not think we can separate Scotland from England, nor do I think it right to separate the 5 million or more people who live in Scotland from the almost equal number of people of Scottish descent who live south of the border. That is why I voted in support of the last amendment, but that is now water over the dam.
      We are now discussing what is to be the test of Scottish opinion. I simply fail to see how the Government can in honesty reject these amendments, which seem to be very modest. On an issue of this magnitude, I would have thought that at least 50 per cent. of the total electorate should be required to express a view in favour of the change. After all, most countries which have written constitutions expects a two-thirds majority of Members of Parliament for amendments to the constitution. That is done in the United States, Switzerland and elsewhere—and that is a two-thirds majority not of the fairly uninformed general public but of their legislators who are supposed to know what they are talking and thinking about.
      Yet here it is being suggested—even if these amendments were accepted—that devolution could go through on a minority vote. It is perfectly true that such a situation occurs again and again in our General Elections. As several hon. Members have pointed out, however, there is a very big difference. We can correct the mistakes of one General Election at the next one. But if we change the constitution, we cannot.
      Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is putting the argument for constitutional change as an argument of a quite different character from any other political change. Would he concede that the EEC referendum was of such a character, and does he think that it was mistaken in the EEC referendum not to have a minimum voting requirement? I should be interested to have his view of that matter.
      Mr. Amery: We must stick to this debate. The Minister is making a purely debating point. We are talking about whether the Government are justified in

      1491
      rejecting amendments which offer the only clear way of deciding whether Scottish opinion wants this legislation. The argument on the EEC referendum was dealt with on the merits of the proposition rather than in response to what the Government are asking. In this case, the Government take the view "If we do not pass this Bill, Scottish opinion will revolt against the Government."
      Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce a special class of issue in which there was constitutional change. Perhaps he was not in favour of a referendum on the Common Market. Since, however, the House of Commons gave that legislation a Second Reading, why did he not table an amendment that would have required a minimum turnout in that legislation on the Common Market, because it involved a constitutional change of much the same kind as this?
      Mr. Amery: The Minister is entitled to say that that might have been a more consistent step to take, but I am addressing myself to this Bill and how we are to ascertain whether Scottish opinion wants the Bill. Many of us believe that Scottish opinion does not want it, but such a proposition would give us the opportunity to find out how strong are the views in Scotland.
      I do not see why the Government are so frightened of accepting these amendments. I believe that the amendments are quite moderate when one compares them with the requirements in most countries with written constitutions.
      It is often argued that if we do not pass the Bill we shall endanger the unity of the United Kingdom. Many of us feel that the Bill will put that unity in danger, but this argument will turn on the strength of Scottish feeling. Therefore, is it unreasonable to ask the Government to accept these amendments, which would have the effect of testing Scottish opinion.
      If the Government are not prepared to accept these amendments, one cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that the only reason why the Bill is before us is that it will keep the Lib-Lab pact going, will gain a little support in the SNP and will enable Ministers to go on drawing their salaries for a little longer than they would otherwise be able to do.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: I hope that in these discussions about a referendum in Scotland we shall forget about the Common Market referendum.
      Mr. Amery: We cannot.
      Mr. Evans: Yes, we can. I do not see any relevance between the Common Market and a constitutional measure related to Scotland. In the EEC referendum, we all had in mind the fact that the Common Market countries had already had referendums. France held a referendum to decide whether the United Kingdom should enter the EEC, and we had our referendum because we realised that the British people had never had an opportunity to give their views.
      If amendments of this kind had been put forward at that time, I believe that there would have been a good case for supporting them. But it is surely not relevant to this discussion to argue what occurred at the time of the EEC referendum. We are now addressing ourselves to the referendum in Scotland, and, presumably, to the later referendum on Wales.
      I was delighted by the contribution made to this discussion by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I am delighted that my hon. Friend and his colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), Glasgow, and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby), are arguing the campaign for a "No" vote in the referendum. That will rightly stimulate interest in the subject.
      The purpose of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is that, if we are to have a referendum which makes sense, it must involve the majority of the people in Scotland and Wales. A Question was recently put to the Secretary of State for Wales to the effect "How many letters have you had in support of devolution?" The Secretary of State's reply was that he had received two letters in support and two in opposition. That makes me feel even more certain that the people of

      1493
      Wales have no interest in a devolution measure. I believe that, if one were to ask the people of Scotland and Wales to list their priorities, they would put at the top of the list living standards, unemployment, education and health and that devolution would come last.
      We are not arguing whether we are to have a referendum, because the Government have conceded that that will happen. Therefore, I do not see why the Government cannot agree to these proposals. I favour Amendment No. 586 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and also Amendment (a) tabled by my hon. Friend for Islington, South and Finsbury. Indeed, I believe that a figure of 40 per cent. is too low and that we could go to a figure of 50 per cent.
      The Government have taken the view—at least, this applies to some members of the Government—"We are not in favour of devolution, but there is a demand that should be met." Many of them speak with great eloquence about maintaining the unity of the people of these islands, and they suggest that this will be brought about by devolution. Paradoxically, the only wholehearted support for these proposals has come from the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, whose whole purpose is to destroy the unity of the people of this land. What a strange situation that has produced. However, if we are to have a referendum, we must write something into it. If there is to be a low turn-out in the referendum, that situation should be taken into account. I suppose that a figure of 40 per cent. would be reasonable, but if 40 per cent. of those on the electoral register are not prepared to go out to register their view on this major fundamental change in the constitution, we must take a different view of the situation.
      I hope that Amendment No. 586 and the others associated with it will be put to the vote. I hope that the Government will accept these proposals. We must remember that they have come not from the Opposition but from the Government's own Labour colleagues. We are in Committee, and I hope that the Government will take cognisance of the views which have been expressed in this debate.
      Not one Member on the Government side has opposed these amendment. I
      1494
      hope that the Government will take account of that fact. I hope that they will make clear that they intend to accept one of these amendments, because it will stimulate interest in the referendum. We do not want a meaningless referendum. We want a referendum in which as near as possible to 100 per cent. of the populations of Scotland and Wales will participate. I regret that people in England will not be able to participate, but many of those people have relatives and friends in Scotland and Wales and I hope that they will write to them—more than they have written to the Secretary of State for Wales—stating, their feelings about these measures and stimulating interest.
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister of State has mentioned the Common Market referendum. I think that he got it quite wrong, because if there had been a threshold on that referendum it would have been put on the "No" vote and not on the "Yes" vote. The "No" vote would have repealed the Treaty and changed the status quo while the "Yes" vote maintained the situation that we were in. This referendum is different. The "Yes" vote would lead to a fundamental constitutional change and could lead to the breach of the treaties and a change in the relationship between Scotland and other nations in the United Kingdom.
      The amendments are all the more important following the result of the last Division. Having denied the rest of the United Kingdom the chance to take part in a referendum which affects the whole of the United Kingdom, the least that we can do is to try to make sure that the referendum result represents a positive view of a significant majority of the people of Scotland.
      None of the amendments puts any constraints on the electors of Scotland or on Parliament. The only constraint is on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft Order in Council for the repeal of the Act. We may debate that and, if necessary, alter it before it is laid before us in its final form in the light of our debate.
      The arguments that are being put against the amendments, including the fact that they are not needed because the referendum is only consultative, are not valid. Consultation is not valuable in itself unless it shows a definite and

      1495
      positive wish for devolution, and shows it beyond all doubt.
      As the debate has shown, there is grave doubt about whether the people of Scotland are remotely interested in, let alone wildly enthusiastic about, the prospect of devolution. Some hon. Members believe that they are enthusiastic and that they would turn in wrath against Parliament if they were denied devolution. What have those Members to fear from an amendment writing into the Act that the demonstration of that enthusiasm has to be part of the advice put before Parliament in the Order in Council?
      Mr. Dalyell: If they had been so enthusiastic, would there not have been reverberations after 22nd February 1977? In the three months after that date I had more complaints about the price of pigeon seed than about my attitude on devolution.
      Mr. Macmillan: I am merely trying to be kind to the people who say that there is a seething hidden enthusiasm for devolution. The hon. Gentleman and I have not seen it. Indeed, no one has seen it, but if it is there the supporters of devolution have nothing to fear and the Government have nothing to fear. I can see no objection to accepting at least one of the amendments.
      I support the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in his proposal for a higher figure. I would rather go to 50 per cent., because it is important to be sure beyond all possible doubt that such an irrevocable step is taken only if people want it to be taken.
      One of the disadvantages of simple majority votes is that they do not judge the intensity of the views of voters—whether they really believe in what they are voting for or whether they are voting to please someone else or because someone has tossed a coin and told them to vote that way. There will be taking part in the referendum people who will not realise the consequences of their votes. There will be apathy and a degree of disinterest which may lead to people voting for frivolous reasons or for reasons that are not sufficiently valid, given the importance of the vote. No doubt this happens in General Elections, but the result of that can be put right later.
      1496
      This is an irrevocable step and we do not want silly votes enabling devolution to go ahead when it is not really wanted.
      I have been fascinated by the fears shown by opponents of the amendments that the will of the people may prevail, that the con trick that the Government are trying to pull on the Scottish people will be seen through and that the Scottish nationalists will not be able to use devolution as a means of achieving the destruction of the United Kingdom.
      I do not believe that anyone who thinks seriously about the future of this country would wish to benefit from doubtful votes or to achieve their objectives by using people who do not know what they want and are voting for something because they think that it might make things better, without knowing how or why and without seeing the dangers.
      There will be those who really want the Bill, even knowing the risks entailed, including the risk that the SNP might lead Scotland to independence and that it might lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. They will support it knowing that they are setting up an organisation in Scotland which cannot be got rid of and which inevitably will be a source of conflict with Parliament at Westminster and knowing that they are affecting permanently relationships between Scotland and the United Kingdom.
      There are those people who will realise that the rest of the United Kingdom will have no part in the referendum and may resent it. Those people may still want to go ahead and vote "Yes" in the referendum. If they are a big enough majority, so be it. But, if they are not and if they are only a minority, the result will lead to what we who oppose devolution fear. The rest of Scotland will never forgive us for rejecting the safeguards which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and his hon. Friends propose.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Sillars: I am opposed to the amendments. I think that that makes me about the first hon. Member to say that. I oppose them not because I do not expect the "Yes" campaign to win in Scotland; indeed, what is happening here tonight will assist us enormously to get an even bigger "Yes" vote when the

      1497
      campaign gets under way. My reason for anxiety is the expectation that acceptance of the amendment will simply be another step towards right hon. and hon. Members constructing further obstacles to the implementation of this measure in the future.
      Clause 82(2) provides:
      "If it appears to the Secretary of State, having regard to the answers given in a referendum and all other circumstances, that this Act should not be brought into effect he may lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for its repeal."
      Those words "and all other circumstances", given the attitudes which I have seen developing here not just tonight but over the past two or three years, make me extremely anxious.
      I anticipate that, when the referendum is over and the Government begin to implement this legislation—because it is based on a series of triggers, the first of them being the referendum—we shall hear the argument that perhaps the result was not quite as one should read it, that on the day it was raining in Grampian or in Strathclyde and that perhaps it was not quite the result which would have happened if this or that had not occurred. I expect a great deal more hassle between now and the implementation of this legislation because of what I have seen happen in this Committee, and one day I expect to hear invoked the principle of unanimity before we proceed to the establishment of a Scottish Assembly.
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I intervene simply on a matter of fact. Unless I have misread both Clause 82 and the amendment, the discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State to which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) objects, since it will lead to what he describes as "hassle", is removed by the amendment, because the Secretary of State will no longer have the right to bring before Parliament a draft order proposing the repeal of the legislation unless the target figure in the referendum is not reached.
      Mr. Sillars: I shall explain as I proceed how the target figure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is not quite what it appears to be,
      1498
      and I shall do so based on my experience as a full-time election agent.
      This amendment is just another chapter in a very sorry story of obstacles which have been placed in the way of the implementation of the pledge to introduce a Scottish Assembly, and it is worth rehearsing briefly what has happened to this proposition.
      Over the years, people in the Home Rule movement—and I was not one of them—were always lectured that the way to get Home Rule was to vote for it and to engage in the normal procedures of democratic pressure. They did so. The result in October 1974 was an election commitment on the part of the Labour Party. Before that election and after it White Papers were published in which there was no reference to a referendum, and in no debate in the Labour Party prior to that do I recall the possibility of a referendum being raised. After leaving the Labour Party, I can remember watching the party conference at Blackpool and seeing the idea of a referendum rejected. However, that is by the way.
      The Scotland and Wales Bill contained no reference to a referendum when it was first printed. The referendum was introduced only as a means of getting that Bill a Second Reading. Had there been no referendum commitment, the Bill would not have received a Second Reading, and my right hon. and hon. Friends know that to be the case.
      I believe—it is only a value judgment—that each time we appear nearer a "Yes" vote, each time we appear nearer the accomplishment of an Assembly, the rules are changed or new rules are introduced, always on the principle that it must be made harder for the Scots to have the Assembly.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my hon. Friend explain whether his objection to the proposed referendum is that, as the Labour Party conference approved the idea of a Scottish Assembly, we should have one even if a majority of the people of Scotland do not want it?
      Mr. Sillars: I am opposed to referendums in principle. One of the greatest mistakes in British constitutional history—this will be proved in the course of time—was the introduction of the Common Market referendum.

      1499
      If the concept of the referendum is to be introduced into the constitution of any country, it should be removed from the hands of Government or those with a vested interest in the answer and put into the hands of an independent judicial body which will genuinely set up the referendum question. A number of countries that have operated referendums have been those that have tended towards dictatorship—[Interruption.] There is a Left-wing point of view about France from 1968 onwards.
      Mr. Buchan: What about Switzerland?
      Mr. Sillars: I am not sure about the position there. I am open to correction, but probably in Switzerland there is an independent body that sets the question.
      Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman said first that he was opposed to referendums in general. He now says that he is opposed to a referendum run by the politicians, saying that it should be run by an independent body. These are two related but separate matters. Is the hon. Gentleman sticking to the statement that he is opposed to all referendums in general on the grounds that they tend to lead to Right-wing reaction? New Zealand and other places are obvious examples that one can use against that suggestion.
      I do not like referendums either, but we should bear in mind the example of Switzerland, where there are frequent referendums or plebiscites right down to the local level of the commune. If people want a new school, they may have it if they are prepared to see another 2p on the rates. Referendums are objectionable when used by dictatorships because they can control the question and the means of producing the answer.
      Mr. Sillars: I am stretching my knowledge of Switzerland, but I believe that some of the citizens there can assist in establishing the question, and it is not simply a Government initiative.
      I remain opposed to referendums in principle, even with an independent body to set the question, but I say that if we are to have referendums it is better that they should be carried out by an independent body rather than in the way now proposed, though it would appear that I am in a minority in this Committee. It
      1500
      seems to me and to many people in Scotland that on Home Rule the Scots are required to jump a certain democratic fence and then if they jump it, or look like jumping it, the fence is raised even higher.
      This brings me to the argument about a 40 per cent. threshold. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury argued that under his formula all that would need to be achieved was a 51 per cent. "Yes" vote of those voting. I cannot square that with what happened in the referendum in Scotland on the Common Market, leaving aside the question whether it should have been held. The voting was 58 per cent. "Yes" to 42 per cent. "No", yet that produced only 36 per cent. of those eligible to vote.
      Mr. George Cunningham: This figure is a key one in the argument. The answer is that the poll in the EEC referendum in Scotland was much lower than a normal Scottish poll in a General Election. Over nine General Elections since and including 1950, the average poll in a General Election in Scotland has been 77·4 per cent. If one is required to achieve 40 per cent. out of 77·4 per cent. voting, all that one has to achieve is 51·7 per cent. of the votes actually cast. I shall lend the hon. Gentleman my calculator if he wishes so that he may check that. It means only 51·7 per cent. if there is merely an average General Election poll at this referendum on a matter that we are told is of great interest to all the people of Scotland.
      Mr. Sillars: We have had experience of only one referendum. I believe my hon. Friend would accept that the referendum showed a tendency for the figures to be below the normal turn-out for a General Election. I found that quite a lot of people who were in favour of the idea of a referendum felt, when it came around, that they did not like to take the responsibility on their own shoulders.
      I was an election agent. I know how to impose depressant pressures upon an electorate. I can recall, during my days as an agent, watching candidates arguing that everyone should turn out to vote and then hear them saying sotto voce "I hope that that does not happen in the Tory area". I have run election campaigns, having been taught how to raise the temperature in one area and how to lower it

      1501
      in another, with the clear intention of affecting the turn-out. While I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will go impartially into every area stirring everyone into voting, my experience of many other people is that that is not a tactic likely to be followed.
      Mr. George Cunningham: Despite those efforts, if they took place, the average over nine General Elections has been 77·4 per cent. Why should fewer people vote on an issue on which we are told they are more interested than they are in choosing between the traditional parties in a General Election?
      Mr. Dalyell rose—
      Mr. Sillars: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) wishes to intervene. I will give way to him and reply to both my hon Friends at once.
      Mr. Dalyell: I worked in 1963 with my hon. Friend as an election agent at Limonds Wynd in Ayr. Of course one can raise or lower temperatures. Is my hon. Friend saying in these circumstances that we are supposed to believe that there is an overwhelming demand for devolution and that people lowering the temperature will make a difference such that the qualifications of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) are not met?
      Mr. Sillars: I am arguing that it is possible so to engage in a referendum or an election campaign as to affect the turn-out. I argue that circumstances can affect the turn-out. If this threshold were introduced, some people working for the "No" campaign would engineer their tactics accordingly and seek to depress the turn-out. That would give them a substantial advantage.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am optimistically hoping that my hon. Friend will give me some useful information that I can use in the "No" campaign. Can he tell me how, if I wished to do so, I could discourage people who wanted to vote "Yes" from going to the polls to record their vote? Nothing in this amendment would affect my desire to get those voting "No" to the polls. The number voting "No"
      1502
      would be irrelevant to the test applied for the "Yes" vote.
      Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend must be off his head if he thinks that I will put into Hansard details of the tactics which would help depress a referendum turn-out. There are people within his own party who can give him all the necessary advice. There are a number of experts at his disposal, and I speak from experience.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend recognise the inherent illogicality of what he is saying? On the one hand, he is accusing those of us who want a referendum of not trusting the Scottish people while on the other he is saying that he does not trust them because he thinks they can be easily manipulated.
      Mr. Sillars: When it is said that people can be manipulated it does not mean that one does not trust their acumen. Let us assume that a Bill is introduced to abolish control of expenses in parliamentary elections. The reaction among Labour Members would be well worth seeing. It is known that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North and I were engaged in the "No" campaign in the referendum. We are both well aware of the influence of vast amounts of money that were used on the "Yes" side compared to the minuscule amounts used on the "No" side. Given the way in which our society works, it is possible to manipulate people and to have an effect on them.
      8.45 p.m.
      I still remain optimistic. I am giving the reasons that lead me to think that some people will support the amendments. However, despite their efforts, I believe that at the end of the day there will be an overwhelming "Yes".
      I turn to another part of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I hope to prove to him that it is possible to weigh the case as he has put it against those in the "Yes" campaign. For example, the register on which we are likely to contest the referendum was compiled last October. It is not due to be published until February. It was compiled in October 1977, and the date for checking it was in December. Without disrespect to any citizen in the United Kingdom, we all know that very few bother to check the

      1503
      list to ensure that they have not been inadvertently removed or have not been entered, which sometimes happens.
      As an election agent I was always told that the register tends on average to "die" at 1 per cent. a month. In London it tends to "die" far more quickly than that. Of course, the rate is not a constant 1 per cent. a month, but that is the rate that the register tends to show. If we talk about the register in real terms, next October, only 88 per cent. will remain on the electoral roll.
      Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend must evaluate the figures. I have quickly read my list, and I pick out two elections of the nine since 1950 that took place late in the year, when this problem was most likely to arise. In 1951 the poll was 81·2 per cent., and in 1974 it was 74·8 per cent.
      Mr. Sillars: Yes, but that does not for one moment invalidate the argument that I am putting. A difference of 12 per cent. in terms of the register means, give or take a few, 442,416 people. If we had a 40 per cent. threshold, it seems that my hon. Friend would accept that. That is what he has argued. It is possible for us to get 40 per cent. of the people eligible to vote given the death of the register, and yet register only 35 per cent. of the vote as "Yes". I do not think that my hon. Friend understands. If we took 40 per cent. of the register, that would come to 1,474,720. That would be the full register if no one had moved, and 100 per cent. last October was 100 per cent. next October. If it is 88 per cent. next October of the real register—
      Mr. George Cunningham rose—
      Mr. Sillars: That is on the basis of a 12 per cent. death rate, 1 per cent. a month. My hon. Friend does not understand. I thought that I had made it clear. I was using the shorthand terms that we used to use within the organising staff of the Labour Party. When the register changed as a result of deaths and removals at 1 per cent. a month, we used to say that it died at 1 per cent. per month. I am arguing that 40 per cent. of the real register amounts to not 1,474,720 people, but 1,297,720. Even on the worst assumption, the most pessimistic assumption of the "Yes" campaign, it is possible to match my hon. Friend's test in reality but
      1504
      to fail it because he did not take into account that the register is a fading factor.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: Surely my hon. Friend is making the case that the referendum should be held when we get the new register. That is the only point that he is making. If he is making that case, all the other arguments fall to the ground. If he is doing so, let us have such an amendment before the Committee, and let us have the referendum when we have the new register.
      Mr. Sillars: Surely my hon. Friends should have taken these matters into account in their complicated mathematical formulae.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I did take it into account. If I had not, there would have been a much stronger justification for going for a figure of 50 per cent. I did not say so in my speech because this matter is complicated enough already, but if I had put in 50 per cent. I should have been asking in reality for more than 50 per cent. of the people entitled to vote. The difference is those who are on the register but who have died. That is just one of the factors explaining why I am going for the very modest figure of 40 per cent. compared with the natural majority of 50 per cent.
      Mr. Siliars: If the amendment is passed, it is my intention on Report to table an amendment and talk to the Minister of State without tempting him into the umbrella campaign and hoping for his support. [Interruption.] The Minister of State and I are on reasonable terms. We invite each other all over the place. I should invite him on Report to agree to the publication of a supplementary register. I should hope to carry with me on such a proposal my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North, Islington, North and Finsbury, Aberdare (Mr. Evans), Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), West Lothian and others.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: If my hon. Friend supports this amendment.
      Mr. Sillars: I should not have thought that a democratic principle was contingent upon a tactical vote, but it would appear to be for some of my hon. Friends who have sought to enter a caveat. We shall have the basic democratic argument later.

      1505
      It would appear that half a million people in Scotland are to be disfranchised. Why cannot they give an unequivocal "Yes"? If it is to be unequivocal and there are no problems, I shall be quite happy about it. My main concern is that this is yet another tactic to hold back Scottish devolution. It is possible that people will regard it as an argument for saying that we can still win the referendum campaign, but, at the end of the day, lose the Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has not taken account of some of the reaction inside Scotland.
      Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend said that in February.
      Mr. Sillars: I did not say that in February. The Scots are not very demonstrative, but the main demonstration came in November 1975. I think that we shall probably demonstrate again in a manner that will not please my hon. Friend. For example, the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North will probably be misinterpreted north of the border. If the amendment is passed, I believe that it will be regarded in Scotland as a tactic and that it will invite contempt and anger directed towards the normal democratic processes.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: My reaction to these amendments is one of anger, because the Committee is endeavouring to prevent the Scots from obtaining self-determination.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my remarks beyond the first sentence.
      As events have developed over the last 10 years, we have seen that it has taken tremendous effort and pressure to gain even the Scotland Bill. If amendments similar to those which have been presented to the Committee were introduced by the pro-devolutionists to affect the "No" position in the referendum, one can imagine the anger that would have broken out in the Committee.
      During the last two hours, I have made a note of some of the stages that Parliaments and Governments have gone through to reach this stage on the Bill.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is objecting to a proposition that the majority of Scots should demonstrate that they want an Assembly? What is wrong with that proposition?
      Mr. Wilson: I have nothing against the majority of Scots voting and demonstrating what they want. That is the normal mechanism under which matters of this sort should be decided, and it is set out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. I regard this as a matter more of principle than of practice because I am sure that there will be a substantial "Yes" vote. I have no doubt about that, nor have I any doubt about the turn-out. This amendment, coming as it does from those who are in opposition to any form of Assembly, is equivalent to ballot-rigging.
      It has taken many and various stages to reach the situation that we are now in. First, a Royal Commission was set up in 1968 or 1969. Then we had two General Elections following not long after the Royal Commission reported. We have had a number of White Papers and statements since March 1974. It is difficult to calculate the number of statements and White Papers, but taken together they probably number seven or eight.
      Then we had the Scotland and Wales Bill. It was not even given a vote on the guillotine. It was grudgingly given a Second Reading after a promise that there would be a referendum. When one considers the time that it has taken to get this Bill before the House and the pressure that there has been over many years, it is no wonder that people such as myself greet amendments such as this with great suspicion.
      The Labour Party came out of the October election with a pledge to set up an Assembly. After many travails, the Government are still trying to do that. They have been forced by their own supporters, who sometimes have a great influence on the Government, rather than by the official Opposition to change the rules. We shall see more of that tomorrow. The first rule was changed by the Leader of the House, who said that the Government had conceded the referendum. Many Labour Members will admit that this was what persuaded them to vote for the Second Reading of the Scotland and

      1507
      Wales Bill. When it was first promised, the referendum was to be capable of automatic implementation; no further trigger was required, and the Act would come into force.
      That was opposed, mainly by the official Opposition but also by Labour Members, because it was said that that would deprive the House of Commons of its right to make up its own mind. In other words, it was an assertion of the rights of the House of Commons over the rights of the Scottish people.
      The next stage was the present Bill, in which the referendum is an essential part of the mechanism for setting up the Assembly. It also has a trigger in the form of an order to be presented to the House, to be discussed and decided by the House in its discretion, taking into account all the factors before it. My party does not accept the right of hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies to engage in Scottish affairs.
      It was that situation which the Government were proposing. Yet from there we have moved on to the point where the vote might have to be assessed and analysed, not within the general discretion of the House of Commons but as part of an inhibition which it is hoped to implant in the Bill under the propositions before us. One of those propositions seeks to require 33 per cent. of the electorate to vote for the Assembly. The other requires a 40 per cent. vote in favour.
      9.0 p.m.
      During the debate, hon. Members have suggested that the figure should be higher, perhaps 45 or 50 per cent. I echo the remarks by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that, given half a chance, the House would probably prefer to give way only to a 100 per cent. vote of the Scottish people demanding an Assembly. The plain truth is that this proposition is supported by and comes from those who are wholly against the Assembly in principle. I believe that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was anxious to put a point to me earlier.
      Mr. Buchan: Both the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) appear to complain that the referendum was brought in simply to help
      1508
      secure a Second Reading for the Bill. I deny that that was the case, but, even if it was, how can the hon. Member then object to it? Surely, he was in favour of the Bill getting a Second Reading.
      Mr. Wilson: I do not follow the hon. Member's point. Perhaps he was not following my remarks sufficiently closely.
      The most interesting comment in the debate came from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) when, in response to a question from me, he indicated that devolution would affect England too and that, therefore, all hon. Members had an interest in the outcome of the referendum. That was why he wanted the threshold.
      Mr. George Cunningham: That was not why I put forward the idea of the threshold. The hon. Member was suggesting that only hon. Members representing Scottish seats should decide whether devolution went through. I say that that is wrong because devolution affects England, and, therefore, all United Kingdom Members should decide the issue. But that is not related in any way to whether there should be a threshold in the referendum.
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member appears now to be adding to what he said. Perhaps he is trying to clarify it.
      Initially the referendum was unnecessary. It will cost £2 million. It is now becoming an instrument by which the anti-devolutionists are seeking to change the plans. I am perfectly sure that the vote and the turn-out will be quite satisfactory from our point of view, but we are not prepared to accept the rules of the game being changed as we go along. The rules are being changed, because this proposition was not introduced in either the EEC referendum or the Northern Ireland referendum. The Committee is obviously prepared to take a far tougher stance in opposing self-government for Scotland, even in the form of this Scottish Assembly, than it is prepared to take on important matters such as the future government of Northern Ireland and the EEC.
      Mr. Raison: I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the attack by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on the idea of a referendum, which I am against. There will not be

      1509
      time for a debate on the clause, but there will be a vote on it. Can we take it that the hon. Member will not be voting for the clause?
      Mr. Wilson: This is an interesting proposition. I am prepared to say immediately to the hon. Member that we shall be voting against these amendments that are before us. But I would draw to his attention the fact that my hon. Friends and I have lodged a very important amendment to the clause which, unfortunately, due to the lack of courage, I suppose, of the Leader of the House in relation to the business, will not be reached. I hope that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West will share my sense of loss that we are not to have that important debate. I was delighted to see that the third-question discussion was to be included in the list.
      Mr. Buchan: In that case, why did not the hon. Member sign the simple proposition "Do you wish Scotland to become an independent State?" That is dispassionate, accurate and precise. It is not the devious camouflage that he proposes to put into the Bill.
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, I take it, was inviting us to sign an amendment which was not properly drawn. Could you, Mr. Murton, draw his attention to the fact that the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and me very clearly and fairly expresses the position? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go away and look at it, and perhaps we shall have a chance to discuss it on Report.
      The amendment and the amendment to it are intended to place barriers in the way of the Bill. It does not really matter to some Labour Members by what measure they can trip up the Scotland Bill in order to prevent the existence of the Scottish Assembly. It is all part of the context. If we read the participation of Labour Members in debates, if we hear the views which have been expressed and if we follow the struggling steps of the Bill and the Ministers presenting it in order to get where we are now, I am sure that the Scots electors will share my view that this is a bit of gerrymandering and nothing else.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: I begin by apologising to my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Mordern (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for not being present to hear their speeches at the opening of the debate as I was on my way back from Strasbourg to take part in the debate. I am happy to tell the hon, Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who is making disapproving noises from a sedentary position, that I am only in the second eleven of the Council of Europe.
      I have, however, listened to the rest of the debate which has taken place since my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury sat down. I am struck that the Government have failed to find a Pack Bencher of their own party who is prepared to support them in resisting these amendments. They have to rely on the support of the SLP and the SNP. I hope that the Government find that company congenial, because I suspect that the situation which has developed over the last three hours of this afternoon and over the last few weeks during which the Bill has been debated will be very much the situation that we shall see on the referendum, in which the Government will find themselves relying on both those wings for their support.
      There have just been two speeches during which both speakers have assured us that they are confident that there will be a high and convincing—indeed, crushing—turnout for a "Yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) correctly, he said that at the most pessimistic expectation of the "Yes" vote they would expect delivery of 35 per cent. of the registered electors. Thirty-five per cent. is substantially more than the figure of 33 per cent. to which my hon. Friend and myself have put our names on the Notice Paper. Yet we have been told by both speakers that, despite their confidence that there will be this overwhelming, convincing and crushing result in favour of a "Yes" vote, the modest amendments on the Amendment Paper tonight would be looked on with anger and dismay in Scotland tomorrow were they unfortunate enough to succeed in getting into the Bill.

      1511
      The Committee might have some difficulty in reconciling those two statements. One of the reasons why it is difficult to reconcile them is that there are objective grounds for doubting whether there will be that kind of turn-out in the forthcoming referendum. First, we have very little evidence of what happens in turn-out in Scotland when there is an election that is confined to Scotland and Wales and is not happening in England, when we have, in effect, an election being conducted in a small part of the State. The only precedents that we have are precedents from local government. As far as turn-out goes, those are not particularly encouraging precedents.
      Secondly, anyone who has been around meetings in Scotland or has gone around doorsteps in Scotland and sought to detain people in conversation on devolution must be doubtful as to the turn-out in any referendum on the issue. One can find no end of people who, when asked "Do you want more power for Scotland and do you want the decisions taken here?", will say "Yes". However, if one seeks to detain them in conversation on the matter for a period, say, as long as the time it would take them to walk to the ballot box and back again, one is liable to be regarded as the prize bore of the political scene in Scotland.
      Mr. Dalyell rose—
      Mr. Cook: I give way to my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no significance in that.
      Mr. Dalyell: When I have attempted to engage people on the subject of devolution, I have first been shown a dumbfounded look and then they have said something like "By the by, while you are here, what about my tax?" or "What about my drains?"
      Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's experience is perfectly correct, and it chimes in with that of myself and many of my hon. Friends. It may be that my hon. Friend and I are wrong. It may be that there will be this convincing turn-out and that we have misread the political mood in Scotland. If that is so, no harm will have been done by the amendments.
      On the other hand, it would be only prudent for the House of Commons to protect itself from having to take an invidious decision after the referendum
      1512
      had occurred, as quite clearly it would not be representative of the bulk of opinion in Scotland. It is also only fair to warn now the electorate in Scotland that we shall have regard to turn-out when we come to consider the legislation.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: During these discussions with his constituents and other people in Scotland, has my hon. Friend detected any great enthusiasm for the talking shop in Europe to which he disappears now and again?
      Mr. Cook: I perfectly share my hon. Friend's viewpoint that, if I were to seek to detain my electors for 15 minutes to talk about the work of the Council of Europe, there would be considerable misapprehension as to the sanity and the political nous of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central—myself. I am not entirely sure, having been there for only two sessions, that I could succeed in detaining anyone for 15 minutes to talk about the Council of Europe. At least the Council of Europe is an institution of which we have been a member for, I think, 30 years. It is not a live political issue. When it becomes one, I shall certainly be happy to examine the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).
      Mr. George Cunningham: It does no harm.
      Mr. Cook: That is the kindest interpretation.
      What is before us could make a threat to the State of Britain. The claim was made, initially by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and subsequently by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, that we are changing the rules. The trouble is that there are no rules for referendums in Britain. That is the basis of our difficulty. We have blundered into having referendums on Northern Ireland, on the Common Market and now on devolution without ever setting down and saying what should be the rules under which they are conducted.
      It would appear that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will maintain, when he replies to the debate, that the rules set out in the Act concerning the referendum on our membership of the Common

      1513
      Market were rules for all time on referendums in Great Britain. Anyone who sat through the debates on the referendum on our membership of the Common Market will be able to recall countless occasions on which we were assured time and again from the Dispatch Box that it was not a precedent, that it could not be built on in future and that it was not setting down a procedure which would bind Parliament for the future. Indeed, at the time, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—he even more—were seeking to get the Government to accept a commitment to a referendum on devolution. We were very much aware of how difficult it was to build on the Common Market referendum as a precedent for the devolution referendum. We were then given no end of reasons by the Government why the precedent of the Common Market referendum should not be a precedent for anything which might be done over devolution.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Buchan: Especially from the Leader of the House.
      Mr. Cook: Indeed. Yet now we are told that what the House approved in the case of the Common Market must apply in the case of devolution.
      Mr. John Smith: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will say why he thinks that the rules should be different for this referendum.
      Mr. Cook: I shall seek to answer my hon. Friend in three ways. First, fortuitously it turned out that the vote in the Common Market referendum was convincing. Indeed, it would have passed with flying colours the test put in the amendment. Had we been faced with a low turn-out and an unconvincing result, many hon. Members would have wished that they had thought about the matter before.
      Mr. Sillars: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was, in fact, a low turnout of only 64·5 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 62 per cent. in Scotland? Is he also aware that, whereas in Scotland 58 per cent. said "Yes" and 42 per cent. "No"—which would normally be taken as an overwhelming result in Scotland—the people who voted "Yes" were not more
      1514
      than 36 per cent. of the total number of those registered to vote?
      Mr. Cook: The amendment to which I am speaking refers to the figure of 33 per cent., and that is less than 36 per cent. Even in Scotland, where the vote for "Yes" was lower than in the United Kingdom—and it was a United Kingdom referendum—there was a turn-out which would have been sufficient to pass the test.
      I agree that the poll was less than one would expect in a General Election. Here I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, because I think it is unfair to take the figures from a General Election and say that these are normal. At a General Election people are faced with a multitude of choices. We know from experience in Scotland that the more candidates there are—particularly where the SNP intervenes—the higher the turn-out will be. In a referendum the voters have only two choices, and it is not realistic to apply the same test to a referendum as one would apply to a General Election. Without doubt, the result in the Common Market referendum would have passed the test laid down in the amendment. That is the first reason why I do not think that we should be unduly impressed by the Common Market argument.
      The second reason is that, quite clearly, the side that was seeking to change the status quo was that which was voting "No". I campaigned at the time for a "No" vote. I am certainly prepared to agree that, taking a rigorous, logical and impartial judgment on the matter, in equity some such provision as this should have been put into the Bill dealing with the Common Market referendum. Indeed, it was fortuitous that we were saved by the high turn-out from the consequence of not having put it in. Had it been put in, it would have had to be tabled by those who were supporters of the "Yes" case. To expect me, as supporting the "No" case, to come forward with an amendment laying a barrier against my own claim would be to expect of me an impartiality approaching sainthood.
      Thirdly, I come to the nub of the matter. We are discussing this question in the context of a particular case, a devolution referendum, and parallels have been drawn with what was done in the

      1515
      Common Market referendum, which was designed for a particular case. We really ought to be stepping back and taking a more detached view of the matter. If we were to get down to thinking about it when there was no referendum imminent, and if we were able to take a detached view, I believe that without doubt we should come to the conclusion that when there is a proposal to change the constitution there ought to be some minimum qualification which must be fulfilled by those seeking that change.
      Every other country which conducts referendums has rules as part of the system. We are the only people who do not have them. In most cases those rules stipulate a figure which has to be reached by those who wish to change the status quo. That is a reasonable precaution to take, and I submit to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that it is a democratic principle and one to which we ought to be able to subscribe.
      With regard to the two competing amendments, I myself favour 33 per cent. I do so because there are parallels with other countries which use referendums and also because it is a matter of fact that the Governments of 1974 were elected by less than 40 per cent. of the total register. I agree that in logical terms that is perhaps irrelevant and does not strictly apply to referendums, but in terms of the impact of popular perception it will be a powerful argument indeed.
      It is important not only that we should have a fair and reasonable test but that that test should be perceived by the electorate as fair and reasonable. I believe that 33 per cent. will be accepted by most reasonable members of the electorate.
      However, the important question is not what precise percentage we hit upon tonight. Having heard the rather intricate and convoluted arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and those who constantly interrupted him, I do not think that this Committee is the proper place to go into the details about which percentage we should hit upon. The important question is whether we have any such bar at all or whether we let the Bill go through unamended in any way.
      That would be a grave error. One of the reasons is that this might well not be
      1516
      the last referendum to be put through the House. Here I come back to my hon. Friends who laid such store on not changing the rules. Let us gaze at the crystal ball and look at what might happen after the next General Election. It is just possible that the SNP might succeed in its target of getting a majority of seats in Scotland.
      Mr. Canavan: Nae chance.
      Mr. Cook: I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend's view rather than the hypothetical case I am putting forward. But, after all, it would require a smaller swing between 1974 and the next election to give the SNP that target than it actually succeeded in achieving between 1970 and 1974. What will happen in that event? If I am still au fait with the SNP programme. I believe that SNP Members will retire to Edinburgh and instal themselves as the independent Government of Scotland—not a Government in exile, but a Government in residence. They will then enter negotiations on independence with the Government elected at Westminster.
      Of course, it has to be said that SNP Members of Parliament seem to enjoy the atmosphere in the House of Commons and make full use of its facilities. According to their party programme, however, that is what they will do.
      What will the Government Front Bench think when that happens? What will they do then? They will do what they have done with every awkward problem with which they have been faced over the past five years and reach for a referendum on independence. Then it will dawn on them that in all previous referendums they rejected a bar on the percentage of the turn-out and voted for the status quo. If it was unsatisfactory to create a devolved Assembly on a turn-out of less than 33 per cent., it would be outrageous if we were to break up the United Kingdom and give independence to Scotland on such a percentage.
      We shall therefore find that the Government will bring forward the suggestion that there should be a minimum percentage vote for independence before we consider whether it is the preponderant wish of the Scottish people. What a storm will break about their ears when they are seen to change the very rules

      1517
      which applied in the referendum on devolution in the very near past.
      Had the SNP Bench been writing the script by which independence might some day fall into its laps, it could not have done better than write the brief supplied to the Minister. At least, the Committee tonight has an opportunity to save the Government from one of their own follies. I hope that the Committee will take that opportunity.
      Mr. David Knox: I am against these amendments. I found a great deal to agree with in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I am totally opposed to referendums on anything. I was opposed to a referendum on the Common Market, and I am opposed to a referendum on devolution. I believe that the referendum is a dangerous development in our constitution. It undermines the authority of the House of Commons and it was an ill day when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir. H. Wilson) landed us with this concept. But if we are to have referendums we should do all we can to avoid their being mandatory. If the detail contained in these amendments is passed tonight, I believe that it would inevitably tend to make this referendum more mandatory than it would otherwise be.
      Comparisons have been made with the referendum on the EEC. Only my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) fully grasped the point in this respect. The constitutional change proposed at the time of the EEC referendum was connected with our coming out—in other words, it was related to a "No" vote. Are the proposers of these amendments saying that to have come out of the EEC over 40 per cent. of the whole electorate, which would mean over 60 per cent. of those voting, would have had to vote "No". I suspect that this is not what they were saying. If 50·1 per cent. of those who voted in the EEC referendum had voted "No", it would have been concluded that the electorate had voted to come out of the Common Market. Therefore, a different set of rules is to apply to the Scotland referendum from
      1518
      those that were applied to the EEC referendum.
      In Scotland, the size of the majority who voted "Yes" in the EEC referendum amounted to 16 per cent. It Amendment (a) were passed, it would have meant that even though 16 per cent. more of the people in Scotland had voted to stay in the Common Market than had voted to come out, we would have to conclude that the answer in Scotland was "No". Most people would find that situation difficult to explain. In other words, under these proposals it would have been assumed that the majority had voted "No". That would not be acceptable in Britain as a whole or in Scotland.
      Mr. Douglas Crawford: I hope that I shall not take words out of the hon. Gentleman's mouth, but what has been proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is a wrecking amendment. It is as simple as that.
      Mr. George Cunningham: Not at all.
      Mr. Knox: I shall leave that matter for the moment.
      Let me turn to General Election results. I consider those to be important because such results are mandatory and referendum results are not. If we go through all the General Elections held in this country since 1918, we find that the winning party on every occasion except 1931, would not have met the conditions laid down in Amendment (a). General Election results are rather important. Certain actions can be taken by incoming Governments and those actions are irrevocable.
      The present Government obtained 29 per cent. of the votes of the people at the last General Election. Rightly or wrongly—I happen to think wrongly—they have taken certain steps which are irrevocable. They have nationalised the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, and I consider that both these steps are irrevocable. But at that time the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury did not suggest that because the Labour Party received only 29 per cent. of the potential vote those measures should not have been introduced or passed.
      Mr. George Cunningham: It is a good debating point, but in a General Election

      1519
      there is a choice between more than two possibilities. No one candidate is likely to get more than 40 per cent. of the vote. I happened to do so, but not many candidates are in that situation. I claim no credit for that, but I wish to point out that in a referendum one merely has a choice between two possibilities.
      9.30 p.m
      Mr. Knox: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view on that matter. He said that few hon. Members were elected with more than 40 per cent. of the vote of their total electorate. I do not see why we should not retain for referendums the same consistent rules as we have in other elections.
      Both amendments involve fiddling with figures. Some countries may use percentages of above 50 in particular referendums or elections. We have never done so and it seems dangerous that we should set a precedent in this case.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that the referendum would not be mandatory. In theory, that is true, but, in practice, it probably will be mandatory. It would cause immense resentment among Scottish opinion if a majority of Scots voted in favour of devolution and, by the device of one of these amendments, they were deprived of it. I can think of nothing that would drive people to support the separatist cause more than if different rules were applied to the Scots than to anyone else—almost as though it was considered that they were less able to decide for themselves.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a tiny point of detail, is my hon. Friend aware that in two aspects of Scottish legislation—religious instruction and licensing arrangements—we have provisions for referendums with a minimum percentage of the electorate written into the legislation and that the minimum level must be reached before the arrangements can be changed? For example, in my constituency, in Mount Florida ward a substantial proportion of the electorate voted by about two to one for a dry licensing area but their view did not prevail because of the percentage.
      The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to face the
      1520
      Chair? I am missing some of the most valuable contribution that he is making.
      Mr. Knox: I do not think that you missed very much, Mr. Murton. My hon. Friend was talking about rather trivial points such as licensing laws.
      The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) suggested that devolution might be stuffed down the unwilling throats of Scottish people because of a large number of abstentions. I doubt very much whether large numbers will abstain in the referendum, but I find it difficult to see why there should suddenly be this excessive respect shown for abstainers. The Labour Party did not show such respect when it was elected at the 1974 General Election, and my own party did not give excessive weight to the views of abstainers when it won the 1970 General Election. I do not complain about that. I believe that both parties were right. If people do not use their vote, they have no right to demand that they should be taken into consideration. It is dangerous to elevate abstainers into a position of great importance.
      I shall vote against both amendments because they are a nonsense. They are yet another attempt to make it more difficult for the principle of devolution to be established. I do not believe that the "No" vote will win under any rules—even the rules of the amendments. At the same time, it is ridiculous to seem to make it more difficult to get devolution than would otherwise be the case.
      Some of my hon. Friends have made much of the argument that the supporters of devolution oppose the amendments because they are afraid of the outcome. Surely it is the supporters of the amendments who are afraid. They will be happy to impose their will on the basis of a minority of votes cast.
      Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) thinks that licensing laws are a trivial matter, he is coming dangerously near the category of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who said that he was not going to support the Scottish football team.
      Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend withdrew that.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asked, in a sense reasonably, why we had to create these new rules. I stick on one point. We are deciding, on the basis of wafer thin parliamentary majorities and great divisions in public opinion, lasting matters in a way in which few other countries decide their constitutional arrangements.
      In the United States, for example, it requires a two-thirds majority of both Congress and Senate to amend the constitution, or alternatively a convention may be called to propose amendments if two-thirds of the State legislatures request it. In either case, amendments so decided upon become valid only upon ratification by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States or by conventions held in three-quarters of the States. It is for Congress to decide which method of ratification shall be used. Compared with that, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is asking very little.
      In New Zealand, it is a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. In Norway, it is two-thirds of all the Members of the Storting sitting together after the first general election following publication of the proposed amendments. In Austria, it is a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. In Belgium, it is a two-thirds majority of the votes cast in both newly-elected Chambers. In Germany, it is two-thirds of all the Members of the Bundestag and two-thirds of the votes cast in the Bundesrat.
      We are deciding long-term arrangements on the basis of very slender majorities, whereas most other countries build in many more qualifications than occur in this country. It is for this kind of reason that I must say to the hon. Members for Dundee, East, Leek and any others who are of the same view that the built-in caution of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is a very modest proposal and deserves to be supported.
      Mr. Raison: Listening to the debate, the thought has come to me more and more that the referendum is a bad idea in both principle and practice. This debate has exposed the many difficulties. We have had arguments about the size of the majority which should be required,
      1522
      about who the electorate should be, and so on.
      I wish to put to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) one very simple matter. The hon. Gentleman said pretty well what I have said. He said that we did not know what were the ground rules for a referendum and that we were making a muddle. His view is that if the amendments are rejected, it will be a very bad referendum.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook indicated assent.
      Mr. Raison: I cannot help thinking back to the hon. Gentleman's brilliant speech on Second Reading in the course of which he made one of the best attacks against this devolution Bill that I have heard. It was a superb speech. However, at the end of it he flabbergasted the House by saying that, nevertheless, he would not vote against the Bill but, instead, would leave the matter to the referendum.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: Not "leave".
      Mr. Raison: Hand the matter over to the referendum.
      Mr. Cook: I did not say that I would leave it to the referendum. I said that I would campaign actively in the referendum, and I have started to fulfil that commitment already by doing some of the preparatory work. The argument that I advanced in that speech was that there was no interest in my constituency or in Scotland in such an Assembly. If I am proved wrong in the referendum, I accept that the House of Commons will have to produce devolution proposals.
      Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman launched a strong attack against the Bill, and we all thought that he was about to say that he would vote against it, but, instead, he said that he would leave the matter to be decided by the people in the referendum.
      Having heard how unsatisfactory the referendum is, especially in the guise that we are likely to see it, will not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends recognise that we do not have to defeat this proposal in the referendum? We can do it on Third Reading. That is the proper way to defeat the Bill.
      Mr. Buchan: I had not wanted to take part in today's debate, because we had

      1523
      hoped to make progress and come on to what is now the only matter with which we should be concerned—the question of the break-up of the United Kingdom. That means of necessity a second question in the referendum sooner or later. Therefore, only one question faces us, whether we decide now to have a second question or decide to have a referendum on the subject at a later date, when our own foolish actions have pushed us into that disaster.
      I have sat here impatiently, coming from my own private apocalyptic version of Dante's Inferno to witness something of the playgrounds of Versailles in 1789 all around me. We are playing with the issue. The matter has gone far beyond a joke, and perhaps the time for serious speeches has also passed. I shall deal with the technicalities in a moment.
      I wish first to correct some of the arguments about the campaign for a referendum. That campaign was not launched in order to get the Bill through its Second Reading, though that may have been the reason for the acceptance of the referendum. I am astonished when the SNP and the SLP criticise acceptance of the referendum because they claim that that was done to assist, as it did, in achieving the Second Reading. I thought that they were in favour of the Bill, and they should have been pleased about the referendum.
      Secondly, the campaign was not launched in order to have a referendum on devolution. There is no absolute constitutional case for a referendum on devolution. The referendum argument was launched over the second question, the question of independence. That which affects the sovereignty of this House and the State and alters the relationship between those who are elected and those who elect us, the contract that we make at each election, provides an absolute case for a referendum.
      We were not sent to this place to set in motion on our own part moves leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom. If that is to happen, the decision must be removed from us, because we have no rights on that question. We have rights only to rule and govern as we agree in our contract with the electorate for the United Kingdom. A decision to break up the United Kingdom can be made only
      1524
      by the people. The argument about the supremacy of this place and the sovereignty of the State and the argument about the relationship of "we" the elected and "they" the electors both pointed to the necessity for a referendum.
      The referendum was then inevitably linked to the question of devolution. It was almost a year after I launched the campaign for a referendum before I said "I accept that in the public view the question of independence is also linked to the question of devolution. Let us then have a double referendum."
      I argued that matter on the ground that, while there was no absolute case for a referendum on devolution. the new kind of constitution that we were setting up could be so flawed that it would of itself precipitate the political crisis that would crack up Britain, and that the only way to deal with such a flaw was to have the general will behind the decision, to make the constitution work. This links with the amendments.
      The argument became one of getting the general will and support not just for devolution but for only devolution, for an Assembly, whatever might happen in five or 10 years after the referendum. Otherwise, I now believe, we were open to the accidental breaking up of the United Kingdom. That was the proposition that was advanced, one that I have argued for three years in one form or another. Therefore, it points inexorably to the logic of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). If there is to be an acceptance of the Assembly so that it will be allowed to work, there must be a clear demonstration by the Scottish people that they want it.
      9.45 p.m.
      Unfortunately—and this is the difficulty—life is not like that. We do not proceed only by logic. If anything convinced me of the wrongness of these amendments it was the speeches of the hon. Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The hon. Member for South Ayrshire—I am sorry that he is not here, but he should have known that I would take him up on this—made a trivial speech. It was an extraordinary speech but an

      1525
      important one from which to draw conclusions. He said that people did not like making decisions and that during the Common Market referendum he had found that people had said to him "You should be making the decisions." I agree with him. That did happen. But it cannot rest there.
      We cannot say to people "You have done your duty for the next five years." It is not right that people should reject decision-making. They should have to face up to matters and make decisions. It is an extremely élitist position to adopt this attitude. The hon. Member concluded from that experience that the people of Scotland—and I love Scotland, although people might not think so from what the SNP says about me—could be manipulated by those who could depress election results. The point here is that the hon. Member's speech not only displayed a contempt for our people but was typified by a kind of falseness or deceit.
      The hon. Member for South Ayrshire based his view upon his experience and activities as an election agent when he says he deliberately did not go into Tory areas to drum up whatever Labour support there might be there on election day, thus producing a depressing effect. What he is forgetting is that, by the same token, the Tory workers do not go into the Labour areas. Each side tries to stimulate its own supporters. That is not manipulation; it is part of normal political campaigning, and it balances out. To use such an argument is insulting and deceitful.
      A further argument the hon. Member used was that we might not have a full register. That argument was properly answered by those speaking to the amendments. The speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was paltry. But it illustrated the point which has emerged during the debate in the speeches of the hon. Member for Dundee, East and from my own side, and from the Tory Benches. In every case those who were against devolution were for the formula while those who were for devolution were against the formula. The argument had ceased to be based on logic. The logic is undoubtedly on the side of my hon. Friends who support the amendment.
      1526
      The argument became one concerning politics and the politics that emerged from the SNP and the SLP were the politics of cheating. They were saying "We shall cry foul." They know that there is no foul in these amendments. They were also saying that that is the campaign which they will conduct in Scotland. I believe that they will succeed. They already have the centre pages of one newspaper almost in their pockets, divided between the SNP and the SLP. The writer of those pages will also shout foul. I believe that the main popular Press of Scotland will shout foul. Not only will it not listen to the arguments of logic; it will not listen to the arguments. The popular Press has to sell, and to be popular in the sense of selling it has to be populist in its policies. That means following the SNP and SLP line and looking for the easy interpretation. [Interruption.] That is not an argument against the referendum; it is an argument against giving weapons to those who would challenge the validity of the referendum. [Interruption.] if my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) wishes to intervene, I will give way.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting from a sedentary position. The fact is that my hon. Friend knows and I know that the SNP does not carry out what it claims to be its policy on the referendum. Whatever the conditions and whatever the rules laid clown the SNP will cry "Foul." There is no escaping that.
      Mr. Buchan: Of course the SNP will cry "Foul", but that is not the point. The point is that many people, given the situation of a voting formula will believe it to be a foul, whereas very few people will believe it to be so after the event, without that formula. I heard very few people shouting "Foul" after the Common Market decision, including those within the SNP.
      Mr. George Cunningham: Or after the guillotine.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument carefully. I must put it to him that he does not solve his dilemma by rejecting the formula in the amendment. He may only delay that

      1527
      formula. What will he do should the referendum be held without the amendment being made part of the Bill and should the result be that less than 33 per cent., for example vote "Yes", but that represents a majority? What will he do then? Will he say that that is not sufficient for devolution to take place? If he is minded to take that view come that event, will not the cries of "Foul" be increased tenfold in comparison with what they would be if the amendment were accepted and became part of the Bill?
      Mr. Buchan: I am saying that by accepting the amendment we shall create a situation that will be entirely counter-productive from my hon. Friend's point of view. I believe that there would be a great mobilisation of people who would accept that there was cheating. I do not think that there is cheating in the formulae. I think that they are right. However, we have not established these rules in advance.
      My second contention is the third pillar on which I pledged my support—the question which must of necessity at some point happen so that the whole argument can be put forward.
      1528
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that his party does not accept the right of English Members to engage in Scottish affairs. However, his party is willing to support the Tory Party in thrusting a food price increase down the throats of the people of England, and to produce an amendment that went three times as far as the Tory Party's amendment. Over 12 months the SNP's amendment would have increased food prices by 6p in the pound. It advocated a 21·5 per cent. increase in the devaluation of the green pound. I note that SNP Members are shaking their heads in dissent, but that was the effect of their amendment.
      The SNP is willing to thrust a food price increase down the throats of the people of England, yet it is not willing for the people of England to participate in the referendum. They have every right to do so, but I believe that the people of England are too intelligent, tolerant and understanding to exercise that right. Indeed, they should not exercise it. I wish that the hon. Member for Dundee, East would show the same tolerance that has been shown by those with whom Scotland has worked over the past two and a half centuries.
      Mr. Pym: After three hours of debate I hope that it will be thought appropriate for me to make a contribution to the Committee's discussion, especially since at an earlier stage this afternoon I did my best to accelerate the progress of earlier amendments in which I was interested so that the Committee could move on to a range of amendments, including this group, to which it attached great importance. I hope that in the spirit that was shown at the beginning of the day it might be possible for us to reach a conclusion on the amendment.
      It has been an extremely interesting and important debate, and I do not think that three hours was too long. I am bound to say that at the end of the discussion we can only reach the conclusion that the referendum does not have very many friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) described it as a very bad idea. I think that he is right. The referendum has become an unhappy instrument of political convenience. No one has spoken in favour of it today.
      The overwhelming majority of speeches, with some exceptions, have been in favour of the amendment and of creating some threshold. Only a minority have been against it.
      I agree with the view expressed by many hon. Members that we should not make such a major change as this, with all the possible implications for the future, on the basis of a simple majority, perhaps on a very low poll. There have been powerful arguments for requiring that a question of this kind should have "massive support". I think those were the words used by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Expressions such as "an overwhelming majority" have been used. The reason why hon. Members want that kind of result before agreeing to go ahead with the Bill is that it is, in essence, irreversible. Indeed, the Minister of State referred to the Bill as
      "a constitutional change of quite exceptional scope and importance".—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1795.]
      I do not think that anyone would disagree with that statement.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), who referred to the practice
      1530
      for General Elections, should take that into account. This referendum will not be like a General Election. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) pointed out that essentially the decision will be irrevocable. That is the difference. That is why thought is being given to this matter on a different basis.
      The issue before the Committee is not whether there should be a simple majority, possibly on a low poll, but whether we should write precise conditions and exact percentages into the Bill. If we write conditions into the Bill, we shall have to live with them and no doubt take close notice of them. It is no more than a statement of the obvious to say that it would be difficult—even impossible—to alter or to adjust those precise conditions at a later stage.
      If the conditions are met, or are nearly met, however closely, will the House of Commons feel that it is difficult not to proceed on the basis of the figures written into the Bill? We shall de facto, if not de jure, have restricted the extent to which the referendum is consultative. We may not have turned the consultative referendum into a mandatory referendum —indeed, we shall not have done so in any legal sense—but we shall have created for ourselves a restrictive covenant to the otherwise wide open nature of the consultative referendum.
      I think that we are quite justified in saying that a simple majority will not do. The argument that there should be a minimum provision is justified. Considering experience in other countries, we know that constitutional changes are frequently required to be carried through only after a two-thirds majority has been obtained. Many hon. Members have referred to that matter. In the United States, a majority of individual States and their legislatures is required.
      I think that we must be careful about establishing a figure which might be seen as a precedent for future referendums, if such are ever proposed. It is only realistic to suggest that we must consider the possibility of more referendums.
      We should not decide a question of such tremendous importance as this in the context of a three-hour debate. There should be plenty of time to debate the

      1531
      issues before us today. After all, four days were allowed to consider the implications of the referendum on whether we should stay in the EEC. The context of this debate should be a referendum Bill in which all the issues and implications underlying such a proposal could be considered, not the constricted space of a guillotine on this particular Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) would agree with me about that. If we want to pick a particular figure, we should have time to consider what that particular figure should be.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. Crouch: I am most concerned that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) should refer to a particular figure. Is he suggesting that we should, for the first time in this country, begin to put limits on democracy itself, to begin to establish minimum standards of democracy? That is what has worried me for the last three hours, and that is why I want these amendments to be defeated overwhelmingly.
      Mr. Pym: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will allow me to develop my argument because it is an important matter. I was referring to the particular circumstances of the Bill and of this referendum. Placed as we are in this difficulty we must consider it in this context, however wrong we think it is. If we are to consider a particular figure, whether it be a majority of the electorate, a majority of those voting or a combination of both, there is no obvious or magic figure.
      Let us suppose that we chose the figure of 40 per cent. of the electorate. What would happen if the actual figure was half a per cent. above or below that figure? Would we be prepared to stick strictly to that figure? Hon. Members might feel that their judgment after the referendum would be constrained by such a figure. Even though the amendment says that an order must be laid which the House would be entitled to reject, a limitation on our freedom of judgment might arise by having a set figure.
      If we select a figure, it must have some standing, status and meaning. It will tend to be regarded as a minimum figure and as a threshold that must be passed. If it is passed, agreement must be
      1532
      assumed by those who voted. It must be a fair figure and be seen to be so.
      We have heard much about the referendum on our entry into the European Community which was, as a matter of fact and history, passed on the basis that would be attained under the amendment on a United Kingdom basis. It is fair to ask whether we should accept as tough a test as that, or a tougher one, for a referendum applying to a possible Assembly for Scotland.
      There are strong reasons for thinking that we should argue for a stronger test for an Assembly for Scotland because, unlike the European issue, there is no substantial measure of agreement between the parties. That is perhaps the understatement of the year because there are passionate differences between the parties, although the House of Commons as a whole hates this Bill.
      Unlike in the European referendum, the English will have no vote, as we decided rightly or wrongly earlier today, despite the fact that the Bill raises all the issues of the voting rights of Scottish Members on English matters. In any case, is it right that we should be concerned only about the size of the majority? Should we not also consider the spread of the vote? What happens if one part of Scotland votes strongly in favour of an Assembly and the rest votes strongly against? What will the figures mean if we are not to be able to use our judgment after the referendum has taken place? I want to take into account all the circumstances.
      We certainly should have an indication that a decisive or overwhelming expression of support is required, but I am not convinced that we should write into the Bill exact percentages or detailed conditions. Whether or not the conditions are written into the Bill, the House of Commons will have to decide whether to accept the order. That, however, will be a fine judgment. I am not against writing into the Bill some indication of what "overwhelming majority" means. But that is not an easy thing to do.
      On balance, I feel that the House of Commons should leave itself in the position of being able to exercise its judgment in the light of all the circumstances rather than to write a precise figure into the Bill.

      1533
      But in no way does that alter my view that if the Bill were to be passed by Parliament, to be put into effect after a referendum it would certainly require more than a simple majority of a small percentage of the poll. That would not be acceptable. The amendments, however, deal with exact figures.
      The context of this debate should not be in the circumstances of a particular referendum in relation to a particular Bill. To decide an issue such as this, an apparently simple issue—it may well be presented to the public as such—but in fact a complex matter with deep implications which we have been elected here to consider, under the pressure of the guillotine is one good example of how the Government are abusing and neglecting their responsibility for the good and responsible working of this Parliament. I criticise them very much for their whole handling of the matter. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion in identifying the root cause and the main reason why the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill.
      Those are my views on this very important matter. If the people of Scotland decide that this is what they want to do I believe that there must be an overwhelming majority in favour of it. We must take that into account rather than be absolutely limited by a fixed and settled percentage.
      The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Mr. Canavan.
      Mr. Canavan rose—
      Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Sir Myer. You will understand the sensitivity that the Committee might feel in the light of exchanges this afternoon when it clearly indicated that it would wish the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) to have an opportunity to move his Amendment No. 149. My point of order is this. If a further speech is made continuing the debate and the Minister of States does not take the opportunity to speak at this stage, I hope that you would feel able, if the debate was running on, to consider sympathetically a closure motion in order to allow the Committee to express its will.
      The First Deputy Chairman: As far as I am aware, from having just entered the Chamber, the Committee is anxious to come to a decision. I have an assurance from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that he will speak for only five minutes.
      Mr. Canavan: In view of what you have said, Sir Myer, I shall be as brief as possible. I only wish that other hon. Members who are concerned about their own amendments would show the same consideration for amendments tabled by my hon. Friend and myself which, unfortunately, we shall also not have time to discuss.
      I am not a new convert to a referendum on this issue. A few months after I entered the House, I mentioned on the Floor of the House the possibility of a referendum to the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are discussing not the question of a referendum, but the percentage of those who take part.
      Mr. Canavan: Yes, Sir Myer, but other hon. Members have been allowed to make general comments about the referendum. The then Prime Minister was a belated convert to the idea of a referendum on the Common Market, and he became a belated convert to the idea of a referendum on this important issue.
      The reason why we should have a referendum is simple. The people of Scotland are entitled to as much Home Rule or independence, as they want; that is not in question. What is in question is how much Home Rule or self-determination is in their own best interests.
      But if we are to have a referendum and it is to be a useful, democratic instrument, it must be seen to be fair. The most recent example that we have had—indeed, the only precedent that most of the people who will be qualified to vote on the proposed referendum have had—is the referendum on the Common Market. There was no minimum percentage turn-out or anything like that laid down for the Common Market referendum. If the Government are seen now to be changing the rules in this referendum, many of the people of Scotland will think that this changing of the rules as we go along is blatantly unfair.

      1535
      On the question of a minimum turn-out or a minimum percentage of people voting for a particular result, as proposed in the amendment, it is sheer cheek, arrogance and hypocrisy. In this House of Commons, I understand that all that is needed is 40 Members to turn up in the Lobbies in order that a vote be valid. My arithmetic makes that, taking into account that there are 635 Members of Parliament, approximately 6 per cent. of the people who are qualified to vote in this place. It needs only 6 per cent. of them for a vote to be valid. Yet some people in this place have the cheek to say to the people of Scotland that, unless a minimum percentage of 33 or 40 per cent. vote "Yes" in the referendum, the result will be invalid.
      If these or any of the amendments are passed, it will help to undermine the basis of democracy in this country, because one of the basic tenets of democracy in this country is that it is the people who bother to turn up to vote who should influence decision-making. Yet, if the amendment were passed, the people who do not even bother to turn up to vote, those who lie in their beds through laziness, those who sit at home, those who could not care less, the lethargic and the apathetic, would have virtually as much influence, and possibly more, on the result of the referendum as the people who bother to turn up.
      I am disgusted to see that there are some of my hon. Friends on the so-called Left of the Labour movement supporting this, because they are indirectly supporting the idea of the Tories, who are constantly complaining—in the trade union movement, for example—that only a small number of people turn up for branch meetings and, therefore, influence decisions. That is the kind of propaganda that they are swallowing in coming out and proposing and possibly voting for amendments such as this.
      I finish by saying that I think that a lot of the debate has been conducted on a purely hypothetical basis. I do not think that the low turn-out which many people suppose will happen will occur. The vast majority of the people of Scotland will, I think, turn out to vote in the referendum. I can think of many cases in which they have turned out en masse before. In my constituency, for example. 80 per cent. turned out to vote at the
      1536
      General Election. At the local elections in May, 67 per cent. turned out in the ward in which I live.
      I am quite sure that if hon. Members on whichever side of the campaign they happen to be—conduct the campaign in a fair and democratic manner and try to get their supporters to come out to vote, the need for the amendments will be seen to be non-existent. That is why I say that to pass the amendments would help to destroy democracy in this country. It would help to encourage the lethargic and the apathetic rather than the people who participate in democracy.
      Mr. John Smith: The Committee has spent a fair amount of time on the amendments, as I know, having listened to almost all the speeches—every speech, if not every part of every speech made in the course of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will have noticed that the debate started before the time at which it was originally planned.
      Mr. George Cunningham: It would not have done if my hon. Friend had not given in.
      Mr. John Smith: As my hon. Friend well knows, the time for debates in this Chamber is not dictated by the Government. The time for debates is largely dictated by people who speak from the Back Benches.
      Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend has just said the opposite.
      Mr. Smith: I have listened to many debates on the Bill, and I regret that we were not able to reach some of the amendments. I wish that we could discuss every amendment.
      This clutch of amendments, though, seeks to amend the clause of the Bill which deals with the referendum by inserting minimum figures required to be achieved before a result is effected in practice.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Fife Central (Mr. Hamilton) has put forward an amendment of a slightly different character from that of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). As I read the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife Central,

      1537
      it does not argue that the percentage should be of the electorate entitled to vote. His amendment is related to those who actually cast their vote.
      10.15 p.m.
      I can understand that a little more than I understand the argument put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Cook), who operate on a different principle. They say that the percentage they wish to insert should be of those entitled to vote.
      That is a quite remarkable proposition. Those who know anything about politics can grasp it very quickly. My hon. Friends want to get the abstainers on their side. They want counted on their side in the referendum people who do not cast their vote. Behind the ingenuity of some of the arguments and the juggling with figures and comparisons, one can see that that is what they want.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: That is quite right.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend says that, but those who put forward the proposition did not argue or admit that.
      Mr. Cook: I did.
      Mr. Smith: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon if he did so.
      The underlying proposition behind the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central is that the percentage should be of those entitled to vote. Therefore, that means that people who do not cast their vote are counted in the analysis. I do not think that my hon. Friends would dispute that.
      The difficulty about that—this is relevant—is that we did not have any such principle or any such percentage when we had the referendum on the European Community. When that has been pointed out, some hon. Members have said "Oh, well, it was not necessarily a precedent and we are entitled to change our minds." However, the interesting thing is that in the debates on the Common Market referendum Bill it does not appear to have been discussed. I have checked on this matter. Two new clauses were moved. One of them was withdrawn, and
      1538
      there was a procedural wrangle about that. But the point was not argued in the course of the debates on the referendum Bill.
      If it was such an obvious requirement for a referendum, I wonder why the hon. Members who are now urging the point in the case of the referendum on devolution did not have the foresight to do that in the debates on the referendum Bill. It was all the more important to do that on the referendum Bill since it concerned the first referendum that this country had had.
      Mr. Heffer: It is a pity that they did not do so.
      Mr. Smith: It is interesting that anyone who has argued for this so vigorously —indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said that the proposition in his amendment was so self-evident that no one could dispute it —should not have had it occur to him as obvious when we were discussing the referendum Bill.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: It did occur.
      Mr. Smith: Well, my hon. Friend did not do much about it. We could have seen an amendment if there had been one on the Notice Paper. My hon. Friend has offered an explanation, but I do not think it meets the point that it was open to him as a Member of Parliament and a member of the Committee of the whole House dealing with the referendum Bill to table an amendment, which would have been consistent with that which he has tabled now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it important?"] I shall say why it is important. If one changes the rules between one referendum and another, people will ask very searching questions as to why that change has been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have already been changed."]
      Secondly, if there are people participating in the referendum who say that it is unfair that the rules were changed between the Common Market referendum and the devolution referendum, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has a great deal of validity. To have people arguing that a mechanism was operating in the organisation of the referendum count which was unfair to either side

      1539
      would be a most unfortunate thing during the referendum.
      There have been many criticisms of many of the things that happened during the Common Market referendum, the most common of which is the disproportionate amount of money which seemed to be available to one side as opposed to the other. But I do not think that anyone quarrelled with the question or with the way in which the vote was counted. That was also a consultative referendum.
      I think, therefore, that there will require to be a much more convincing explanation than has been offered by the supporters of the amendment as to why the change has to be made. I do not think that they have made such a case.
      Mr. Amery: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I really cannot follow the grotesque argument that he is putting forward. It is not a question of trying to compare one referendum with another. Will he tell us why he is afraid of submitting the Bill to make sure that there really is a substantial element in Scotland which wants devolution?
      Mr. Smith: Certainly I am not afraid, nor are the Government, to submit the Bill to a referendum. That is why we have the referendum clause in the Bill. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman during his speech about the Common Market parallel, he said that he took a quite different approach at the time of the earlier referendum. He took what he described as the "Philosopher King" approach—in other words, "I think I am right and, therefore, I do not need to bother about having a referendum. I am so convinced of the merits that I do not need a referendum". But the fact is that there was a referendum on the Common Market, and the right hon. Gentleman did not take any opportunity to change it.
      I know that it was said that there was unlikely to be another referendum, and that many hon. Members were suspicious of this and said at the time that there might well be another. Who is to know? There might be yet another. I do not know. The last suggestion came from the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who promised to have
      1540
      referendums on industrial disputes. That would lead us to having many more than were ever contemplated before.
      If I do not persuade the supporters of the amendment that there is a great deal of practical importance in there being—[Interruption.] I have listened to all the speeches in the debate, and I am entitled to reply to the points that were made. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West made a speech in which I thought he conceded too much, in a sense, to the proposers of the amendment when he referred to their logic. But he also made the point, which is of very great importance, that the electorate participating in the referendum would have to feel that it was fair.
      Why is it that the supporters of the amendment want to make a change? After all, it is a consultative referendum. There was mention of the possibility of a very low poll. I do not think that there will be. But if, as was suggested, only 13 per cent. voted for one side and 12 per cent. for the other, that would be a matter of which Parliament would take account. I repeat that it is a consultative referendum. Given that it is a consultative referendum, what is the case for building in any particular proportion of votes?
      I think that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) more or less conceded this point. He approached the matter in his usual critical way, but I did not understand him to commend the amendment to the Committee. He was making some of the same points as I have been seeking to make to the Committee, albeit in a different way. It is not necessary for me to repeat them, and I do not have the capacity to do so. [Interruption.] I have not been speaking very long having regard to the number of speeches that were made and also, if I may say so, to the length of some of them. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been present the whole time, but undoubtedly there have been several fairly lengthy speeches. [Interruption.] It is an important matter, because it goes right to the heart of the conduct of the referendum. I fear that if these amendments were carried there would be controversy.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: The Minister would lose.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend says, from a sedentary position, that I would lose. It is the people who are against devolution who are seeking to change the rules on this occasion. Far from its indicating that I am afraid of losing the referendum, I believe it indicates that some of my hon. Friends are afraid of losing it.
      Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Should not the Minister of State be directed by you to show some sensitivity to the desire of the Committee that it should have a Division—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. After roughly four years' experience in the Chair, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I could not wish for a better power to be granted to the occupant of the Chair. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
      Mr. John Smith: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) showed a great deal of concern for other hon. Members during some of the speeches that he has made during the course of devolution legislation, some of which were at excessive length.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I am prepared to entertain that request whenever the Minister of State has finished.
      Mr. John Smith: I am seeking to bring my speech to a close. If hon. Members did not interrupt me on points of order, I would be able to get to the end of it.
      I was asked a number of questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central. First, what is involved in the amendment is that we would be changing the rules. Secondly, no convincing reason has been given for such a change in the rules. In those circumstances, it would be unwise if the Committee were to accept the amendment. I hope that the Committee will accept the referendum in the way in which it is provided in the Bill and will vote against the amendment.
      Question put, That Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 166. Noes 151.

      Division No. 78]

      AYES

      [10.27 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fox, Marcus

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Benyon, W.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Garrell W. E.(Wallsend)

      Lester, Jim (Booster)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Gov, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Loveridge, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Luce, Richard

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Grylls, Michael

      MacGregor, John

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Buck, Antony

      Hannam, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Budgen, Nick

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Marten, Neil

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Mather, Carol

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mawby, Ray

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Clegg, Walter

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Hayman. Mrs Helene

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cooke. Robert (Bristol W)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mendelson, John

      Cope, John

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Costain, A. P.

      Hodgson, Robin

      Mills, Peter

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Holland, Philip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hordern, Peter

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Moate, Roger

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Molyneaux, James

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Monro, Hector

      Doig, Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Moonman, Eric

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hunter, Adam

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morgan, Geraint

      Dunlop, John

      James, David

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Durant, Tony

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

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Emery, Peter

      Jopling, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Newens, Stanley

      Flannery, Martin

      Kimball, Marcus

      Newton, Tony

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Nott, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lamont, Norman

      Ogden. Eric

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Stokes, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Parker, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Percival, Ian

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Shepherd, Colin

      Vaughan, Dr Gerald

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Sims, Roger

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Raison, Timothy

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Rathbone, Tim

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rhodes James, R.

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Speed, Keith

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Spence, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Sproat, Iain

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Stainton, Keith

      Mr. William Hamilton and

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr Tim Renton.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Rooker, J. W.

      Ashton, Joe

      Henderson, Douglas

      Rose, Paul B.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Hooley, Frank

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Bates, Alf

      Hunter, Adam

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Beith, A. J.

      Janner, Greville

      Sever, John

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Johnson, Waller (Derby S)

      Sillars, James

      Buchan Norman

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Snape, Peter

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Campbell, Ian

      Kerr, Russell

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Canavan, Dennis

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Lambie, David

      Stott, Roger

      Cartwright, John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Strang, Gavin

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Luard, Evan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Corbett, Robin

      MacCormick, Iain

      Thompson, George

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Crawford, Douglas

      McElhone, Frank

      Torney, Tom

      Crouch, David

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Cryer, Bob

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Davidson, Arthur

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Madden, Max

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Deakins. Eric

      Magee, Bryan

      Ward, Michael

      Dormand, J. D.

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Watkins, David

      Eadie, Alex

      Marks, Kenneth

      Watt, Hamish

      Edge, Geoff

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wellbeloved, James

      English, Michael

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      White, James (Pollok)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Meacher, Michael

      Whitlock, William

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ford, Ben

      Mitchell, Austin

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Forrester, John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

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

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Freud Clement

      Noble, Mike

      Woodall, Alec

      George, Bruce

      Oakes, Gordon

      Woof, Robert

      Ginsburg, David

      Orbach, Maurice

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Golding, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Graham, Ted

      Pardoe, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Park, George

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Harper, Joseph

      Penhaligon, David

      Mr. James Tinn.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put, That the proposed Amendment, as amended, be made:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I am told—and I have seen this—that there are hon. Members in the "No" Lobby who are sitting down and not being counted.
      The First Deputy Chairman: What happens in the Division Lobbies is not a matter for me. I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to find out what is happening in the Lobby.
      Hon. Members: Cheating.
      Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Will you give instructions that, if the Tellers are not able to report almost immediately, they should be sent for to report the figures that have so far passed them?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I am awaiting the report of the Serjeant at
      Arms, and as soon as I am in possession of it I shall inform the Committee.
      Mr. William Hamilton: I inform you, Sir Myer, that I have seen Members in the Lobby—there are at least five of them—flatly refusing to come out.
      Hon. Members: Cheat.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The Serjeant at Arms has made his report, and I instruct the Tellers for the Noes to bring the figures to the Chair.
      Hon. Members: Cheat.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 168, Noes 142.

      Division No. 79]

      AYES

      [10.40 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Benyon, W.

      Hodgson, Robin

      Palmer, Arthur

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Holland, Philip

      Parker, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Raison, Timothy

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rhodes James, R.

      Buck, Antony

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

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Budgen, Nick

      Jopling, Michael

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Clegg, Walter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Lamont, Norman

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cope, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Costain, A. P.

      Lawson, Nigel >

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Loveridge, John

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Luce, Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Doig, Peter

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      MacGregor, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunlop, John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Durant, Tony

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Speed, Keith

      Emery, Peter

      Marten, Neil

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mather, Carol

      Sproat, Iain

      Flannery, Martin

      Mawby, Ray

      Stainton, Keith

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fox, Marcus

      Mendelson, John

      Stokes, John

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mills, Peter

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Torney, Tom

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Moate, Roger

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Molyneaux, James

      Vaughan, Dr Gerald

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Monro, Hector

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Moonman, Eric

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Grist, Ian

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Grylls, Michael

      Morgan, Geraint

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Hannam, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Newens, Stanley

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Newton, Tony

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nott, John

      Mr. William Hamilton and

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Ogden, Eric

      Mr. Tim Renton.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Rose, Paul B.

      Archer Rt Hon Peter

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Henderson, Douglas

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Ashton, Joe

      Hooley, Frank

      Rowlands, Ted

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Howelis, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Sever, John

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Janner, Greville

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Bates, Alf

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Bean, R. E.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Beith, A. J.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Sillars, James

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Snape, Peter

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Spence, John

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Stallard, A. W.

      Buchan, Norman

      Kerr, Russell

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Lambie, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Campbell, Ian

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stott, Roger

      Canavan, Dennis

      Luard, Evan

      Strang, Gavin

      Carmichael, Neil

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Cartwright, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      McElhone, Frank

      Thompson, George

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Corbett, Robin

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Tinn, James

      Crawford, Douglas

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Crouch, David

      Madden, Max

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Cryer, Bob

      Magee, Bryan

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Marks, Kenneth

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Ward, Michael

      Deakins, Eric

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Watkins, David

      Eadie, Alex

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Weetch, Ken

      Edge, Geoff

      Meacher, Michael

      Wellbeloved, James

      English, Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Welsh, Andrew

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      White, James (Pollok)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Whitlock, William

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ford, Ben

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Forrester, John

      Noble, Mike

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

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

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Freud, Clement

      Pardoe, John

      Woodall, Alec

      George, Bruce

      Park, George

      Woof, Robert

      Ginsburg, David

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Golding, John

      Penhaligon, David

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Harper, Joseph

      Rooker, J. W.

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 149, in page 38, line 3, at end insert—
      '(2A) If the answers given in the referendum show that the majority of the persons giving valid votes in the Orkney Islands area or the majority of such persons in the Shetland Islands area do not wish effect to be given to this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing that in respect of that area
      or. as the case may require, those areas the Act shall not apply, and providing also for the establishment of a commission to recommend such changes in the government of that area or those areas as may be desirable.'.
      A damned close-run thing, if I may say so.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 204, Noes 118.

      Division No. 80]

      AYES

      [10.59 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Bottomley, Peter

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Clegg, Walter

      Awdry, Daniel

      Brittan, Leon

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Buchan, Norman

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Benyon, W.

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Cope, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Costain, A. P.

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Crouch, David

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Canavan, Dennis

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dalyell, Tam

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rathbone, Tim

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lamont, Norman

      Rhodes James, R.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Dunlop, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Durant, Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Emery, Peter

      Lawson, Nigel

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      English, Michael

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Flannery, Martin

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Loveridge, John

      Rose, Paul B.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Luce, Richard

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Ford, Ben

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      MacGregor, John

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fox, Marcus

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Freud, Clement

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Marten, Neil

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mather, Carol

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mawby, Ray

      Shepherd, Colin

      Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Sims, Roger

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mendelson, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Grist, Ian

      Mills, Peter

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Grylls, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Speed, Keith

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Moate, Roger

      Sproat, Iain

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Molyneaux, James

      Stainton, Keith

      Hannam, John

      Monro, Hector

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Moonman, Eric

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morgan, Geraint

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Stokes, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Neubert, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Newens, Stanley

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Newton, Tony

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Nott, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Holland, Philip

      Ogden, Eric

      Vaughan, Dr Gerald

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Hordern, Peter

      Orbach, Maurice

      Watkins, David

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pardoe, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Parker, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Penhaligon, David

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Percival, Ian

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      James, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Younger, Hon George

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Jopling, Michael

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Mr. J. Grimond and

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Raison, Timothy

      Mr. A. J. Beith

      Kerr, Russell

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Doig, Peter

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Eadie, Alex

      Lambie, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Edge, Geoff

      Luard, Evan

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bates, Alf

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Bean R. E.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Forrester, John

      McElhone, Frank

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

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

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      George, Bruce

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ginsburg, David

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Golding, John

      Madden, Max

      Campbell, Ian

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Magee, Bryan

      Cartwright, John

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Harper, Joseph

      Marks, Kenneth

      Concannon, J. D.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Crawford Douglas

      Hooley, Frank

      Meacher, Michael

      Cryer, Bob

      Janner, Greville

      Mikardo, Ian

      Davidson, Arthur

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Deakins, Eric

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spence, John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      White, James (Pollok)

      Noble, Mike

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Whitlock, William

      Oakes, Gordon

      Stott, Roger

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Strang, Gavin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Park, George

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Thompson, George

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tinn, James

      Woodall, Alec

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Woof, Robert

      Sever, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Ward, Michael

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Weetch, Ken

      Mr. A. W. Stallard.

      Snape, Peter

      Wellbeloved, James

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I give notice that I wish to raise a point of order with you when you have completed the painful business that the House of Commons has imposed upon you?
      It being after Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the
      Order [16 th November] and the Resolution [22 nd November], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
      Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 18.

      Division No. 81]

      AYES

      [11.13 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Janner, Greville

      Allaun, Frank

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Eadie, Alex

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Ashton, Joe

      Edge, Geoff

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      English, Michael

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Jopling, Michael

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Flannery, Martin

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Bean, R. E.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Kerr, Russell

      Beith, A. J.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Kimball, Marcus

      Benyon, W.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lamont, Norman

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ford, Ben

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Biggs, Davison, John

      Forrester, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Freud, Clement

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Loveridge, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Luard, Evan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      George, Bruce

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Buchan, Norman

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Buck, Antony

      Ginsburg, David

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McElhone, Frank

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Golding, John

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Campbell, Ian

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Graham, Ted

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Carmichael, Neil

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Madden, Max

      Cartwright, John

      Grist, Ian

      Magee, Bryan

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Clegg, Walter

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hannam, John

      Marten, Neil

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Harper, Joseph

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Cope, John

      Harrison, Rt Hon Water

      Mather, Carol

      Corbett, Robin

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mawby, Ray

      Costain, A. P.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Cryer, Bob

      Heffer. Eric S.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Meacher, Michael

      Dalyell, Tam

      Holland, Philip

      Mendelson, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hooley, Frank

      Mikardo, Ian

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hordern, Peter

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Deakins, Eric

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Mills, Peter

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Doig, Peter

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Mitchell, Austin

      Dormand, J. D.

      James, David

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Moate, Roger

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Stokes, John

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Stott, Roger

      Morgan, Geraint

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Strang, Gavin

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Tinn, James

      Neubert, Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Newens, Stanley

      Sever, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Newton, Tony

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Noble, Mike

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Nott, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Ward, Michael

      Ogden, Eric

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Watkins, David

      Orbach, Maurice

      Shepherd, Colin

      Weetch, Ken

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Palmer, Arthur

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Pardoe, John

      Sims, Roger

      Whitlock, William

      Park, George

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Parker, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Penhaligon, David

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Sproat, Iain

      Woodall, Alec

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stainton, Keith

      Woof, Robert

      Rhodes James, R.

      Stallard, A. W.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mr. Alf Bates and

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Mr. Peter Snape.

      NOES

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Lambie, David

      Watt, Hamish

      Budgen, Nick

      MacCormick, Iain

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Crawford, Douglas

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Spence, John

      Henderson, Douglas

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Mrs. Winifred Ewing and

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Thompson, George

      Mr. Andrew Welsh.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 17

    REFERENDUM
    Amendments made: No. 583, in page 89, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert—
    '9. Every regional and islands council shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officer for its area; and if the council of any region or the counting officer for any region so requests, the council of any district situated in that region shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officer for that region.'.
    No. 624, in page 89, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—
    'Parliament has decided to consult the electorate in Scotland on the question whether the Scotland Act 1978 should be put into effect '.—[Mr. John Smith.]
    Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
    Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The whole Committee will be
    1554
    aware of the disgraceful incident that took place in the Division Lobby earlier. We remember that earlier today, when the Government were criticised for what they tried to do on the first business this afternoon, they tried to resist accusations of skulduggery. What occurred in the Division Lobby less than an hour ago warranted a description infinitely worse than that. It was a deliberate attempt to try to frustrate a subsequent vote when the Committee was operating under the allocation of time procedure.
    We are deeply indebted to you, Sir Myer, for taking the steps which you felt to be justified. I should like to ask you whether you are prepared to tell the Committee the details of the report you received from the Serjeant at Arms, whom you thought fit to ask to go and look into the Lobby. As you will know, there are precedents for what you did and there are precedents for subsequent action which the House decided to take on earlier occasions.
    I ask whether you would feel able to tell the Committee what the Serjeant at

    1555
    Arms reported to you, because there was a very strong feeling in all parts of the Committee that what happened was a deliberate attempt to try to cheat the Committee on a subsequent vote. That is a very serious accusation to make, and I make it in all honesty. I ask whether you would report to the Committee the information which you received.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot) rose—
    Hon. Members: Down.
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no sense in the spokesman for the Opposition, on the one hand, making a point of order and other hon. Members, on the other hand, trying to usurp the duties of the Chair.
    Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. My view is that, if there was improper delay in the Lobbies, that would be a most reprehensible matter. I therefore hope that you will consider the representations put to you. I am not sure whether the best course would be to report to the Committee now or at some later stage. But I would not condone, nor, I believe, would the Committee, any use of the Lobbies for preventing subsequent votes.
    Although this is not on a point of order, may I also say, with regard to the votes that have taken place, that the Government's view is that the decisions of the Committee are most unwise? We shall seek the normal ways of presenting these matters to the House again, just as we are entitled to do according to the normal procedures.
    I do not retract from what I have said in response to the point of order, and I believe that the whole House would wish to see that matter disposed of quite separately.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no use in prolonging this matter. As hon. Members know, I have given careful consideration to what action the Chair could take in the circumstances reported to me. I asked the Serjeant at Arms to make certain inquiries, which he did, and he reported to me. I took what I considered to be appropriate action. The practice and duties of the House and the
    1556
    Chair were not in any way hindered, and the business of the Committee proceeded as the House wished it to proceed. That is all I have to say.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
    Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].
    Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Sir Myer—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The Chairman is no longer in the Chair.
    Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know about you, I do not know about the rest of the House, but I am getting worried about the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) as Leader of the House—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I hope all other hon. Members appreciate, that I, acting now as Mr. Deputy Speaker, am not going to take any points of order dealing with when the House was in Committee.

    EMPLOYMENT (CORNWALL)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
    11.32 p.m.
    Mr. David Penhaligon: After what must be the most effective speech in this House by a Liberal Member for many years, I hope that my contribution, which will be somewhat longer, will have the same effect on the problem that I wish to raise for my constituents.
    The question I wish to raise is unemployment in Cornwall. Cornwall, contrary to the image very often displayed in the newspapers, is the part of this great world where the Industrial Revolution started. Engineering developments there such as the beam engine were very much the start of the Industrial Revolution.
    The trouble is that Cornwall is also the first place where the Industrial Revolution ended. It has more industrial wasteland than any other county in the United Kingdom. It has suffered from

    1557
    unemployment for a long time. I have sat here many times listening ironically to other hon. Members complaining about 6 per cent. unemployment in their areas, for we have long regarded 6 per cent. as a problem solved. Cornwall's unemployment is 12·5 per cent. It is 14·7 per cent. for men. There are 16,840 men and women registered as unemployed in an area as small as Cornwall.
    Cornwall has the highest rate of unemployment of any county in Great Britain. There are only two special development areas that can boast, if that is the right word, of a greater percentage, and they are North-West Wales and Girvan. In a recent parliamentary Question. I asked the appropriate Minister to list the 20 employment exchanges in the United Kingdom with the highest level of unemployment. It gives me no pleasure to tell the House that Cornwall had six of those exchanges and England had just four. This is a tremendous problem.
    Let me give some of the figures applying to Cornwall. The figure of unemployment in St. Ives is 20 per cent., in Helston 20 per cent., Newquay 15 per cent., Camelford 15 per cent., Penzance 14 per cent.. Falmouth 14 per cent. and Wadebridge 13½ per cent. In my constituency, which by Cornish standards is a bright spot in employment terms, there are 1,607 unemployed in the city of Truro and 1,680 unemployed in St. Austell Town. Even in the summer, unemployment in Cornwall is higher than in many special development areas. Statistics which I have seen show that many of the unemployed have been in that situation for more than six months. It is a well-known fact that many of the women who have been unemployed have given up the struggle to obtain employment. Therefore, the figures show the situation in a better light than it actually is.
    It was a Labour Government who in the 1960s introduced development area status. This move was much appreciated in my county. Since that time, the situation has been steadily eroded. More special development areas and intermediate areas have been created and there has been a relaxation in the controls in the more prosperous areas. There has been a change of emphasis which has moved help away from the regions in
    1558
    order to give help to particular industries. In that group are Chrysler, British Leyland and British Steel, all of which have received massive amounts of Government money but not all of which are in development areas.
    In addition, we have lost the regional employment premium. This has been a dire loss in Cornwall since it is an area where many jobs are labour-intensive. Furthermore, we have also lost regional development grants for mining. I do not see any logical reason for this loss. Meanwhile, the present approach to Cornwall's problems hardly gives any great optimism for the future. There is a good deal of anger in the area at the fact that 12 fishing boats from the Eastern bloc are taking 600 tons a day of mackerel from the Scottish and North of England purse seiners. Those boats have fished out their own waters and have come to Cornwall to fish out ours. There is no doubt that, if controls are not put on the situation soon, the Cornish fishing industry will go down the pan.
    We in Cornwall continue to suffer from job centralisation. There has been a centralisation of brain but a decentralisation of brawn. The vehicle licensing operations are now at Swansea, the South Western Water Authority is situated in Exeter, the South Western Economic Planning Group is at Bristol and our road system is planned from Exeter. The Department of Industry operates from Plymouth, Cardiff and Bristol—it is difficult to follow what goes on in those three cities—but none is based in Cornwall. There is now a threat that the Post Office's mechanised sorting operations will mean that further jobs will be stolen from Cornwall as all detailed sorting of mail will be done in Plymouth. The stealing of jobs from Cornwall by other parts of the country is not acceptable.
    I suspect that the reason why we have not attracted much attention in the House is that we have not had the massive bankruptcies that hon. Members are used to. That is hardly surprising since there are only 18 companies in Cornwall which employ more than 500 people. We have a small-firm economy. These figures exclude agriculture, but 52 per cent. of those working in industries in Cornwall work for firms employing fewer than 50 people. The figure for Great Britain is 33 per cent.

    1559
    Of the various schemes operating in some parts of the country, the small firms employment subsidy could do more for Cornwall than any other. It gives £20 a week for six months for every new job created. It is tailor-made for an economy such as that in Cornwall and could do a great deal of good. Will the Minister consider including agriculture within the scope of the subsidy? I do not see why agriculture and industry should be treated differently. The manufacturing of car wheels and the growing of turnips are both adding value to a basic entity.
    The construction industry has been one of the backbones of employment in Cornwall. In 1973, it reached ludicrous levels. If construction had been maintained at that year's level of activity, the whole of Cornwall would eventually be a concrete jungle. Those who manufactured the great building boom of 1973 have much to answer for. It attracted numerous people to Cornwall, and they came under the illusion that there would always be full-time employment for them—when, obviously, there would not.
    It is incredible that we can write to Ministers and put down Questions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) did recently, asking how much of the £400 million voted to the construction industry will be coming to Cornwall and get no answer. Apparently, Ministers have no idea and they shown no great interest. The Government can produce figures for Scotland. The mechanism ought to exist to enable them to produce figures for Cornwall. We should like to know how much of the £400 million will be coming to us.
    The National Enterprise Board exists in every development area except Cornwall. Every other development area has its own board or a regional office. Cornwall does not even have an office in Plymouth—which is where such offices are usually located. Why is that?
    Probably the greatest reflection of our unemployment problem is the low wage structure. Wages in private industry are at least £15 a week below the national average, and until the employment problem is put right it is unlikely that any real effective action can be taken on the low wage problem. I recognise the background of economic difficulties that the country has faced in the past 12 or 18 months, and I am proud that some of the efforts of my right hon. and hon. Friends
    1560
    may have helped towards the upturn that we are now seeing. There is spare money around, and now is the time to put it into unemployment areas such as Cornwall.
    We should like special development area status, and if we cannot get that we should like at least the small firms employment subsidy. I also urge the Minister to consider extending that scheme to agriculture. One further attraction of special development area status is that many firms in Cornwall would qualify for grants, because standards of size are lower. They do not qualify while the county has only development area status. I have explained already how much Cornwall depends on these small companies for employment.
    We would like the advance factory procedure simplified. I must admit that at times I would not mind if someone explained it to me. But certainly we would like it simplified. It takes far too long. The local people in Cornwall feel that they are discriminated against, and I have pursued one or two cases on their behalf.
    The real question is why there is no industry department in Cornwall. If the Plymouth office is set up mainly to service the development area in Cornwall, why is not it in the county?
    The job release scheme could be improved greatly if a larger sum could be offered to those who wish to retire early. But will it be renewed, and what will be the effects of this in Cornwall? I know that it has been of some use.
    Real action is required to help fishing. I cannot emphasise too much that, unless early and dramatic action is taken, there will be no mackerel fishing in Cornwall, and we shall have two and three-year bans on mackerel-fishing, as exist in Scotland for herring, and those engaged in it in the county will be crushed and put out of business.
    We ought to have more information about the construction industry.
    I put those five factors to the Minister, but most of all I wish to put to him the social problem. I am very much a born Cornishman, as hon. Members will have guessed. The problem is severe. When a young man comes into my surgery, as often happens, asking me for advice on the career that he should pursue, it gives me no pleasure to have to tell him, as one

    1561
    Cornishman to another, "Young man, if you want a career, you had better go to England". For a short while it was not necessary to say that, but the problem is now back with a vengeance. Our youngsters are making good use of the various schemes which are available, but there is not the sort of training and permanence of employment which many of us desire to give them.
    I have met hundreds of men who have reached the age of 50 and who have given up all hope of being employed. Twelve months of effort seems to have convinced them that at the age of 50 they are beyond any useful occupation. That is not satisfactory.
    In Cornwall I have criticised the county council often enough, and no doubt when I am in Cornwall I shall continue to do so. After all, that is the best place to do it. But it is improving, and I take some credit for the fact that my nagging has caused that improvement. I am hoping tonight that my nagging in this debate may cause some improvement in this House. Can the Minister look forward to greater help for Cornwall? Does he recognise how serious the problem is in Cornwall? Can he assure us that some of the schemes that I have outlined will receive urgent attention? I believe that they are the minimum required to save Cornwall from reaching the 15 per cent. unemployment level that I have been predicting year after year.
    11.47 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has rightly spoken with passion about the problem of unemployment in Cornwall, and I begin by giving him the assurance that we recognise the problem and that we shall take notice of what he said about the extension of schemes to see whether we can help towards its solution.
    The Government share the hon. Gentleman's concern. The figures are frightening. In Cornwall as a whole, in January there was an unemployment rate of 12·5 per cent. and, as the hon. Member says, the male unemployment rate was 14·7 per cent. Even at the height of the summer season, in August, the figures were 10 per cent. and for males 12·4 per cent. and the figures for youth unemployment are also very bad. This month, there were
    1562
    still 2,478 young people unemployed in Cornwall, 374 of them school leavers.
    Cornwall is suffering from the present world recession, but the recession, however harmful, cannot be the only explanation of the very high figures. Nor is the unemployment entirely seasonal, although this factor is important, otherwise the figures for August would not be so high. A 10 per cent. level of unemployment in August cannot he dismissed as being due to the recession or seasonal factors. The Government have no intention of so dismissing it.
    Nor—although it is a small factor—can we claim that a major cause of the problem is that occupational pensioners are going to live in Cornwall and registering as unemployed. It could be that many of the unemployed are much younger people who have travelled to Cornwall in search of work and have preferred to be unemployed there than elsewhere. Certainly no one can blame them if that is true, although the Department has no evidence to prove or disprove it. In any case, if it were true, there is nothing we could do about it, because people must be free to live and work where they wish. What we must try to achieve is jobs for Cornish people, particularly the youngsters who wish to work in Cornwall.
    In my maiden speech I expressed concern that the bright young people of North Staffordshire had to leave their home area to find suitable careers, so I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's demand for Cornish people the right to obtain good jobs with good pay and prospects in their own locality.
    I also understand the strength with which the hon. Gentleman defends Cornwall against Whitehall, and I shall try to respond tonight with all the understanding that a provincial Member can bring, although I must say that every locality I visit believes itself to be the most neglected. That includes parts of London which themselves face enormous problems.
    We do want the young and adults of Cornwall to have regular jobs and I shall try to help in the creation of those jobs. In the meantime, we want Cornwall to keep taking advantage of the Government's special measures. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the job release scheme, although I had hoped that even more advantage would have been taken of it than has been taken so

    1563
    far. I appreciate the argument that can be advanced about the level of the payment. Nearly 8,000 people in Cornwall have benefited from the Government's special measures so far, but there is still scope for much greater effort on the part of employers, particularly as regards the schemes for young people.
    I very much enjoyed visiting Truro Garages with the hon. Gentleman last year to see its successful work experience scheme, which has helped a number of young people. I was particularly glad to hear that four of the youngsters concerned have since been offered permanent jobs by the company.
    On the same visit we saw the Probus village hall job creation project. I am delighted that the hall has now been completed. The Government are ready to provide money for projects of this kind in Cornwall. I hope that employers, trade unions and local groups will continue to support these schemes, which help both young people and the locality.
    We have done much in the past year for which the hon. Gentleman pressed in the debate on employment in the South-West last February. We have reduced tax on the lower paid. Changes in personal tax allowances last April removed 2.1 million lower earners from tax altogether.
    On the question of employment, I am delighted to report that the prospects for china clay in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are good, particularly in the long term.
    Tonight the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of grants to tin mining. I understand the importance of this industry to Cornwall, but I believe that, if prices and the ore content hold up, prospects are good. We cannot give subsidies, which are the taxpayers' money, to firms which do not need them. The hon. Gentleman would need to present a very strong case on employment grounds for the subsidy that he claims. I say in passing that the regional employment premium was scrapped because it was thought by industry itself not to be giving value for money in terms of jobs. This we must try to do. As an aside, may I say that regional employment subsidy was not defended until after it had been abolished? Beforehand it was continually attacked and criticised. No one defended it.
    Mr. John Pardoe: I hope that the Minister will not spread that remark over the whole of the forces in this House. The Liberal Party has long advocated this form of subsidy to labour-intensive industries, and we stoutly defended it. We were appalled when the Government, who fought the last General Election on the basis of keeping the subsidy—opposing the Conservative policy of scrapping it—reversed their decision.
    Mr. Golding: The voices raised in support of REP were not very loud. Those of us who had defended it thought that there was general criticism. It is not the case that we are not prepared to give assistance to Cornwall. That is why the bulk of the county was given development area status. This made it possible for the Government to announce the building of 11 advance factories which will provide 320 new jobs when they are fully operational.
    I shall pass on to the Department of Industry the criticisms made by the hon. Member about procedure. Our policy has enabled us to give financial assistance totalling £46 million to the South-West assisted area since 1972. It is not true, therefore, that the money always goes elsewhere. Some £3.2 million of the £46 million was regional selective financial assistance which has provided about 3,200 additional jobs and safeguarded a further 500.
    The Department of Industry advertises extensively in the national Press concerning the availability of Government incentives for firms wishing to move to or expand in the assisted areas. The advertising covers the availability of advance factories, and in 1977 there was a good response from firms interested in the South-West assisted area. In Cornwall in the past five years the average period that advance factories have remained vacant between completion and allocation has been about 12 months. That is not a bad record.
    I know that the hon. Member wishes the Government to go further and grant special development status to the area. This is a matter for the Department of Industry. and I know that the Minister of State is receiving a deputation on 16th February to discuss this question. I do

    1565-66
    not hold out any hope that that status will be granted.
    One important question raised by the hon. Member referred to the small firms employment subsidy. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the case that has been put tonight. At present, my right hon. Friend is reviewing the scheme. I am sure that he will take account of tonight's debate. Although I am not sure that there can be an extension of assistance to agriculture, I can say that there is certainly a realisation that small firms are important to Cornwall. The hon. Member knows that the Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the Member for Keighley Mr. Cryer, are devoting much energy to this cause.
    Let me cite a few things that have been done in the past year, since the time of the last debate on the South-West. There have been a number of tax concessions in favour of small firms, including relief from capital gains tax. The rate of interest on loans from the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas has been reduced. The Small Firms Counselling Service has been extended. I understand. indeed, that that scheme began in the South-West because of the importance of small firms in that area—from which it will be seen that the South-West is not left out of consideration. In addition, there are now loans available for 50 per cent. of initial overhead costs to help exporters develop overseas markets.
    In Cornwall, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and the Development Commission have been active. That is because we realise the great importance of tackling rural unemployment. I have discovered on travelling around the country what a great problem rural unemployment is, especially for young people living in villages and small towns. The Development Commission plans to build 39 advance factories in Cornwall, and these are expected to provide about 370 additional jobs. Loans by the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas for tourism in the first nine months of the
    1567-68
    financial year had already reached £277,000 compared with £220,000 for the whole of 1976–77. Its loans to small industries have increased sharply from £25,000 in 1976–77 to £103,000 in the first nine months of this year.
    The hon. Gentleman is interested in the export of fine pottery. Of course, I have always claimed that the finest pottery is made in North Staffordshire. However, I understand that the British Overseas Trade Board is in touch with the Cornwall Development Association about its plans to set up an export co-operative along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested in the debate last year. The BOTB has offered to assist the cooperative with its marketing plans.
    I have talked so far about the development of industry and rural crafts, but tourism has still to provide needed jobs and incomes to Cornwall. We have as a Government made a great effort to help Cornwall in this respect. The area from Bude to Wadebridge in North Cornwall is one of the three districts chosen for a pilot scheme to promote the tourist industry by developing high-quality accommodation, by providing activity centres and by introducing more effective promotional marketing.
    This will be the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have ever heard me finish on time in an Adjournment debate. I shall have no time to talk about fishing or agriculture, but perhaps when I visit Cornwall later in the year I shall get a chance to talk about those subjects. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to all that has been said about fishing and agriculture.
    Tonight I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to express my concern at Cornwall's plight, and I do so sincerely. There is a terrible problem in Cornwall, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are anxious to help.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Livestock (Exports)
  Livestock (Exports)
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
  European Prices
  European Prices
  Exmoor
  Exmoor
  European Community Aid
  European Community Aid
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  British Steel Corporation (Select Committee's Inquiry)
  British Steel Corporation (Select Committee's Inquiry)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Policewomen
  Policewomen
  Police (Sussex)
  Police (Sussex)
  Illegal Immigration and Employment
  Illegal Immigration and Employment
  Arms Sales (South Africa)
  Arms Sales (South Africa)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Royal Silver Jubilee
  Royal Silver Jubilee
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community
  European Community
  Travel by Car
  Travel by Car
  Victoria Cross
  Victoria Cross
  Capital Movements (European Community)
  Capital Movements (European Community)
  Treasury (Banking)
  Treasury (Banking)
  National Savings
  National Savings
  South Africa
  South Africa
  European Currency Snake
  European Currency Snake
  Personal Incomes (Unearned)
  Personal Incomes (Unearned)
  Wine and Spirits
  Wine and Spirits
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
  Income Tax (Yield)
  Income Tax (Yield)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Homeworkers
  Homeworkers
ENVIRONMENT
  Liverpool (Housing Finance)
  Liverpool (Housing Finance)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Residential Property
  Residential Property
  Exmoor
  Exmoor
  Woodwool Formwork
  Woodwool Formwork
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Home Defence Planning (South Glamorgan)
  Home Defence Planning (South Glamorgan)
TRANSPORT
  Rail Fare Increases
  Rail Fare Increases
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Roads (Wessex)
  Roads (Wessex)
  Parking (Restriction Indication)
  Parking (Restriction Indication)
  M1-A1 Link
  M1-A1 Link
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing (Departmental Acquisition)
  Housing (Departmental Acquisition)
  Departmental Banking
  Departmental Banking
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Flood Relief
  Flood Relief
  CIVIL JURISDICTION (BRUSSELS CONVENTION)
  CIVIL JURISDICTION (BRUSSELS CONVENTION)
  CRIME (AIR TRAVEL)
  CRIME (AIR TRAVEL)
ENERGY
  Electricity Consumers
  Electricity Consumers
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Research
  Nuclear Research
  Aircraft (Exhausts)
  Aircraft (Exhausts)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  Photography
  Photography
  Tate Gallery
  Tate Gallery
  Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery
  Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery
  Special Education
  Special Education
  Kemball School, Stoke-on-Trent
  Kemball School, Stoke-on-Trent
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
INDUSTRY
  Nationalisation (Compensation)
  Nationalisation (Compensation)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Regional Fund
  Regional Fund
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Sir Charles Villiers
  Sir Charles Villiers
  Postage Stamps (Transkei)
  Postage Stamps (Transkei)
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  MR. WALTER NORVAL
  MR. WALTER NORVAL
EMPLOYMENT
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Students
  Students
  Home Workers
  Home Workers
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Wages Council (Inspectors)
  Wages Council (Inspectors)
  Wages Regulations (Infringements)
  Wages Regulations (Infringements)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Tourism
  Tourism
DEFENCE
  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  BAOR Allowance
  BAOR Allowance
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
  Fire-fighting Duties (Injuries)
  Fire-fighting Duties (Injuries)
  British Frontier Service
  British Frontier Service
  Personal Effects (Storage)
  Personal Effects (Storage)
  Service Allowances
  Service Allowances
  Civilian Employees
  Civilian Employees
  Pay
  Pay
TRADE
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Ferry (Portrush-Oban)
  Ferry (Portrush-Oban)
  Textile Imports (Hong Kong)
  Textile Imports (Hong Kong)
  Airports (London)
  Airports (London)
  Hairdressers
  Hairdressers
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Travel Industry
  Travel Industry
  Japan (EEC Negotiations)
  Japan (EEC Negotiations)
  Children's Films
  Children's Films
  Safety at Sea
  Safety at Sea
  Parking Meters
  Parking Meters
SCOTLAND
  Police
  Police
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Immigration (Local Government Expenditure)
  Immigration (Local Government Expenditure)
  Road Signs (Metrication)
  Road Signs (Metrication)
  Regional Fund
  Regional Fund
  Blantyre
  Blantyre
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
WALES
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dr. Lim Poh Choo
  Dr. Lim Poh Choo
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Voluntary Services
  Voluntary Services
  Dentistry (Children)
  Dentistry (Children)
  Ambulance Services
  Ambulance Services
  Special Investigations
  Special Investigations
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Population (North-West Region)
  Population (North-West Region)
  Investment (Employment Effect)
  Investment (Employment Effect)
  Eraldin (Practolol)
  Eraldin (Practolol)
  Special Investigators
  Special Investigators
  Benefits (Abuse)
  Benefits (Abuse)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Unemployment Benefit Review Officers
  Unemployment Benefit Review Officers
  Widows (Contributions)
  Widows (Contributions)
  Australian Corned Beef
  Australian Corned Beef
  Expenditure (West Yorkshire)
  Expenditure (West Yorkshire)
  Medical Laboratory Staff
  Medical Laboratory Staff
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turkey (Foreign Minister)
  Turkey (Foreign Minister)
  Spain
  Spain
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Overseas Representation
  Overseas Representation
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Southern Africa (Defence and Aid Fund)
  Southern Africa (Defence and Aid Fund)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Armaments (Expenditure)
  Armaments (Expenditure)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Horn of Africa
  Horn of Africa
  India
  India
  Uganda
  Uganda
  International Year Against Apartheid
  International Year Against Apartheid
  Paraguay
  Paraguay
  Spain (Detained British Subjects)
  Spain (Detained British Subjects)
  Anatoly Shcharansky
  Anatoly Shcharansky
  Belize
  Belize
  Angola (British Prisoners)
  Angola (British Prisoners)
  Iran (Arms Sales)
  Iran (Arms Sales)
  Arms Sales (United Nations Resolution)
  Arms Sales (United Nations Resolution)
  Crime (Air Travel)
  Crime (Air Travel)
  USSR (Embassy)
  USSR (Embassy)
  Embassy (USSR)
  Embassy (USSR)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Enlargement
  Enlargement
  Political Co-operation
  Political Co-operation
  Commission Management Committees
  Commission Management Committees

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.
The Lord Vaux of Harrowden—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY STUDY
Lord HUNT: 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 are now in a position to announce the establishment of a study of the Ordnance Survey, and whether representative bodies and individuals have been invited to serve on the committee which will undertake this study.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my right honourable friend announced on 17th January that he had asked Sir David Serpell to chair a committee reviewing the Ordnance Survey and that he would be announcing the names of committee members very shortly.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, could the noble Baroness have surmised that I was aware of the Answer that she has just given and that I had kept my Question on the Order Paper in the light of its second part? By fixing a date or asking the committee which is to be set up to report early in 1979, is she aware that that inference of urgency will give great satisfaction to everyone who has been concerned about the future of the Ordnance Survey and who has been anxiously awaiting that decision? Will the Minister not agree that, with barely a year before the committee is expected to report, the complexity and thoroughness of the investigation with which that committee will be faced makes it imperative that the names of the committee
336
members should be announced not merely soon—as was stated in the Written Answer to a Question of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—but in the very immediate future? Is the noble Baroness prepared to give us a date for that announcement?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept the need for urgency in establishing the committee, and we hope that it will be able to present its report as we plan within the 12 months. Some of the formal invitations have already gone out; the remainder are expected to go out shortly. I regret that I cannot put a date on the word "shortly," but I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that it will be very shortly, and we hope that the committee will soon get down to work. My hope then is that all noble Lords who have expressed concern about the Ordnance Survey will make sure that the committee knows their views.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, irrespective of the necessity for this committee, does the noble Baroness agree that many people in this country—among whom I include myself—are very impressed by the excellence of the one-inch Ordnance Survey and of the 1:50,000 which has taken its place?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, I share the noble and learned Lord's concern about this and his appreciation of what the Ordnance Survey are doing at the moment.

FIRE FIGHTING: SERVICEMEN'S TRAINING
2.41 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 what consultations they have had with the Ministry of Defence concerning the number of hours needed to train Servicemen to use fire fighting equipment in general and breathing apparatus in particular.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government carefully

337
studied the question of Servicemen using breathing apparatus and other specialist fire fighting equipment normally used by civilian firemen. Any specialist equipment requires not only training in its operation but also considerable experience—in the case of breathing apparatus, several months—before it can be used effectively and without endangering the operator.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the Question asks whether, not Her Majesty's Government, but the Ministry of Defence, had been consulted; and, if so, to what extent? Will he also bear in mind that there is evidence that well-trained and well-disciplined soldiers could have learnt to operate this breathing equipment not in a matter of months but in a matter of hours? Is the Minister receiving the best possible advice in the interests of the public?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord must be well aware that Her Majesty's Government and the Ministry of Defence are one and the same organisation. However, consultations did take place and the decision was that the timescale did not permit training in fire fighting apparatus for the ordinary soldier who was not already a specialist.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, or is the Ministry of Defence aware, that the whole of the Submarine Service was already trained in the use of oxygen equipment? Does that not point to two facts: first, that our Services are so small that we cannot take anything off to deal with these other crises; and, secondly, that the biggest mistake ever made by the present Prime Minister when he was Home Secretary was in abolishing the Civil Defence Corps, because that would have provided us with up-to-date fire fighting and other equipment?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not enough that the men in the Services have done a first-class job in most difficult circumstances?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend for putting his finger on a very key point.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to put before us figures of the number of fires and incidents attended by the Services during the strike period, and comparable figures for the normal fire brigade in the previous year?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question, but I am certain that, if put down, it could be answered.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government have actually thanked the Army for the work they have done over a period of several weeks? I think that this would be a good opportunity to see that this is done.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Certainly, my Lords. But I think that the views of your Lordships' House will be much appreciated.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider the point put by my noble friend here, that as we have now had experience of the volunteers of the Army manning the fire brigade over a long period, would it not be worthwhile comparing the degree of manning, and the number of calls made on their time, to make sure that we have got the very best experience and results of this crisis? We then might be able to judge how we might better and more efficiently construct the fire brigade in the future.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is an interesting point, but I think it is wider than something to be raised at Question Time.

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
2.45 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can clarify the present position regarding the Falkland Islands.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the position is clear. With the agreement of the

339
Falkland Islands Council, we are conducting negotiations with Argentina covering political relations, including sovereignty and economic co-operation. As the terms of reference state, a major objective of the negotiations is to achieve a stable, prosperous and politically durable future for the Falkland Islands. The Islanders are being fully informed and consulted as the negotiations proceed.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Would he not agree that the rumours which appeared in the Press immediately before Christmas, that there was some sort of serious thinking in Whitehall that the Falkland Islanders should be pressurised into accepting a reduction in their sovereignty, were most undesirable? If he agrees with that, can he give an assurance to the House that the Government themselves are not supporting such thinking in any way whatsoever?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that those rumours were groundless. I hasten to repeat once more the categorical assurance given by my right honourable friend in the other place, and by myself in this House. The Government have given full assurances to the Islanders that no proposals affecting the future status of the Falkland Islands will be brought before Parliament unless they are acceptable to the Islanders themselves.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has just said, would he tell us what Her Majesty's Government intend to do to develop the Falkland Islands, which is really the crying question of the time?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, these discussions are mainly, in our view, aimed at ensuring the right sort of climate and opportunity for such developments not just in the Falkland Islands but in the South-West Atlantic generally. We feel that we, Argentina and the Falklands could very profitably engage in consortial action to develop the undoubted riches of this area with benefit to all three peoples.
As to our immediate programme, I am glad to tell the House that, while certain long term and massive proposals which
340
have great virtue—such as those proposed in sections of the admirable report produced by my noble friend Lord Shackleton—are not immediately practicable, there are nevertheless a number of schemes of development within the Islands themselves which are now making progress. I have a long list here. Perhaps on a more appropriate occasion I might give more detail, or in answer to further Questions—perhaps a Question for Written Answer.
We have agreed to assist in the development of agriculture and its diversification and in the diversification of the industrial activity of the Islands generally, much of it springing from an improved agriculture. I know the noble Lord himself is particularly interested in this subject, about which he made an extremely helpful speech on one occasion when we debated this matter a few months ago. We have agreed to help in developing the road system—the communications of the Islands—and also to set up a new tertiary school hostel so that secondary school children can be more effectively taught at the somewhat advanced level up to the age of about 17. There are other, not proposals, but projects on which my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, in concert with my own Department, is actively engaged now.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, while it is possible to formulate proposals for a change in the political relationship between the Falkland Islands and Argentina which would be acceptable to the people of the Islands, will the noble Lord consider very carefully before going any further with these negotiations, whether, so long as the régime in Argentina continues to detain people without trial, to use torture as an instrument of policy, and to murder its own citizens in broad daylight on the streets, as well as detaining a United Kingdom citizen within the last three months, it is likely that any progress will be made on the restoration of freedom in Argentina?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course, we would strongly encourage any such progress within Argentina. Argentina is a country with which this country has enjoyed a very long and close friendship based on a wide and mutually profitable trade, which I am

341
glad to see from the latest returns is again reviving. We should not, therefore, consistently take a pejorative attitude towards the Argentinian Government, but should constantly call to mind the good feeling and good co-operation of the past and use that to solve present and future problems. We have made it absolutely clear to that Government how we view certain practices which are an abuse of human rights, but, in so doing, we also hope to build on the positive relationships of the past.
Lord HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, while not in any way dissenting from what the noble Lord said about our long relations with Argentina, is it not a fact that these Islands of English-speaking people in or near the South American continent are not simply relics of colonialism, but small peoples whose rights and culture and right to self-determination should be accepted, irrespective of the character of the regimes to which they are neighbours? Will Her Majesty's Government—I am sure they will—constantly bear in mind that British people all over the world are not for sale?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The noble and learned Lord puts it so well, my Lords. I enthusiastically join him in the sentiments he expressed and I would only add, as a non-legal Member of this House, that we are bound by Resolution 1514 of the United Nations General Assembly to do precisely that.

UN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS
2.52 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 how the British delegation at the United Nations General Assembly voted on the proposal to appoint a Director General for United Nations economic affairs and what was the voting.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on 20th December, 1977, the General Assembly adopted by consensus
342
its Resolution No. 32/197 taking note of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the restructuring of the economic and social sectors of the United Nations system. Among other things, this report invited the UN Secretary-General to appoint a Director General for Development and International Economic Co-operation. The United Kingdom delegation, which had played an active part in the work of the committee on restructuring, joined in this consensus.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, may I ask whether this is not a development of momentous significance? Does it not mean that there will be an economic arm of the United Nations to complement the political arm, that it will co-ordinate the Unites Nations agencies, 80 per cent. of its activity, and be able to put forward proposals for a new world economic order to replace the economic mess which there is in the world today?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I very much hope so, my Lords. I join my noble friend entirely in his hopes, and arising from these reforms I think there is fair ground for expecting improved capability by the United Nations in the economic and social fields. The encouraging feature of this Resolution is not only its contents but the fact, as I have said, that it was adopted by consensus.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I supplement that point by asking my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will follow their support of this proposal in the United Nations by seeking to implement its possibilities; by dealing with the hunger of half the world, by dealing with the unemployment of 30 million people in the work and by dealing with the problem of the growth of world population by seeking to fertilise the deserts and other non-arable areas?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Certainly, my Lords, and I think I am within the agreement of the entire House when I say that this country has bilaterally performed, and is performing, a very worthy part in helping to solve the problems to which my noble friend referred. Multilaterally, through the United Nations, I repeat that

343
in the preparations for this very useful and significant Resolution the United Kingdom delegates played a very prominent part indeed.

THERMAL REACTOR POLICY
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Kirkhill will repeat a Statement on thermal reactor policy.

TANKER SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
2.55 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER Lord RITCHIE-CALDER rose to call attention to the forthcoming International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention (6th-14th February 1978); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful that we are able to have this debate today. I would remind the House that it is a short debate and therefore I recommend all my colleagues who will be taking part to keep their speeches short, and I hope to set a good example.
It is a bit embarrassing, if not unfair, for the Government to be asked in advance of a diplomatic conference to disclose the cards in their hand or maybe up their sleeve, but I am sure I will not abash my noble friend Lord Oram, who knows that my intentions are of the best. If the moment is awkward, it is because some of us in your Lordships' House want to see that Her Majesty's Government do not find themselves in a fortnight's time out on a limb from which they cannot crawl back or, worse still, which is cut off behind them.
There are really two main concerns in this debate and both are crucially important. The first is the question of tanker loading and the second is that of the Hydrographic Service, about which your Lordships have already expressed your alarm and which, in terms of tanker safety, is the subject of the conference and is desperately important. I shall confine myself to tankers and rely on my noble friend Lord Kennet to deploy, much better than I could, the arguments which I would have put for the Hydrographic Service, about which I feel very strongly.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Seas, ACOPS. Our credentials are impeccable; the president is my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and the very active vice-president, as noble Lords will see today, is the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Your Lordships' House has provided my predecessors as chairmen in the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, my noble friends Lord Shackleton, Lord Kennet and Lady White. I will not recite the list of 23 authorities, important organisations, which are represented on our Committee. That Committee is profoundly concerned about the outcome of the international conference which we are discussing. We are a disinterested body committed to preventing pollution of the seas and the defilement of our shores, with which our local authority members are all too familiar.
I do not have to make a case against pollution; I need only mention the "Torrey Canyon", the "Santa Barbara" oil spill, Ekofisk or any of the dozens of cases of tanker damage and wrecks and of deliberate discharges. Governments, oil companies and shipping companies have acknowledged their responsibilities. The Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Committee has been explicit in defining those responsibilities, but unfortunately its assembly resolutions, like those of NATO and the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, are not legally binding because the rules of jurisdiction are hung up in the protracted Law of the Sea Conference.
In 1973 the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships was adopted, but has so far received only three ratifications. However, the United States Government, as a result of pollution incidents off the North American coasts, tabled a set of comprehensive proposals at IMCO, backed by an emphatic policy statement by President Carter. This has precipitated the diplomatic conference which will take place on 9th February and which we are discussing today.
At the conference there will be discussions of improved crew standards and that, I imagine, will raise very little controversy; it is like being for motherhood or against sin. Anyway, there will be in June an International Conference

345
on the Training of Seafarers. There will be proposals before the conference to tighten up the frequency and quality of the inspection by which vessels are certified fit to operate. All maritime States support those proposals. Then there are construction and equipment standards—and I want to stress this—on which the outcome of the conference will depend. The items include improved radar and collision-avoidance aids for all tankers; improvement of emergency steering in narrow waters, and so forth, an indispensable provision from our point of view, particularly in places like the English Channel; improvement in the inert gas system for all tankers, to reduce the risk of explosions, of which we have heard quite frequently; double bottoms for all new tankers, to reduce oil pollution resulting from grounding accidents; and, lastly, segregated ballast tanks for all tankers, to reduce pollution from operational practices.
My understanding is that the arguments for ships being double-bottomed will not be effectively sustained. Therefore, the highly controversial issue is segregated ballast. Segregated ballast is, quite simply, the use of separate tanks and piping systems for oil and for water. Some of your Lordships may be surprised that that does not apply now, or some with more insight may think, as every schoolboy (or perhaps I ought to say "every schoolperson") knows, that oil and water do not mix. But they do when it comes to discharging ballast. Anyway, at the 1973 IMCO conference it was agreed that segregated ballast tanks were to be the preferred method of reducing pollution from tankers, and it was laid down that all new tankers must be built with segregated tanks. Now it is being proposed that the system should be fitted to existing tankers.
Apart from the increasing awareness of pollution hazards, identified by the local authorities who are members of our ACOPS Committee as the defiled beaches which their ratepayers have to pay to clean up, the past five years have seen a drastic reduction in the building of new tankers—those tankers which were to be compulsorily fitted with tank-provisions—and the prospect of the continuation in service for an indefinite future of tankers
346
without segregated ballast. A case can certainly be made for what is called "crude oil washing", which a system developed by certain oil companies, to their great credit. It derives its name from the fact that the cargo tanks of all crude oil ships must periodically be cleaned. During crude oil washing, no mixing of oil and water takes place—that is to say, in the system which is used—and the cargo tank residues are discharged with the cargo. I expect that other noble Lords who are to take part in the debate will explain and justify the system, so I will not dwell on it. Above all, I am not disputing the intrinsic merits of the system, but I respectfully suggest that it is a commendable (and, I would hope, eventually, imperative) supplement, but not an alternative, to segregated ballast.
It is no secret that the United Kingdom is opposed to segregated ballast tanks. That opposition means a straight confrontation with the United States, which is proposing that all existing tankers of 20,000 tons and above should be equipped with segregated ballast tanks. As an interim measure, clean ballast tanks would be specified. That means that, without structural change, certain tanks will be allocated to ballast water only, which of course means restriction on the carrying capacity of the oil tankers. New building will not replace the existing tankers—completely, that is—until about 1990, when the present fleet is scrapped through inevitable obsolescence.
The argument against conversion is, of course, cost. The main cost element of segregated ballast is the approximate 15 per cent. reduction in cargo capacity. For example, in a new, ultra-large tanker, that means an additional cost of about £2½ million for providing tacks which will not carry cargo. In addition to the loss of carrying capacity—that is to say, returns on the oil of about 16 per cent.—the cost of conversion of a super-tanker would be about £400,000. That is a movable figure, and I know that the United Kingdom Government put it much higher. The reduction of oil pollution is costly—OECD puts it at a 2 per cent. increase on the landed cost of crude oil—but immeasurably more so is the cost of the destruction of the environment at the expense of present and future generations.
The largest proportion of ship-generated pollution is due to operational practices. It was estimated that, in 1975, 1·8 million tons of oil were discharged from ships, and that accidents accounted for only 300,000 tons, the rest being deliberate. Environmental costs are difficult to estimate. OECD is trying to do so, but they are also highly debatable, under the circumstances. For example, we are told—and when I say "we" I mean ACOPS—by the Marine Division of the Department of Trade that the number of oil spills continues to decrease. That, my Lords, is certainly not borne out by the findings of our ACOPS committee. Our findings were based on questionnaires circulated to Her Majesty's Coastguard, local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, sea fisheries committees, RSPCA inspectors, port authorities and the Scottish river purification boards. The result of that (I think your Lordships will admit) pretty thorough investigation, with proper loading against overlap or repetition, revealed that the number of incidents in 1976 was 20 per cent. higher than in 1975. The risks are manifestly going to increase.
The washing of ballast tanks takes place when tankers are about to enter loading ports. Britian, as an oil-exporting country of the future, is in that category, and polluted ballast water will be deposited on our doorstep. That can be reduced by proper oil-reception facilities, but not when oil is conveyed to single-buoy moorings, which may be a widespread practice. The provision of separate tanks for unpolluted ballast will significantly reduce the cost of expensive oil-reception facilities.
As I undertand it, segregated ballast tanks are supported by the United States, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Cyprus, France and all the Arab States, with the United States and Kuwait making it clear that they will be prepared to take unilateral measures if necessary. Counsellor Gunnar Boos of the Nordic Union, which is a body similar to ACOPS and affiliated to us, has today informed me that the Nordic Union for the Prevention of Oil Pollution of the Sea is reinforcing the attitudes of its Governments through its national committees. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider very seriously the
348
benefits of converting ships to segregated ballast.
I am sorry to say that I find muddled and inadequate the thinking behind the Departmental presentation now; and, if I may say so, there is an inconsistency in the Government's own position. The basic inconsistency is that the United Kingdom accepted segregated ballast for new tankers and are resisting it as a conversion measure when it seems to me that this is the most advantageous time to do it. There is a large tanker surplus. There is crisis in our own shipbuilding industry and, indeed, in the whole world shipbuilding industry. Our shipyards, if it came to this kind of conversion, would get a fair percentage of the United Kingdom fleet conversion—which is 11 per cent. of the world tonnage—and would also get, because they are very competitive, a considerable percentage from other flag States.
OECD have estimated that the conversion of the whole world fleet would mean 90 million man-hours. I say as a conservative estimate that the United Kingdom could pick up 10 per cent. of that world tanker fleet conversion; and that would mean 9 million man-hours or 4,500 man-years. It is also going to prove useful because it will, in the circumstances we are talking about, advance the time for ordering new tankers. I hope that the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security have been apprised of these important facts. Whatever it costs, even if it comes to the question of subsidies, the fact that we are going over to this type of conversion can greatly help the economy of this country.
We ought also to recognise the political realities. I want to say that I do not regard the United States attitude as the "big clout" but as implementing President Carter's concern for the environment. If other countries—and particularly the ones I have mentioned—by national legislation close their ports to ships which are not equipped with segregated ballast, it will embarrass the United Kingdom as an oil exporter and the United Kingdom will also become the focus for those tankers without segregated ballast which are excluded from parts of the United States and elsewhere.
There are some specific questions that I should like the Minister to answer; and I have given him notice. If the segregated

349
ballast tankers became a requirement for existing tankers as a result of the diplomatic conference, have Her Majesty's Government considered what proportion of the conversions to British flag tankers and to other flag tankers could be done by British shipbuilders? At what price could the conversions be made, involving how many man-hours, and with what reduction of unemployment and savings in public expenditure on social security payments and in other ways? Which Departments and which interest groups were consulted in the formulation of British policy for the February conference? Have the Government considered the implications for the United Kingdom tanker fleet of the move announced by the United States and by the Arab oil exporting countries if they introduce segregated ballast tank regulations for existing ships unilaterally, if the conference fails to do so multilaterally? Have the cost benefits of segregated ballast tankers been considered in relation to the expensive oil-reception facilities which the United Kingdom will have to provide as an oil exporting State, to deal with waste disposal?
My Lords, I am finished. I hope that we are going to re-think, or to think again, or to think forward to that conference with a good deal of imagination and with a little less narrow-mindedness; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government are not going to throw the baby out with the bilge water. I beg to move for Papers.
3.13 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I think that we would all wish to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for raising this subject today in this Motion and for the very clear introduction he has given to the debate in his speech. He is, as he has told us, the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea, and in that capacity he brings great knowledge and profound concern for the protection of the environment. He has also raised this subject at an appropriate moment before the conference next month in London of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO). It will be concentrating, as he pointed out, on the question of the rules for tankers concerning the pollution of the sea in an operational sense; that is to say, deliberately. That will be the main
350
point although it will, no doubt, be considering other matters, which are less controversial, to avoid accidents and other ways of causing pollution which are not deliberate.
Britain will be greatly affected by whatever decisions are taken at that conference; first, because we have a coastline which is very vulnerable to oil pollution, with a great deal of traffic of tankers through waters near our coast and with a rapidly-developing, new offshore oil industry. But we should be concerned also because of the vital interests of our shipping industry which could be affected by these decisions.
I must again declare an interest as a part-time consultant to the oil industry; and there is another position to which the noble Lord has already referred and which I am proud to occupy and that is vice-president of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea.
The proposals before the conference, as the noble Lord has reminded us, arise from an initiative taken by the United States. Because over the past two or three years they have had some serious pollution incidents around their shores, the U.S. Government have put these proposals to the world. They have been considered over the last nine months and now are coming to the international organisation which is appropriate to consider them. Everyone who is concerned with keeping the seas clean welcomes this conference and the consideration of the proposals. It is clear that most of them will be generally agreed. But there is this one very important issue which divides the countries who are attending in the attitudes that they hold at the moment. That is the question of new rules for tankers, affecting their construction and their methods of operation.
Oil pollution comes mainly from two sources: first, from accidents, collisions, wrecks or spills; and, secondly, from the operational discharges of oil where tanks are washed out or where, for some other reason connected with the duties of the tanker, oil is deliberately released into the sea. The operational source is a great deal more significant than the accidental source. Accidents are inclined to be sensational and also the pollution is concentrated at areas where they happen. But there is estimated to be about five

351
times more oil released into the sea through the operational methods of tankers than is normally found in slicks as a result of accidents.
The issue, therefore, before the conference is how the operational side can be controlled so as to reduce, and, if possible, eliminate, this pollution. I would remind your Lordships that sea water is used as ballast and that the ballast is usually emptied on approach to a port or terminal. The water discharged into the sea, unless special measures have been taken, usually contains oil residues from the last cargo carried. There are three systems which are under consideration, and in use in different degrees at present, to prevent or reduce operational pollution. They are—and I must burden the House with some initials—the load on top, LOT; crude oil washing, COW; and segregation of ballast tanks, SBT; which the noble Lord spoke of and described in some detail.
The load on top system operates on the principle of oil and water being separated during the course of a voyage. The oily water is collected in a slop tank and can be disposed of later and not emptied into the sea. I understand that the 1969 amendments to the relevant convention have very recently come into effect, and they require this method to be used in certain circumstances. But it cannot be effective on short voyages such as, for example, from one side of the North Sea to the other. Nor is it effective in rough weather.
The crude oil washing system—COW—requires special washing machines and the jets from their nozzles use the cargo itself—that is, the crude oil which is being carried—while it is being unloaded at its destination, to clear away sediment and impurities in the tanks. In this way water is not used at all. Of course the oil companies then have the task of separating off, if they want to, the impurities and sediments; but then the crude oil has to be processed and refined in any case by the companies. I should add that there is a safety requirement that this method must be carried out in an inert gas system to ensure that there is no explosive mixture present.
The noble Lord particularly advocated to us the segregated ballast tanks—SBT—system. Here oil and water are in
352
separate tanks throughout. This is indisputably the most effective system. The 1973 Convention provided that when that Convention enters into force all new tankers over 70,000 tons should have this system. So there has been agreement upon that already. The present American proposals are that all vessels, including ones already built and in use, over 20,000 tons should now be adapted to use this system. The difficulty is that it is exceedingly expensive to adapt vessels that are already built or in operation. In addition, 15 per cent. of the cargo capacity is lost so that the vessel is then operating with reduced cargoes.
We have to ask: Is it really necessary to go that far? Is the crude oil washing system almost as effective? If so, is it necessary to incur the dramatic costs which the SBT system would entail? I am told that the cost of adapting for the SBT system would be about eight times more than for conversion to the COW system. Have the Government an authoritative comparison? It of course makes a great difference if it is going to be eight times, or of that order, more expensive to adapt tankers to the SBT system than for conversion to the COW system.
Then of course there is the question of the extra costs of losing 15 per cent. of the cargo. I do not believe that at present that poses a quantity problem, because so many tankers are laid up, and some of them could be brought into use. But because the expense seems so prohibitive, I understand that the British shipping industry favour the COW system for tankers which are already built. They consider that there is little difference regarding the effect. But if there was very little difference in cost, those who were concerned primarily with guarding against pollution—and, I am sure, everyone else concerned with preventing pollution—would adopt the segregated ballast tanks system, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has told us. There is no doubt about that. But there is here a real dilemma as to what decisions should be taken on these systems arising from the very high costs of the conversion to that system.
The United Kingdom shipping industry, as distinct from the shipbuilding industry, is a large and thriving one. I am very

353
glad to see that my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the noble Lord, Lord Inverforth, are to take part in this debate today, speaking as they do from great experience of the industry. I will simply say something about its size and value to this country. It can be measured of course in different ways. In the year 1976 the number of vessels registered as British made us third in the world league table. There are not many world industry league tables in which we are as high as that. I should mention that one of those ahead of us in that year was Liberia; and it can definitely be said that the United Kingdom is not a country with a flag of convenience.
Measured another way, I should point out that in the same year, 1976, the United Kingdom shipping industry earned a net surplus of about £1,000 million in invisible exports. The views of this large and successful British industry must be carefully considered, and its interests protected. There are negotiations ahead in which the Government will be engaged. I do not ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, to display any cards today, beforehand, which the Government will need to have in reserve; but we would welcome the Government's assessment of the issue which has been outlined. In improving safeguards against oil pollution, is it really necessary to go so far or as expensively as the Americans are now suggesting?
Then there is the point that if the IMCO conference does not make SBT compulsory for vessels over 20,000 tons, the United States of America may, none the less, pass their own domestic legislation and so restrict the entry of tankers into their own waters to those which have the SBT system. No doubt the Government will consider that possibility as part of their preparation for the conference. It may be that they would not wish to say anything today about what they would do in those circumstances; but it certainly must be taken into account.
I should like to end by saying a few words on oil pollution arising from accidents and navigational hazards. Charting of sea routes round our own coasts is still incomplete. The hydro-graphic surveys needed are being held up by a lack of resources. This has been discussed in this House before now, and in order to obviate the dangers of large
354
tankers being holed it is important to press ahead with the programme. There are also opportunities abroad for similar services and the United Kingdom has been invited to provide the resources; and indeed can earn income from so doing.
This week I received a letter, in reply to one of mine, from the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Benn, in which he said that, although the Department has been contributing to the hydrographic surveys for the year 1977–78, they could not now go beyond that because they could not see further needs related to energy. I entirely understand that point. I would remind the Government that there are several other Departments involved and that it is an internal Government matter how the necessary money should be raised.
I hope that this kind of surveying will not go by default simply because of internal arguments about how the money should be raised. I know that other speakers are going to dwell on the question of hydrographic surveys, so I will not say more than that. I look forward to hearing a statement from the Government today which is being made possible at an appropriate moment before the IMCO conference, thanks to the initiative which has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, even in a short debate like this I hope I may be allowed to spend a minute in joining with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in offering our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for bringing this very important matter to the notice of the House. The noble Lord has such a wide knowledge of the subject and such a deep interest in it that we always listen with great attention to anything he has to say. This is not, of course, a Party matter and I would not wish any noble Lord to think that, because I have been put down, in this position on the list and am speaking from these Benches, I am necessarily reflecting the views of my noble friends. We shall find out later on whether they agree with me.
Since the oceans cover more than half the surface of this planet, it is self-evident that any permanent damage to the marine environment, from whatever cause could

355
have catastrophic effects. I am sure that we all join in wanting to reduce, so far as is practicable, any pollution caused by the discharge of oil into the sea. I think I can safely start from that common ground. Of course, the Motion is rather wider because it refers to other forms of pollution from tankers, and that, I suppose, includes chemical tankers; but that is a very difficult question on which I would not venture to speak to your Lordships. It is certainly a much smaller problem at present than that relating to oil discharges.
The first point I want to make is simply this. If all the oil now released into the sea, which is estimated at 6 million tons a year, could be evenly spread over the whole of the ocean, no real problem would be created. Oil is biodegradable in sea water: indeed, if it were not, the oil from natural seepage, which is estimated at 600,000 tons a year and which has been going on probably for millions of years, would obviously by now have swamped the oceans. The real problem we have to face is that of large oil discharges in one place—at least, that is most of the problem we have to face—and I feel myself that what we want the conference to do is to look at how to protect the sea from these major discharges and how to mitigate such effects as arise. Such major discharges may arise in the course of operating under-sea oilfields, as a result of collisions or of the strandings of tankers. Indeed, some problems can arise from the collisions and strandings of non-tankers, which may release bunker fuel.
Such happenings, in the nature of things, occur relatively close to land and consequently their effects are much greater than would be the case if they happened in the middle of the ocean. So although the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that a far greater proportion of the incidents arose from tank washings and the like than from those major incidents, I would suspect that really far more damage is done from the major incidents than from tank washings. Indeed, we have been reminded that our friends across the Atlantic, the United States, have taken the initiative in the light of alarming incidents that have occurred in recent years; and I suspect that those alarming incidents were all related to strandings and collisions and
356
have nothing at all to do with tank washings. I shall come back to those later, but I want just to make the point that the most serious incidence of damage arising from the spillage of oil comes from these major spills, and it is to that field that I hope the conference will devote a great deal of time.
As regards safety measures on oil rigs, obviously it is of major importance that everything possible should be done. We are rather new in this field and are still learning—I am afraid we may be learning for some years—by experience. But I would hope that a tremendous amount of effort is being put by the Government into research into the various methods of protecting the oil rigs from the risks of blow-outs and the loss of a lot of oil into the sea.
So far as collisions are concerned, we know of traffic regulation schemes in narrow waters, and in particular the scheme now operating in the Strait of Dover. I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether that scheme has been running long enough for any estimate to be made of its effectiveness, because it seems to me that it should reduce substantially the risks of collisions and therefore, in due course, the happening of collisions. If that is borne out by the facts, there is a great deal to be said for making similar arrangements in other parts of the world where there is a concentration of shipping in narrow waters. Perhaps the noble Lord could also tell us whether anything of this kind is being done on the East Coast of the United States, where we know there have been some unfortunate accidents.
In addition, of course, we support strongly—and indeed, I am sure that everyone in this House would support strongly—the proposal that navigational aids in ships should be kept up to the best possible level, as also should the training of crews, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred. The standards of navigation in the British Fleet are, I believe, as high as they have ever been and the Fleet generally is well supplied with navigational aids; but it is true that from time to time one hears of such aids which are not adequately utilised.
I do not think we can hope to avoid occasional major spills arising from these

357
conditions, and the next step is to contain as far as practicable the oil which is released into the sea. Here again a great deal has been done, but I believe there is much more still to be done. Your Lordships will remember that at the time of the "Torrey Canyon" accident it was thought that a lot could be done by dispersing the oil by means of certain chemicals, but it was later discovered that those dispersants did more harm to the environment than the oil they were meant to disperse. I am sure that a great deal of further research is needed in this field. I have heard tell of some experiments of chemicals being added to crude oil and, I think, to furnace oil as well, which have had the effect of solidifying the products. The solid matter is lighter than water, so that it floats upon the surface. I would have thought it would be worthwhile pursuing vigorously any idea of that kind because I cannot think of any more effective way of collecting together at any rate a moderate-sized oil spill.
I have said all this because it seems to me that reducing the likelihood of major spills and dealing with them when they arise is really much more important than any discussion about tank washings. But of course that does not mean that tank washings are unimportant. I shall leave it to the noble Lords who are familiar with the shipping industry to explain their attitudes about these matters, but I must say it does not seem to me altogether reasonable to require the fitting of segregated ballast systems in existing ships. After all, it is not so very long ago-1973, when the Convention was being negotiated—that it was agreed this provision should apply to new ships. I am not clear that anything has happened in the last four years to make us want to change that. Again, we hear about the experience in the United States, but we do not know—or at least I do not know—whether the experience in the United States has any relationship with tank washing. No doubt, the question whether crude oil washing is as good or nearly as good as the separate segregated ballast tanks is a technical matter on which I am not qualified to speak. But it seems that it must be nearly as good and, considering the enormous difference in cost, I should have thought that there was a case for studying this very carefully. Perhaps we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, what view the Government take.
358
I think we can understand the impatience of the United States. International agreement is always slow to get and we ourselves are sometimes rather impatient. I would suggest to your Lordships that the more exacting the requirements the more difficult and the slower it is to get international agreement, so that I wonder whether it is wise, even from the point of view of the United States itself, to press for segregated ballast tanks to be fitted in existing ships.
I want to say just one word about the argument on unemployment. Of course it is attractive to think that one can do something which will give employment to the shipbuilding industry at this difficult time, but surely we ought not to decide our policy on what is just a short-term position. If I heard aright, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said that this might bring forward orders for new tankers. I confess I do not follow that. I should have thought that, if anybody had to pay £400,000 or £900,000 to put segregated ballast into an old tanker, he would not immediately start building a new one. He would want to get full value out of the old tanker. We must remember that very few ships with segregated ballast have yet been built and that if the others are going to be taken away we will have an acute shortage for a time.
With great diffidence I find myself not in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, whom I usually regard as my prophet in these matters. But we shall hear from the Government shortly what attitude they take and I look forward to that with keen anticipation.
3.43 p.m.
Lord INVERFORTH: My Lords, I am glad to participate in this debate and would compliment the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on the expert way in which he has introduced this complex topic. I am afraid that I may not be able to agree with everything he said, but that may help to roll the debate along. I must declare a partial interest. I am chairman of the Bank Line. Although my company has no tankers in its fleet at the present moment, and is not directly affected by most of the issues to be discussed at the forthcoming IMCO Conference, developments in one sector

359
of the shipping industry inevitably have some effect on other sections, and in common with other non-tanker owner members of the General Council of British Shipping, I have been taking an active interest in the recent discussions at IMCO in preparation for the conference.
I should like first to comment about the nature of the shipping industry and the importance which British owners attach to the work of IMCO. It has often been said that shipping is international. Most ships need the flexibility to be able to trade freely wherever in the world there is a demand for them. This in turn means that regulations affecting the design and construction of vessels must be such that ships which meet accepted international standards are regarded as satisfactory wherever they trade. IMCO—the only United Nations agency based in London—is the body which determines these international standards. It is a most dedicated and efficient organisation.
In recent years, the United States has developed a tendency to adopt standards which exceed or differ from those agreed by IMCO, not only for its own ships but also for foreign vessels trading in its waters. There was very real concern that this trend would increase after the deplorable series of tanker accidents off the coast of the United States last winter. It was a source of considerable relief to the industry—and indeed to maritime Governments—when President Carter announced last March that he intended to put forward proposals for discussion at IMCO aimed at improving tanker safety and preventing pollution.

In presenting details of these proposals to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Brock Adams, specifically said:
"We will urge that IMCO move forward on these measures, so that the United States will not find it necessary to take independent action".
IMCO has certainly taken this request to heart. In the space of 11 months, a remarkably short time in the field of international negotiations, a whole series of preliminary meetings has been fitted into an already crowded schedule and the
360
conference opens in ten days' time with a view to adopting these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has mentioned some of the United States proposals—carriage of second radar, et cetera—and I do not think I need dwell on those. But I must talk, if I may, about the most important and controversial one and the only one which I need deal with in detail. This is the proposal that all tankers of 20,000 deadweight tonnes and above should be fitted with segregated ballast. The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that, under normal circumstances, no ballast water—which tankers need to make them seaworthy—is put into dirty tanks which have previously been used for oil cargo. This is a sound environmental principle, and there are already regulations which are fully supported by British tanker owners to require new tankers to be so constructed. What is at issue, however, as we heard earlier, is whether the existing world tanker fleet should be converted to meet these same requirements.
Conversion of ships to segregated ballast is extremely expensive. There is no dispute about that. In the United Kingdom, we have calculated that the cost of converting our fleet of some 110 large tankers would be in the region of £150 million—an average of over £1 million per ship. Furthermore, one has to sacrifice a certain number of the tanks at present used for the carriage of oil. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that it would be 15 per cent. My figures suggest that 15 to 18 per cent. would be needed for this. Segregated ballast is therefore a very expensive way of achieving an undoubtedly real but limited environmental advantage. In the United Kingdom we have already been gaining experience with a method of achieving the same environmental benefit at a much lower cost by crude oil washing. This is a technique developed by the oil companies whereby cargo tanks are cleaned of their residues by using the oil being discharged. This has the effect of cleaning tanks extremely efficiently and, coupled with the procedure already operated by the tanker industry for some years and known as "load-on-top" which has already been referred to, means that the possibility of oil discharge into the sea from tank cleansing operations is greatly minimised.

361
The British Government, with the full support of the tanker industry, have taken the lead in promoting the idea that, for existing tankers, crude oil washing should be regarded as a fully acceptable alternative to segregated ballast, in the firm belief that it will achieve equivalent environmental benefits at a fraction of the cost. I feel that we can all take justifiable pride in this highly practical and positive initiative, which our Government have proposed. It is estimated that to equip the entire British fleet for crude oil washing—and many British ships are already using this technique—would cost around £15 million to £20 million; in other words, perhaps one-tenth of the cost of conversion to segregated ballast.
It is tempting to assume that the cheaper something is, the more inferior it must be. Furthermore, there is a natural tendency to believe that measures which an industry has adopted of its own volition are deficient in some respects. All industries have interests to protect, and it is right that they should. In the case of crude oil washing, the British tanker fleet owners have a firm commitment to it, convinced that it is unnecessary and unwise to demand an expensive solution such as segregated ballast, when a much cheaper one will have an equivalent environmental effect. It is surely in the interest not only of the United Kingdom to avoid the waste of resources, but indeed, of all countries including, especially, the developing countries.
Yet despite the belief of British tanker owners in crude oil washing, perhaps our greatest concern is to achieve some international agreement which will really work. Whatever the outcome of the conference next month, we hope that Governments will be prepared to accept the majority view and will then return home intent on adopting the new measures as soon as practicable. The United States claim, with some justification, that the reason why they have so often introduced their own rules is that the internationally agreed rules take so long to come into effect. I would emphasise that such delays are in no way the fault of IMCO which achieves excellent results in securing international agreement to adopt approved standards. It is the very slow pace at which the necessary number of Member Governments—including, quite frequently,
362
the USA—ratify these agreements that causes the delay. We must all hope that there will be an improvement in this field, and I am sure that our own Government will not be found wanting in giving us their customary lead.
I would only add that United Kingdom owners are very conscious that, in taking measures to safefuard the environment and to increase the safe operation of ships, it is essential to take into account the human element. Ships must be manned by competent crews, operating under systems designed to avoid operational errors. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Convention of Minimum Standards in Merchant Ships, unanimously adopted at the 1976 International Labour Organisation Maritime Conference, and the Convention on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping, to be formulated at a diplomatic conference in London in June or July 1978. United Kingdom owners have undertaken to comply with the former, and fully support the 1978 endeavour. I apologise for detaining your Lordships so long. Thank you very much for listening to my remarks.

THERMAL REACTOR POLICY
3.53 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, about nuclear reactors for the British power programme.
The Statement is as follows:
"The House will recall that on 28th June 1976 I announced that I was taking stock of progress with the SGHWR programme at the suggestion of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Since then we have carried out a thorough review of thermal reactor policy. The National Nuclear Corporation have submitted their comparative assessment of thermal reactor systems, which has been made available to the House. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) have given their advice on the generic safety issues of the PWR, which has also been made available to the House. There has been extensive consultation with all the main

363
parties. It is the unanimous advice of all concerned that in the changed circumstances of today the SGHWR should not be adopted for the next power station orders. The Government have accordingly decided that it would be right to discontinue work on the SGHWR.
"The Government agree with the Electriciy Supply Boards that two early nuclear orders are needed and that these must be AGRs. The Government have therefore decided to authorise the CEGB and SSEB to begin work at once with a view to ordering one AGR station each as soon as possible. This decision will enable our nuclear industry to build on our extensive experience of gas-cooled technology. The generating boards have already begun to accumulate operating experience with the AGRs which have so far been commissioned. The completion of the remaining stations in the existing AGR programme and the successful construction of the next AGR orders will be the first priority in our thermal nuclear programme.
"The Government also consider, having regard to the importance of nuclear power and present knowledge of the different systems, that the United Kingdom's thermal reactor strategy should not at this stage be dependent upon an exclusive commitment to any one reactor system, and that in addition to the AGR we must develop the option of adopting the PWR system in the early 1980s. This view is also supported by the electricity supply industry.
"The electricity supply industry have indicated that, to establish the PWR as a valid option, they wish to declare an intention that, provided design work is satisfactorily completed and all necessary Government and other consents and safety clearances have been obtained, they will order a PWR station. They do not consider that a start on site could be made before 1982. This intention, which does not call for an immediate order or a Letter of Intent at the present time, is endorsed by the Government. All future orders beyond those which I have indicated today will be a matter for decision at the appropriate time. Our aim is to
364
establish a flexible strategy for the United Kingdom nuclear power programme in the light of developing circumstances. We believe that these decisions will do so".
3.56 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having repeated the Statement made in another place, and from this Bench we welcome the fact that decisions are now being taken. Delays and uncertainty have not been helpful to the British nuclear industry, but, at the same time, I acknowledge that decisions in this field which prove to be wrong could be immensely expensive for the country.
As expected, the Government's choice lies between the British advanced gas-cooled reactor, the AGR, and the American designed pressurised water reactor, the PWR, and this Statement tells us that two more AGRs are now definitely authorised. As regards the PWR, the Statement seems carefully worded and, apparently, not a firm commitment to an order. There is an intention supported by the Government, but no formal document; and a start on a PWR is at least five years away —1982.
I have four short questions to put to the noble Lord. First, are the Government completely satisfied as regards safety after the nuclear inspectorate's advice has been given, and the improvements which they suggested considered? Secondly, are the Government sure that the British electricity supply industry will have full access to the Westinghouse technology which will be needed in preparations, if the commitment is no more than this formal statement of intention that we have heard today? Thirdly, can the British supply industry proceed now on their preparations for a PWR, on the assumption that this is a decision of policy by the Government, or are there significant stages later where Government consents—and this Statement refers to Government consents could have the effect of vetoing an order? Fourthly, do today's announcements have any effect on the choice of a further generation of reactors; that is to say, between the fast breeder reactor and an alternative?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we also welcome

365
the Statement, although we do not agree with the criticism expressed by the noble Lord on the Conservative Front Bench that there has been undue delay and uncertainty. We believe that such delays as have occurred were the inevitable product of over-ordering in the early 1960s, about which the present Government could do nothing. Is the noble Lord aware that we indicated to the Secretary of State that we believed that an order for advanced gas-cooled reactors would become necessary, but we are anxious that there should be a full examination of this system, such as there has been with the pressurised water reactor? For the assurance of the public regarding the safety of the system, we believe that some kind of public examination ought to be conducted before these orders are put into effect.
One of the reasons why the advanced gas-cooled reactors turned out to be a relatively expensive system was that, in the previous series of orders, every single station was different. I am wondering whether or not it would be possible for the CEGB and the SSEB to get together to decide jointly on placing orders for the same design so that at least some benefits from replication could be obtained in this limited programme. Secondly, the Statement speaks about "extensive experience of gas-cooled technology". Would not the logical development, therefore, be to go from the advanced gas-cooled reactor to the high temperature reactor rather than to go backwards to a design which, originally at least, is 20 years old? Can the noble Lord say what is the policy of the Government regarding the further development of gas-cooled systems?
Finally, why is it necessary—here I should like to reinforce the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—for the electricity supply industry to declare its intention of ordering a PWR station? Does this stated intention have any contractual implications for the generating board? If it does not, then what is the point of making this statement? Is it not possible that, as we gain further experience from operating the AGRs which are now being completed and constructing the two further stations now being ordered, we shall decide that it is commercially sensible to continue with
366
that line of development rather than to go for a totally new system which would be unfamiliar to the electricity supply organisations? Is this just a way of placating Sir Arnold Weinstock? Bearing in mind that the CEGB sought and obtained a subsidy for placing an order for Drax "B" prior to the date upon which it considered that it was commercially necessary, have the Government entered into any consultations with the CEGB and the SSEB regarding the possible compensation that they may seek for placing orders for two AGRs in the near future?
4.2 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, on behalf of the Government may I acknowledge the welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have given to the policy Statement which I have just read to your Lordships' House. If I may deal first with the four points which were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I can confirm, first, that the NII have indeed examined most carefully the safety aspects to which he alluded, and the Government are advised that the generic levels are acceptable. Secondly, I can confirm that access to Westinghouse-type technology will be available. Thirdly, I can confirm that the electricity supply industry is now in a position to consider further involvement in the new development. Fourthly, I can say that the policy intention of the Government is to develop a flexible strategy. I think that that can be taken into account as we continue to examine the choices open to us in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, posed a number of points. If I may deal first with his third point, I shall have carefully to examine what he has said to me regarding contractual obligations. I shall do that with my advisers and will then communicate with the noble Lord. If I may return to the noble Lord's more general point, I can say that the PWR is now the most widely adopted system in the world—as, of course, he well knows. By keeping our options open, we avoid shutting ourselves off from the mainstream of world technology. As I have just said, it is, in the Government's view, a flexible strategy. None of the courses open to the Government is risk-free; there are inevitable uncertainties, given our present knowledge of the different systems. However,

367
it has been established additionally during consultations that a serious intent to order will be adequate to activate assistance from an overseas licensor. As regards the question which the noble Lord put to me on compensation, at this stage I consider this to be a commercial matter. I do not think I can go beyond affirming that statement.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, when I last intervened on a Statement of this kind I said that I thought that the choice of the SGHWR was the least bad that could be made in the circumstances. The AGR was having teething troubles while the PWR was under a cloud in relation to its safety. Now I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government the following points about the Statement that they have made. First, are the Government reconciled to the fact that if we have a PWR—I believe the Minister said in 1982 or 1983—it commits us to £35 million worth of imports for a high pressure vessel that we cannot manufacture in this country? As an alternative, would it not be possible to give the SGHWR a further lease of life? Would it not be possible to order an SGHWR for 1982 or 1983 and to postpone the PWR until later? We have put a tremendous amount of good development work into the SGHWR. It has many points in common with the CANDU system that the Canadians have developed. It seems to me to be a thousand pities to abandon it and then to commit ourselves to £35 million worth of imports.
I should also like to ask whether the Minister is reconciled to the dismissal of certain comments which have been made lately in the technical Press? I shall not take responsibility for their accuracy, and I repeat only what I have read: that the SGHWR and some other reactors, but not the PWR, offer the prospect of a slow breeder reactor, and that in abandoning everything and going on to the PWR we are abandoning that possible opportunity. Lastly, may I ask the Minister what Statement will be made, and when, regarding the decision about a commercial fast breeder reactor? That should be one of the most important points of all. If the Minister could answer those questions I should be grateful.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government have acted on the basis of the unanimous advice that was given to them by the parties concerned and by the parties consulted. I can also say that the mode and level of consultation have been made quite open to Members of both Houses. As to when the Government will make a Statement about the fast breeder reactor, I will take advice and let the noble Earl know.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that a great many people in industry and outside will welcome the fact that the Government have at last begun to take effective decisions? May I ask the Government whether they can give an answer to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; namely, that one of the reasons why our reactor programmes have run into trouble has been that we always have better ideas half-way through ordering a reactor, as a result of which changes are made in the specification, thus making everything more expensive and running us into technical difficulties? May we take it that the two AGRs now on order will be to a similar design and to precise specifications which will not be altered during the run-up to their complete production and going critical?
Further, will the Government kindly consider that a decision is now urgently needed on the fast breeder reactors? The more of these thermal reactors that we have, the more important it is that the by-product of Uranium 238 which they produce should be effectively used in fast breeder reactors. This would completely change the economic aspect of reactor power production. The more AGRs and thermal reactors that we have, the more important it is that a decision should be taken on the fast breeder reactor. If there are safety factors to be considered—and I willingly accept that there are—would it not be as well to put pressure immediately on the scientists who are working on the disposal of fast breeder by-products, to make sure that a safe and viable system is elaborated as soon as possible?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can confirm that the two AGRs for the CEGB and the SSEB will be to the same design.

369
As to the other very relevant points which the noble Lord has just mentioned, some are of a technical nature. My competency to deal with them adequately is somewhat restricted, but I will certainly ensure that the noble Lord's words are passed on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, as a modest energy-consuming taxpayer, I should like to say how much I welcome this discussion and the decisions that have been made. By keeping both the options open the technical development will be satisfied; and in relation to what the last speaker has said I am glad that it has been realised that the ideal is always the enemy of the good. If we start making changes in design midway in production, we shall get nowhere. The decision made by the Government is most welcome and should be good commercial practice.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that it fell to me as the then Minister to announce our acceptance of the AGR some 12 years ago. We then considered that we should have a greater safety margin and that also the economic performance of the AGR would be superior to the American reactor. Can my noble friend say that the suspicions about the safety factor of the American reactor have nevertheless not prohibited their success in the export markets? Can he say whether we are now likely—the decision having been taken—to put far greater and more successful effort into the export markets for our own techniques than has been the case in the past?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can confirm that the decision just announced by the Government is based on as flexible a policy of competing options as possible. The question as to whether or not this will lead to an extra initiative in matters of export, I would have to consider with some discretion. Certainly on that point I will seek advice from experts and will let my noble friend have an opinion.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on the decision they have reached in this restricted field of the nuclear reactor, I should like to ask my noble friend
370
whether this decision rules out the possibility of any fresh coal-fired station being built within the next 10 years?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, that is a point which. I will examine carefully and I will reply in writing to my noble friend.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we have had a very good run on this question, if I may say so with respect, and I think my noble friend has been generous with his answers on a very technical subject. It may be the wish of the House that after 20 minutes we should return to the debate.

TANKER SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
4.13 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, if it is your wish that we should go back to sea, I will not take up your Lordships' time by saying anything more at all about the methods of tanker loading and tank washing. The case has been put with unexampled clarity and differing degrees of force by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the Government will let us know at the end of the debate as much as they can about what they intend to do. I will confine myself to the question of accidents because it is obvious that however well-built a ship is or however well-managed, if that ship runs aground in a serious manner there will be an oil spill.
What is the world picture at the moment? I should like to start by telling your Lordships a story. Indeed I Want to give several examples. On 26th October last year the Russian tanker "Tsesis" grounded in the Stockholm archipelago and spilled 1,600 tons of oil. When the Swedish authorities said that they would demand compensation for pollution damage the owners of the vessel—that is, the Soviet State—said that, on the contrary, they would claim damages from Sweden since the tanker had run aground because they were using incorrect or out-of-date Swedish charts. That is worth thinking about, is it not? If this can happen in Sweden, it can happen in Britain or in any country of the world.

371
It is a fact that less than 25 per cent. of the British Continental Shelf has been surveyed by what were regarded as modern methods in 1974. Methods have been improved even since 1974, so that figure would now be lower. The reason for this is quite easy to understand; it is that, until the other day, in terms of marine history, ships drew 30ft. and that was the maximum. Consequently, whenever you did not get a sounding at about 40ft. you did not bother; it was deep enough for everybody, and so you went on quickly to the next place where you were getting soundings of less than 40 feet. That is the old fashioned method. But now as we all know the super-tankers have draughts of anything up to 75ft., and for safety's sake one should call that 85 ft. for a laden ship. That old 40ft. rule will not work and one needs to have a 100 ft. rule. This has not been applied except in a few special areas. Moreover, we are towing platforms around the seas which draw up to 250ft. Yet another floor comes in. We ought to know depths down to this. We know that even less than we know the 80ft. floor.
Moreover, the places of disposal of toxic waste, including nuclear waste, are not marked on the charts. I will tell another little story. In a recent survey undertaken by H.M.S. "Bulldog" of 200 square miles between Dungeness and Dover—a well travelled area if ever there was one—it was thought that there were 180 wrecks, but they found 550 sea bed contacts which were probably wrecks; of that 550, 60 were definitely proved to be hitherto unknown wrecks, many of them with less than 70ft. of water over them. That was in a tiny area. There are 14,000 known wrecks on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. In the case of 12,500 of them the least depth is not known and the exact position of 11,000 is not known. If the "Bulldog" survey is a statistically valid sample—I do not know whether or not it is—in order to get the probable total number of wrecks on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf we must multiply 14,000 by about three to get the proportion of 550 to 180. As one can immediately see, this will bring us to between 40,000 and 45,000 wrecks.
The other day in the St. George's Channel H.M.S. "Fawn" found a bank more
372
than half a mile across with depths of 69 feet (that is within the danger area for very large tankers) where the chart indicated a smooth sea bed of a depth of 165 feet. This was because the chart was based on a survey carried out in 1843 by a sailing ship taking hand-lead soundings along tracks one mile apart. Already recently a draft traffic separation scheme for keeping shipping lanes apart in opposite directions off Norfolk was withdrawn when a proper survey of the sea bottom was made because it was found that it would have taken big ships into places where they would have grounded.
In June 1977 a merchant ship approaching the Humber with a draught of 40 feet passed over a bank with only 45 feet, whereas the 1911 survey had found 57 feet. Very little of this area, if indeed any, has been surveyed since the beginning of the First World War. Moreover, the Admiralty charts themselves by standard practice do not take account of what is known as "negative surge"; that is, in the Southern North Sea if you get a continued south-westerly gale at low spring tides the water goes to 4 feet below the theoretical lowest level it can go, and in extraordinary circumstances it may go as low below the lowest possible theoretical level as 7 feet. Some of the big ships are used to playing around with a margin of only seven feet under their hulls, even when they know where they are. Of course, when there is a catastrophic situation like a 7 foot negative surge a warning is given, but I think we all know that there are cases when warnings are not heard or are not heeded; it would be better to have everything set out on the chart correctly.
The Government are not unaware of these dangers. In 1975 they set up a Hydrographic Study Group, of mixed Government and industry people, which assessed the national task of surveying the highest priority areas around the United Kingdom; and it found it was going to take 36 ship-years to do what was reasonable, and right up to 1982, and 34 ship-years to do overseas interests, that is outside the United Kingdom shelf, which are of great interest to our shipping, by 1985. For that task it recommended a certain force of ships, with which I will not burden the House. That money was not

373
forthcoming. On the contrary, the Hydrographer, the head of the hydrographic department of the Royal Navy, was instructed—and I quote the Governments' words—
"to pay particular attention to the commercial potential of his service".
He therefore accepted a contract to survey the waters of the Iranian Government, which took away a lot of his ships for quite a large number of years. There is now talk of another Middle Eastern contract which the Hydrographer might be forced to accept because he has to "pay attention to his commercial potential". Therefore, there is no chance of reaching the target set down by the Hydrographic Study Group in 1975.
I think what has happend is probably this. The Navy itself, which is historically responsible for the Hydrographer, contrary to the general trend of shipping, uses smaller and smaller ships. They get less and less interested in the details of deep water, while the merchant shipping, and tankers especially, get more and more interested. Consequently it becomes harder and harder, with successive defence cuts, to defend the spending of defence money on charting. The main point I want to put to the Government is, should not other Departments contribute far more than they do? For one year only the Departments of Energy and Overseas Development contributed towards the running costs of ships identified in the Defence Review as surplus to strict defence requirements. That year is over and they are not going to do it again, and so the burden apparently falls back on the Navy and on no one else, on the Defence Vote. It seems to me that, unless a big change is made, things are going to go dangerously slowly in getting their charting up to date.
However you look at it, the situation is disquieting. There was a meeting at the United Nations of something called the Group of Experts on Hydrographic Surveying and Nautical Charting only last month, and this group took the trouble to tabulate the training given by different countries to their hydrographers and marine surveyors. The results are quite startling. The training provided in this country for our people, and indeed for others who wish to come and undergo it, is less than the training provided in the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Japan, Turkey and
374
the United States. That is to say, it is less measured in the time of the courses available. We come at the bottom of that league table. This, for the country which more or less invented, in the 19th century, the healthy custom of having marine charts at all—reliable ones—is a startling figure.
There are certain questions I should like to put to my noble friend who is going to round off the debate, of which I have given him notice, and about which I hope, if good answers are not available now, they soon will be, so that we can get out of the very dangerous situation in which we now stand. This is the first question. When the Hydrographer is "paying particular attention to his commercial potential" he earns money, of course. He earns it in Iran, and he is earning some in Ghana. Whore does this money go? Is it ploughed back into his own department or is it just lost in the Consolidated Fund? The I ran contract was said to be worth £11 million. When calculating the income from that did the Government make any offset against that for the cost of delay in charting our own waters? The cost is the cost in groundings, temporary, standings, severe groundings, wrecks, pollutions.
Does the Department of Trade pay anything to the Hydrographer? The Department of Trade is the protolor and patron of all shipping, and it seems a natural channel for public money to go to this service. Recently Mr. Judd, in the House of Commons, reeled off a very long list of civilian Government Departments who use the services of the Hydrographer; it is just about all the Departments in Whitehall. Why should not they pay their bit?
I have some particular questions about what is surveyed and what is not. The Government are considering permitting the building of a gas gathering line in the North Sea; the total cost of the scheme is £3,000 million. Is the probable line of that gas gathering system properly surveyed, and, if not, would the cost of doing so be more than the smallest drop in the budget of £3,000 million? Does the 76 per cent. of our Continental Shelf which is not properly surveyed include designated shipping lanes, and, if so, how many of them? What is their length? Does it include traffic separation schemes? To put it another way, are areas where

375
shipping lanes are designated and traffic separation schemes set up getting the benefit of a special survey so as to put them ahead of the surrounding bits of the seabed? If not, I think they should.
Finally, I would say, as a general observation, that there has been some discussion in this country about what to do with the North Sea oil money. Can I put it to the Government, with all the force that I think the remark justifies, that the very first thing we should do with the North Sea oil money is to make the North Sea safe for oil?
4.28 p.m.
The Earl of INCHCAPE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for having initiated this important debate, and I welcome the opportunity of contributing briefly to it. First, I must declare an interest, as I am the chairman of a shipping company which owns and operates a number of tankers. My industry colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Inverforth, has spoken with eloquence and conviction on the problem of tanker safety and pollution, and I can support wholeheartedly every word he has said. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred to hydrography and indeed has made many points which I also had intended to make, some of which I will repeat. Noble Lords may recall that the House was kind enough to give a fair hearing to my maiden speech on the subject of hydrography, which I had the honour to make on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in December 1975.
During that debate a remarkable unanimity of opinion emerged regarding the need to ensure the continued provision of an adequate hydrographic service for implementing the recommendations of the Hydrographic Study Group which reported in March 1975. Unfortunately, the Government were unable to accept the study group's recommendation that they should, if possible, make the necessary finance available to enable the survey fleet to be expanded. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, Mr. Patrick Duffy, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, made an announcement in another place on 12th October 1976 which included the following passage:
376
"It has been decided that the Royal Navy hydrographic fleet should be retained at its present size for the time being. During 1977–78, the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Overseas Development will contribute towards the running costs of the ships identified in the defence review as surplus to strict minimum defence requirements".
That statement, taking into account the financial difficulties at that time, went a considerable way towards meeting the wishes of those of us who had pressed the Government in debate. It would be ungracious of me if I failed to acknowledge that and express my appreciation.
In considering this important issue I had hoped to avoid being controversial. I am sure that all noble Lords, whatever their persuasion, would agree with me about this for what we are trying to achieve is the important objective of enhancing safety at sea. It has, therefore, been somewhat disappointing to learn, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has stated, that the Department of Energy is to make no contribution towards the cost of hydrographic work in the financial year 1978–79 and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, about a quarter of our existing hydro-graphic fleet has been deployed to carry out contract work in the Gulf for the Iranian Government.
I am well aware of the importance of the Gulf, and the need to ensure that ships can navigate with safety in that difficult area. I appreciate that the Department of Energy would not wish to pay for work in home waters which is not being done. Even so, the result has been to leave what must, I am sure, be generally agreed to be an inadequate survey force to continue the vital "non-defence" work still to be accomplished in our home waters. It may be recalled that there was an enormous backlog of "top-priority" work on our own doorstep as identified in the Hydro-graphic Study Group's report, whose recommendation reads as follows:
"The remaining ships of the Survey Fleet should be concentrated from 1st April 1976 on the programme of high-priority defence, neergy and shipping requirements in home waters".
The Department of Energy's requirement for "priority work" needed to survey the oilfield area east of the Shetlands was reflected in Paragraph 20 of the study group's report. However, that work, had, I understand, barely started when lack of resources caused it to stop.

377
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred to two recent and worrying cases which I shall not repeat but which have also been brought to my notice. However, I should like to say that I appreciate that these are two isolated cases, and, certainly as far as I am aware, there have been no recent occasions in home waters when a ship has struck an inaccurately charted obstacle. Moreover modern ships, by the proper and sensible use of their navigational instruments, especially the devices for measurement of depth of water, can usually navigate safely even in badly charted areas. However, the risk remains, and I am sure that all will agree that those two events which have been publicised are, to say the least, disquieting.
I am confident that shipowners, worldwide, will co-operate willingly in implementing any sensible and reasonable measures that the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention may decide. However, first could we ask that all Governments discharge their prime responsibility to provide accurate and up-to-date charts necessary for the safe passage of our ships at sea?
Having said that, I fully recognise that Government funds are stretched and that the provision of the necessary resources for even such a worthwhile process could present difficulties. But I understand that an Ordnance Survey "once and for all" exercise to resurvey the land area of the United Kingdom, and to produce a new series of modern maps is, after 20 years, almost complete. Could not a similar project be considered by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the adjacent waters of the United Kingdom? That would serve to get matters up to date, apart from the continuing need for "check" surveys in unstable areas.
The provision of the necessary funds even for this could prove a difficulty, and I warmly support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the Government should consider using a small part of our oil revenues for this purpose. In that way we could support, in a most practical fashion, the requirements of our vital offshore and merchant shipping interests, and at the same time contribute significantly to measures to prevent pollution caused by the stranding of ships on uncharted obstacles.
378
In conclusion, I should like to quote from the draft Report of the United Nations Group of Experts on Hydro-graphic Surveying and Nautical Charting which met during December 1977 in New York. It says:
"Those responsible at the highest levels in Government should recognise that in the Marine environment, there can be no exploitation of resources without exploration and there can be no exploration without hydrography".
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of HA LSBURY: My Lords, in common with other noble Lords who have spoken I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder for giving me an opportunity to say something on this subject which I have wanted to say for a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—I am sorry he is not in his place to correct me if I misquote him—as I understood it, said that four out of five of either "the incidents" or "volume of oil spilt" (I am rot quite sure which it was) were concerned with operation and the fifth with accidents. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon took up that point and said that, of course, the accidents tend to spill a very large amount of oil in a highly concentrated area.
I should like to give noble Lords some idea of the sort of hazards that we run in this connection. There is a very high traffic in tankers going in an out of Milford Haven Harbour to the oil refineries. Immediately outside Milford Haven harbour there are the two enchanting little islands of Skokholm and Skomer, which are a focus of concentration for some of our more important seabirds, some of which are quite unique. Entrance to and exit from Milford Haven harbour—I have done it running in on a ebb-tide in a south-westerly gale—is quite a tricky business, because one has to make a very sharp turn to starboard as one goes in. Accidents can happen.
I do not know whether any noble Lords have seen, as I have, what is called a time-lapse radar scan over a 24 hour period of the air traffic over London and the Home Counties. It looks exactly like a number of interpenetrating swarms of bees all mixing in. It is quite incredible that there could be so much movement taking place. One only has to look at it for a moment to see the necessity for air traffic control. I

379
believe that, if one could see a time lapse radar scan of the traffic in the English Channel, one would get an immediate appreciation of the need to have some kind of narrow seaways traffic control. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will indicate in his reply whether or not this is being contemplated.
What struck me very much when considering alternatives to the Channel Tunnel—and this is in confirmation of some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—was that there was a large patch of the English Channel which had only 10 feet of water at low water springs. There is a region where there are very high tides and where there is a liability to fog. Vessels can get off their course. I can remember a rather rare sight. I was crossing the Atlantic in the "Normandy" in, I think, 1939, and I saw an ice-patrol boat watching a large iceberg. The ice-patrol boat looked exactly like a rather small boy in charge of a very large white St. Bernard dog which he was taking for a walk. It was, in fact, communicating with all shipping in the area notifying the position of the iceberg.
I cannot help feeling that these mammoth tankers—we are talking of 600,000 tons and some people are even talking in terms of million-ton tankers—these monsters, cannot be allowed to float around unaccompanied in fogs. They themselves may have the most perfect navigational equipment aboard, but what about other people who could run into them and who do not have this perfect navigational equipment? For that reason I believe that our grandchildren will not tolerate a situation in which unrestricted traffic is moving around in the Channel like motorcars round a roundabout, each vessel obeying what it thinks to be the rules and regulations and, possibly, off-course while it is doing so, not able to turn, not able to stop and spilling millions of tons of oil all over the place. I believe it is the job that you do not start that takes longest to finish. I believe that we should make a start on sea lane traffic control for these purposes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be able to tell me something about this in his reply.
4.40 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, it is two
380
days short of two years since I first rose to speak in this House. Your Lordships have no reason to remember, though I do, that on that occasion I spoke on the use, or indeed the misuse, of the sea. This evening, in doing so again, I am grateful to two sources in particular, one of which complements the other, and one of which compliments the other source.
First, I want to speak on the impact of oil on the marine environment and, secondly, I want to speak on the design features of tankers to reduce oil pollution. The sources to which I go are, in fact, the specialist ones—those people who in the port of Milford Haven, which has just been mentioned, are actually coming to grips hour by hour with some of the problems which noble Lords have already mentioned.
Before I do that I should like to refer to some quotations from the Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, and particularly to a Summary of that very massive fundamental report which was prepared by Mr. Richard Sandbrook. As noble Lords who have studied the report will know, it deals with three major items, one of which is the chemical and physical effects of oil discharges on marine life forms and on human health. I do not propose to say anything in this debate about the effect of pollution on human health, but I should like to introduce the known effects of oil pollution on marine life forms. The major report said:
"A great number of factors, acting both individually and in combination, govern the effects that an oil discharge may have on marine life. In general, the biological damage is more severe if the discharge occurs in a coastal or estuarine environment, especially if the intertidal zone is affected, than if it occurs in the open ocean".
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has already referred to the fact that accidents can happen; and your Lordships will know that accidents have, indeed, happened in the tidal estuary of Milford Haven and they have had their effects on the offshore islands. As the report points out, these effects may be:
"lethal or sublethal, acute or chronic with different organisms reacting in different ways".
I shall not go into the detail of all that. I simply say that sea birds are the only known group of marine organisms that have so far been affected by oil pollution to an extent sufficient to jeopardise the

381
entire local population, which in some cases constitutes the total world population; that there have been few instances in which extensive mortality of marine mammals from oil pollution has been reported; and that crude and heavy fuel oils seldom appear to cause extensive mortalities of adult fish. I merely sketch here some of the points that have been made in relation to the difficulties which occur when accidents happen in the marine environment, and particularly in landlocked estuaries.
That brings me to the point which was made in the report about Milford Haven itself. We are extremely fortunate that we have working in the Milford Haven area the Milford Haven Conservancy Board which was intelligent enough and well-advised enough to seek powers to itself which are, in fact, the envy of the marine world.
In the report from which I have already quoted extensively I find this on page 76:
"The only satisfactory approach to the conservation of the sea birds is to reduce the number of spills and the amount of oil on the surface of the ocean. Clark (1973) strongly favours the use of chemical dispersants to remove spilled oil drom the surface as soon as possible and considers this the only technique presently available that offers any hope for the future of sea birds".
I do not want to lake this House at this stage of the evening into the arguments about the use or the non-use of this type of dispersant, but I want to fix its attention on the success of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board's policies, which are being followed around the world. The report goes on to say:
"As an illustration he cites the successes at Milford Haven where the use of dispersants has virtually eliminated sea bird casualties without damaging the rich marine fauna and flora of the area and, by way of contrast, the unnecessary kill of 900 birds, mostly scoters, from a spill of 80 to 100 tons of oil from the 'Delian Apollon' in Tampa Bay".
This evening I am not here to talk specifically about the effects of oil pollution on sea birds. I have chosen that only as an illustration that an effective and active policy, clearly worked out and clearly followed through, can, in fact—even when accidents occur—prevent the ravages from doing the great damage which they sometimes do elsewhere. If, in fact, the Milford Haven Conservancy Board and its policies have been singled out for attention and praise in a particular aspect
382
worldwide, it is important that What they say there about the control of that major area of oil pollution—the overboard spilling of oil from tankers at terminals or tankers off-loading or taking on oil—should be properly said in this debate.
In fact, I went to the Milford Haven Conservancy Board and met its managing director, Colonel Sulivan, and its harbour master, Captain Guildford Dudley; I asked them whether they would consider some of the problems that might be raised in your Lordships' House. They had some words to offer on the question of the double bottoming of ships. At one stage the Americans were pushing for this. However, I have been reassured by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, to whom I pay the usual tributes for having initiated this debate, that the Americans are no longer pushing for this modification. I hope that this is so.
Although double bottoms are normal in dry cargo ships and the space between the bottoms is divided into tanks which are used for ballast water or fuel, I think that the British Government, and I believe the great majority of the maritime nations in the world, are against the installation of double bottoms on tankers for two major reasons. One is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure the integrity of the inner bottom between the cargo tanks and thye double bottom, with the result that a non gas-free atmosphere would exist within the double bottom which would constitute a considerable fire and explosion risk.
The second of these arguments is that although pollution by reason of bottom damage might be reduced if double bottoms were fitted, this would be the case only where the grounding resulted in damage to the outer skin. Your Lordships do not need to be told by me that in major groundings, such as the "Torrey Canyon" —and I understand that that ship suffered major bottom damage along more than 50 per cent. of its keel—it is almost certain that both the outer and the inner bottoms would be damaged. Furthermore, most major pollutions are the result of side damage or the break-up of a ship, neither of which would be helped, so I am advised, by the fitting of double bottoms.
Bottom damage in isolation is not such a serious cause of pollution, as the only

383
oil that will escape from the tank in this case is that laying between the top of the oil in the tanks and the ship's waterline—about 10 per cent. of the total volume of the content. In other words, although double bottom tanks might reduce pollution from minor damage, their presence may constitute an even greater danger, as an explosion in these tanks would probably lead to severe rupture of the hull itself. I have deliberately said that because sometimes assurances that are given are not maintained.
I want to move to the point that has already clearly been made in the debate both by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. By far the greater number of pollution incidents, in fact, arise from operational practices, and these operational practices occur chiefly within the ports themselves. Therefore, I was interested in what my friends at the Conservancy Board told me about methods of containing pollution on the decks of ships when spillages on those ships occurred.
The majority of our pollutions, again within this figure of which we have talked, consists of relatively small quantities of oil spilt on the deck, and many of these could be prevented from entering the sea if certain relatively minor feature alterations were made. I am sure that this will take us into considerable argument among sailors as to whether you could carry out this modification, but it is to the sailors that I have gone for advice.
Deeper scupper bars should be fitted, it is maintained, at the ship's side to retain oil. This creates problems in tanker design. Objections to this proposal have been voiced by the classification societies on the grounds that they would seriously affect the stability of the ship if large quantities of sea water were retained on deck at sea. That is a fairly elementary point. But I contend that adequate freeing ports—and this is my advice—could be provided which were left open at sea but were closed in port while cargo was being handled. The height of the scupper bars would, of course, be dedendent on the size of the ship and would only need to be considerable at the after-end. Although there are probably many uninitiated who might not know, those
384
who know the system of unloading will realise that all vessels working cargo trim by the stern and any oil spilt on deck accumulates aft.
The second point in this connection is that it should be possible to fit tankers with a drain turning across the after end of the ships into which oil off deck would automatically flow. The oil could then be drained off into slop tanks. One of the objections raised to this is the problem of static electricity being generated by oil and water mixtures dropping into a tank. This is obviously a matter which the Government and their advisers will have to study carefully indeed, and it could be, I am advised, modified by careful design.
There is the question of loading warning devices. It seems again elementary to the uninitiated, people such as I, that if there were a high level alarm system—and they do exist—which could be fitted to all tanks giving an audible or visible warning when the tanks are nearing full capacity, all those operating would be alerted and would be able to avoid some of the errors that have occurred in various ports of the world. This should help to reduce accidental overflows of tanks during loading. But there are experienced operators in my home area who tell me that there is a possibility that such techniques could provide a false sense of security and in fact lead to less efficient watch-keeping than is kept at the present time. Obviously the answer then is a combination of both efficient operatives and efficient warning devices to make those operatives even more efficient than they presently are.
Finally, I come in this particular context to the overboard discharges and inlets. When the ship is taking on or discharging major accidents occur. We were unfortunate in Milford Haven, as some of you will know, in the fact that our first ship ever to take on oil or discharge cargo at the port was involved in such an override spill through the breakdown of a mechanical arm. Leaks from valves on these discharges are a frequent source of small pollutions. I am advised that this problem could be overcome if positive blanking systems were incorporated in all overboard valves. It would be necessary to make it obligatory for them to be used in ports. Classification societies do not permit positive blanking devices on main

385
sea valves for the best of reasons, but a number of the better companies are fitting double valves on all overboard discharges.
In Milford Haven they seal all those valves on arrival. However, it is necessary to open the valves in order to take in ballast. If there is any oil lying between the valves and the pumps there is a risk of this oil running out before suction has been achieved. They advocate then a bleed system between the pumps and the overboard discharges with warning devices which indicate the presence of oil in these lines. The fitting of double valves with warning devices and bleed systems has greatly reduced the numbers of these pollutions. The Department of Trade "M" Notice published in November 1974 supports the desirability of these precautions.
Finally, the type of valves themselves comes into question. Gate valves are the most positive type but they are slow and difficult to operate if they are of large size. Some years ago it was common practice to fit butterfly or ball valves which are much quicker in operation, but it has been found that they suffer from the defect that the rubber seal can become detached from the body of the valve allowing oil to pass. It is most undesirable, therefore, that butterfly or ball valves should be used in overboard sea suctions. The major companies have either replaced these valves or have fitted secondary valves on these lines.
In summary of the points I have made, it is the considered view of those active in these operations that occasional minor escapes of oil in ports are inevitable, mainly owing to human error or mechanical failure. But the number and severity of sea pollutions caused thereby could be reduced by altering the design of tankers in quite modest ways, either by retaining oil spilt on deck or by better sea valve systems. The major oil companies have gone some way to overcome some of these problems, but this is not always true in the case of chartered tonnage. Major pollutions normally result from side damage or massive hull damage caused by collisions or from serious groundings, none of which would be significantly helped by the fitting of the double bottom tanks. Pollution from minor bottom damage which might be overcome by the
386
fitting of double bottom tanks only results in a relatively small portion of oil in the affected tanks escaping, even when no double bottoms are fitted.
I speak for no particular interest. I speak from derived experience, but I speak as one who lives on the foreshore of one of the most beautiful parts of Britain and on a harbour which has become essential as a lifeline to the economy of this country. We, probably more than anyone who visits casually some seaside resort somewhere, would want to urge upon the Government at this time the necessity of their giving maximum support and maximum urgency to the prevention of any oil spillage which is likely to have a dangerous effect either upon the wild life; or the human enjoyment of the environment.
4.58 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris was particularly eager to take part in this debate because he has made a detailed study of the problem that is being debated, and he wished to have his views on the record if possible. Unfortunately for him, he was committed to attend the General Assembly of the Council of Europe and so could not be here in person. He asked if I would convey some of his views to your Lordships. I accepted the task of doing that with some trepidation, because I feel very much like an unrehearsed understudy in a very technical production indeed. Having heard the debate, I do not apologise for vicariously putting the views of my noble friend Lord Morris, because if there is one thing the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is to be congratulated on it is his timing. This debate today is clearly a well worthwhile curtain raiser to the important international conference to be held in London next month.
If it is to be a worthwhile curtain raiser it is a good thing that all the points of view that are sincerely held by people who understand these matters should be in front of our delegates when they go to represent the point of view that is in the best interests of this country. While one ought to approach this in a manner that is disinterested, and wanting perfection to come out of the result, on all these matters of international discussion national

387
elegates ought never completely to disregard the self-interest as it affects the nation which they represent. In many ways we must be grateful to the United States who initiated this forthcoming conference, and we congratulate them on having avoided the temptation of taking unilateral action to deal with their own problems. Yet, having said that, there is an irony in their having initiated the conference, for the United States have played a greater part than almost any other country in establishing and building up flags of convenience. In addition, the United States ports do not for the most part have the deep dredged channels suitable for modern tankers and as a result, older and smaller tankers have been used there to deal with the ever-increasing American imports of oil.
The tanker casualties, which no doubt inspired the special American interest, which occurred last winter off the United States coasts were all with one exception from United States flags or from flag of convenience vessels. That of course would create their interest. However, the proposals which they seem to be sponsoring are directed to the shipping of all flags, not those which can be separately identified as being the more dangerous ones. Nevertheless, as I said, they are to be congratulated for not taking unilateral action because their problem has been a special one, particularly in the last year. It is a good thing that IMCO should try quickly to work out something that will be acceptable overall and which, if it will not produce perfection, will produce results to minimise the many dangers and effects we have heard described in this debate.
On many of the items proposed last March by President Carter to Congress there has been general agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, made this point, but it is worth repeating. There is no dispute about the need for second radars and collision avoidance systems. There is no dispute about emergency steering gear. There is no dispute on inert gas systems or on the construction of new tankers and having all the modern thoughts one can have when building new tankers. There is no dispute about the need for more frequent inspection and enforcement of the items
388
which have been generally agreed. There is no dispute about the need for training and certification to achieve the standards we want.
However, the one item on which there is dispute—this has been reflected in today's debate—and on which there has been a substantial difference of view among experts in this field is whether or not the retrofitting of segregated ballast tanks in existing tankers should form part of the directive which could flow from the conference next month. In the view of my noble friend Lord Morris, three points must be stressed in regard to this proposal. The first is that the only previous case when agreement was reached at IMCO on retrospective structural requirements—that was for structural fire protection in passenger ships—that proposal, the retrospective one, proved to be a heavy burden on the shipping industry at a time when passenger ships were going out of fashion. It could well be that pushing on with that retrospective structural requirement helped to speed putting into oblivion the passenger shipping about which we all used to be so proud.
The second point is that retrofitting would be very costly indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Inverforth, estimated it at £150 million, whereas my noble friend Lord Morris has estimated it at £170 million for the United Kingdom fleet alone. In addition, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out how it would affect the capacity of the refitted ships themselves. Thus, in doing it we would be committing ourselves to terrific expenditure which would produce a lower income in terms of what would flow from it after the alterations were made.
The third point which my noble friend thought it right to keep very much in mind is the positive one; if it were just a matter of criticising the new ballast tanks and leaving it at that, one could be accused of being little-minded in one's approach. But he argues, as many noble Lords do, that there is an alternative technique which may go almost all the way to securing the benefits that would flow from this retrospective structural requirement but which would be better in economic terms and would produce most of the results for which we have called. That is the use of crude oil to wash out cargo tanks. If this alternative were not

389
available, it might be that the necessity, expensive and difficult though it would be, of the retrospective structural requirement would have to be accepted. But with this alternative being available, certainly for existing vessels, there is a very strong argument indeed for our delegates to the conference to bear in mind that they are going far enough to meet the needs of today—the new vessels will meet the needs of the future—by producing an alternative which would minimise the risks which have shown themselves so far.
It might be said that surely everybody would be against the retrospective structural requirements if what I have said were accepted in its entirely; but I do not think we should presume that that would be the case because there are other considerations. We are living in a world in which practical considerations and human reactions have to be taken into account. Many of the countries which will be at the conference have a much larger tanker surplus than we and some others have, and it could be that, because of their great surplus, which is a complete waste to them now, they see in the retrofitting a means of taking other countries' tankers out of commission. It could be that they have in mind that reducing of cargo-carrying capacity of their competitors would make it easier for some of their surpluses to be used. It could be that increasing freight rates that would to some extent flow from such a step would give them a chance to get a better return on the fleets they have to carry, and of course they—this is an argument which would apply to us too—may think very strongly in terms of benefiting their shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
But all of those things are not good arguments for pressing on with something which is not in itself economic, which is not a process which could be speedily carried out and when there is an alternative which, it is argued by those who understand these matters, could go a long way towards overcoming the problems we have in mind. Fortunately, the United Kingdom—this is what one would expect our delegates to keep in mind—has a much smaller tanker surplus than the world average, and, because of that, the considerations which I have suggested may be in others' minds should make us extremely reluctant to accept solutions which are in effect designed primarily to
390
benefit the shipping industries of other countries at a considerable cost to ourselves.
It would seem unlikely that the requirement to fit segregated ballast tanks to existing tankers would come into force in time to have an effect on the current tanker surplus or shipbuilding or ship repairing capacity. I was interested a short while ago, when we were listening to the nuclear Statement, to hear one of my noble friends say that the best might well become the enemy of the good. There are times when absolute perfection, which cannot be gainsaid, is not the right thing to do if the result one wants is needed reasonably early, and I believe that the whole of the argument which my noble friend Lord Morris has asked me to present to the House fits into that.
I appreciate that some, if they wanted to, could think that the arguments which I have adduced have championed sin over virtue, but in my view these things have to be looked at in a practical and sensible way. As for the things that can be agreed, get on with those and put them into effect. But on the one item where there is a genuine difference of view and which could be very much to the detriment of this country, our delegates should keep that very much in mind. I think I could sum up the views of my noble friend Lord Morris by saying to the delegates that there are plenty of good things to get on with which can be agreed and speedily put into action now, and there is an effective alternative to the one point which may be difficult to agree—an alternative which can be speedily and more economically put into action.
5.10 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to join the other speakers in this debate who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder on his initiative in bringing this particular subject to your Lordships' attention. In his opening he rather seemed to wonder whether, from the Government's point of view, it was not perhaps awkwardly timed. I assure him that I certainly do not take that view. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who has just spoken, that it is timely that we should have this debate and that the Government should have the benefit of your Lordships views

391
at this point, when we are preparing for this highly important conference to be held in London.
I was most relieved to hear my noble friend announce early in his speech that he did not propose to "bash" me personally, because he sits in a particularly good strategic place to do so if he wishes; and, as we all know, his mental equipment on this and cognate subjects is so impressive that he could "bash" me verbally as well if he chose to do so. He put before your Lordships a most fascinating and clear statement of his point of view; and I am glad that he referred to the work of the committee of which he has recently become the chairman, the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, because that enables me to take this opportunity to assure him and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the vice-president of that committee, that the Department of Trade and the Government regard the advice from that committee as highly constructive and valuable. That does not mean that we always accept it, of course, but we do regard it as most welcome.
Before I deal with the main question of tanker safety and pollution, I should like to refer to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Kennet, backed up as he was by the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, and to thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for having given me notice that he was proposing to raise the different but related subject of hydrography. He kindly gave me notice of the questions he proposed to ask; and, indeed, he wrote to me on a number of aspects which he did not include in his speech this afternoon. Having communicated with me as he did, I have had the opportunity to obtain detailed information on the points he has in mind. Much of it, I am sure he will recognise, cannot appropriately be conveyed in a winding-up speech in a short debate of this kind, but I shall certainly send the information to my noble friend, and if he wishes it to have a wider circulation, I am quite sure that the procedure of Written Answers might be usefully taken up.
Meantime, I would tell my noble friend that the proceeds from the Hydrographer's revenue-earning activities are paid into Defence Votes as appropriations in aid; and, as far as surveying activities are concerned, it was decided in 1976 that the
392
hydrographer's potential to undertake commercially-funded work should be exploited, since not all the existing survey fleet was required for defence purposes, The costs of the hydrographic services are borne on the Defence Votes; but I have certainly noted the impressive points that he and the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, have made this afternoon about the urgency of further and much more extensive modern surveys, and the point that other Departments should appropriately make contributions to this work. I am quite sure that the points made by those two noble Lords will be noted by those whose duty it is to reach decisions on these matters.
The debate has, understandably, ranged rather wider than the conference itself, covering the question of safety at sea and pollution in more general terms than perhaps it will be under the agenda of the specific conference. For that reason, I should like to start with some general remarks on the position of Her Majesty's Government on these important matters. Indeed, I think I can say "the position of successive Governments", because, as has emerged from the debate this afternoon, I detect no Party lines on this particular subject. The United Kingdom has a merchant fleet of some 32 million gross registered tons, and lies third in the league table, behind Liberia and Japan. Under this figure, tanker tonnage comprises some 17 million gross registered tons—again, the third largest in the world and representing some 10 per cent. of world tonnage. Our tanker fleet is relatively modern.
The United Kingdom safety record over the last 10 years has consistently been one of the best, with a low rate of total losses, both in terms of tonnage at risk and in terms of numbers of ships at risk; and the Government have played their part in creating high safety standards by regulations, codes of practice, certification of crews and ships, surveys of ships, general inspections and advice to masters of ships, and by personal co-operation at every level with the shipping industry. But a great deal of credit should go to the industry itself for the great strides that it has made in improving the quality of its ships and their crews. Of course accidents happen, and we should never be complacent. There have been some bad examples; but, on the whole, the British fleet is well managed, safe and efficient.

393
If we were in a world of our own we might be prepared to rest it there, but, as has been emphasised this afternoon, shipping in its very character is international. For example, the Dover Strait is the busiest seaway in the world, with some 350 lateral movements per day, mostly of foreign flag. In this connection, I noticed the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was making; and he asked me about the results of the traffic separation scheme. I can tell him that there has been a significant reduction in the number of collisions in the Dover Strait since the traffic separation scheme came into effect, particularly in conditions of fog; and the scheme should be even more effective since the international collision regulations came into effect last July. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, entered into the discussion on this point, and he would wish to know that, in addition to the traffic separation scheme in the Channel, to which I have just referred, the British and French have jointly set up the Channel navigation information service, based on the United Kingdom side at St. Margaret's Bay, which monitors traffic, both lateral and cross, in the Channel.
The safety of foreign as well as United Kingdom vessels is important to us, not only, obviously, on grounds of common humanity but because our own interests are involved, whether by threat of collision with our own vessels, the need to give assistance or the threat of pollution after a casualty. Secondly, our own merchant fleet depends upon maintaining freedom of movement across the globe; and this includes the freedom from different countries imposing, different and confusing sets of safety and pollution regulations. Thus I suggest that it is in our self-interest, as it is of other countries, to achieve internationally-agreed regulations and, so far as possible, internationally-agreed criteria for enforcing them.
It is fair to say that the United Kingdom traditionally played the leading role in the past in achieving this kind of international agreement. Before IMCO was set up in 1959, we convened international conferences in London such as the 1932 Load Line Conference, the 1948 Safety of Life at Sea Conference, the 1954 Pollution Conference; and we were the depositories of the resulting conventions.
394
After IMCO was set up, these conventions were superseded by the 1966 Loadlines Convention, the 1960 and 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Conventions and the 1973 Pollution Convention, all of which represented major international steps forward in safety and pollution control.
As I have said, we played a leading part in these conferences and the United Kingdom continues to play a lending role in IMCO, and many of the new requirements in these conventions and other instruments have sprung from this country's initiatives. When the "Torrey Canyon" disaster hit us in 1967 our reaction and that of France was to press for emergency action through IMCO. Much has been achieved in the decade since then. When the United States, as has been referred to, faced a series of tanker accidents last winter, their reaction was, similarly, to press for emergency action through IMCO. We applaud such action and we see no merit, indeed much harm, in pursuing the route of unilateral action.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder made reference to the possibility of unilateral action in these matters by the USA and by the Arab States. I believe it is true to say that no such announcement has been made and, therefore, the point raised is somewhat hypothetical. Indeed, President Carter has stressed repeatedly the desire to reach a global solution on the whole area of safety and pollution covered by the conference. The United Kingdom has played a leading part over the years in building up international regulations and we believe that any resort to unilateralism would undermine that and the maintenance of safety and pollution standards.
I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, indicated his strong support for this point of view. Her Majesty's Government have consistently supported the United States in its call for the conference and, like the United States, certainly, we aim for a successful conclusion; that is, a generally accepted agreement. The United Kingdom delegation will do its best to contribute towards this objective. Like all decisions on safety and the environment—indeed, like most decisions—there will have to be a balancing of cost and benefit and a balancing of the

395
needs of IMCO Member-Governments of which there are over 100. We need to gauge the attitudes of other countries as we are doing now and as we shall do at the conference, and I am sure that noble Lords will not expect me to spell out in detail our precise negotiating position. Indeed, I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for specifically saying that they did not expect that I should be able to reveal our cards.
However, I can describe our broad approach and this I am sure is what the House would expect me to do. First, as I have said, we will aim for a successful conclusion—as we shall, in the summer, at the complementary Conference on Training and Certification of Seafarers. Secondly, we shall try to get speedy agreement on the many points on which there has already appeared in preparatory meetings to be a broad measure of agreement. I have in mind, for example, the proposals relating to the more effective implementation of conventions, more frequent inspections and intermediate surveys for older tankers. These proposals are much in line with the initiative which the United Kingdom has taken in IMCO over the last three years to improve the enforcement of conventions against ships which are substandard.
The United Kingdom has put forward its own proposal of setting up a marine safety corps under IMCO which would assist countries whose maritime administrations needed to be developed and be given the capacity to exercise their obligations under the conventions. There are encouraging signs of agreement on other proposals before the conference; so that, although attention this afternoon has been focussed on one particular aspect of the conference, I think that we should take note that there is a broad agenda on which there is a vast degree of agreement and we can, therefore, look forward to constructive decisions in those areas.
A major issue which will have to be decided, as has been pointed out by many speakers, concerns the question of the provision of segregated ballast on tankers. This is already a requirement in the 1973 Convention for new tankers over 70,000 tons; but one of the proposals before the conference is that the limit for new tankers
396
should be reduced and that the requirement should apply to existing tankers as well. The advocates of the application to existing tankers argue on the grounds that it would have benefits for the environment; that it would, by spreading the load between more tankers, help to alleviate the current tanker surplus; and that it would provide work in the shipyards. But I would suggest that the proposal has little, in itself, to do with safety or with accidental pollution.
The United Kingdom has argued against this measure on the grounds that the environmental benefits would be very small when measured against the cost, a cost comprising capital cost of about £150 million for the United Kingdom fleet plus additional costs arising from lower carrying capacity which would lead to an increase in the price of oil to the consumer; or as an alternative, that it would add additional costs to the taxpayer. This assertion of mine, that the environmental benefit would be very small, is hacked up by a similar conclusion which was recently reached in an independent consultant's report which was commissioned by the OECD, which said:
"SBT affords some saving in oil pollution, a saving which, in relation to the cost of the measure as a whole must be regarded as relatively insignificant."
OECD also commissioned three case studies on the environmental benefits, in economic terms, of SBT. They were the New York Bight area, the fishing industry in North-East Scotland, and tourism in the South-West Wales area. The conclusions—which are subject to various caveats—are:
"that in the particular areas investigated there are no demonstrable economic benefits from environmental improvements arising from SBT retrofit of tankers operating in these areas".
Those are important points of view of which to take note. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder included in his speech some matters relating to this question of costs to which I referred earlier, particularly in relation to employment in British shipyards and possible savings in public expenditure on social security. I can assure him that studies have been undertaken in these matters using a number of different assumptions, hearing in mind a number of uncertainties. These studies have come to the clear conclusion that, as a means of bringing work to

397
British shipyards, RSBT would be extremely expensive as an indirect subsidy compared with any form of direct subsidy.
Secondly in this area of costs, he asks whether the cost benefit of RSBT has been considered in relation to the expensive oil reception facilities which the United Kingdom will have to provide as an oil-exporting State to deal with waste disposal. I am grateful to him for having given me notice of these specific questions that he was proposing to ask. In answer to the point that I have just recalled, it has not been possible to quantify this item but it is difficult, I suggest, to see why the United Kingdom alternative of crude oil washing would require more reception facilities than RSBT in areas which are not special areas.
In the case of repair ports, perhaps fewer reception facilities would be required for COW—crude oil washing—since no sludge disposal would be required. In terms of the shipping industry, we doubt whether the measure would come into force early enough to alleviate the tanker surplus which has affected some other countries more than the United Kingdom. In considering this proposal, the Government have taken into account therefore all the wider aspects, though the main objective of the conference to which we are directing our attention concerns the question of safety and the environment.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder asked which department and which interest groups have been consulted in the formulation of British policy for the conference. We have for some time taken into account the views of the committee to which I have referred and of which he is chairman. In formulating policy for the conference, the Department of Trade have consulted directly with the tanker safety group, which includes the General Council for British Shipping, the seafarers' union, Lloyd's Register, oil companies and the Ship Pollution Advisory Group, which includes shipping interests and departments concerned. Government departments which have been consulted include the Department of Industry, the Northern Ireland Office, the Departments of Environment, Employment and Energy and, as always, the Treasury and the FCO. I assure him not only that we have taken all the wider aspects of this question
398
very much into account but that we have sought advice from all the interests concerned.
This is because we have been anxious to put forward a constructive alternative to RSBT, and we believe a requirement to make mandatory the relatively new technique of washing tanks with the cargo instead of with sea water—the technique referred to as crude oil washing—would have at least an equivalent environmental effect. It would not have the same capital cost; indeed, one-ninth in the case of the United Kingdom fleet, which accords very nearly with the estimate that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was asking about. That relates; to ship of over 70,000 tons. I would make the point of course that other countries make other estimates which differ from ours. The noble Lord was right regarding our estimate.
We believe that this method would not bring forward higher freight costs. It would have energy saving implications since it would increase the payload of a carrier, thus reducing the consumption of tanker fuel and of disposal residues from tanks. We believe that these are very strong arguments which we will deploy, and we hope that these arguments will convince some countries which previously have seen attractions in retrofitting segregated ballast tanks. Indeed my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder read out a list of countries which favour RSBT, but I should inform him that in fact the count is something like two to one in favour of COW at the moment. As I said, we are hoping that our arguments will convince others. Acceptance of the crude oil washing alternative might form the basis of a package which will be acceptable to the great majority of countries.
In concluding—and I am sorry to have spoken for so long—whatever the differences between my noble friend and myself on this matter, I am sure that all of us agree that we have listened to a series of very well-informed speeches, and we owe our thanks to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for having made this debate possible. It is a very timely debate and we believe that it will in general help the Government to state the point of view which is in this country's interest and the interest of shipping world wide.

399
In conclusion, I should like to thank the other noble Lords who have made such notable contributions to our debate.
5.39 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what I think has been a very effective debate. I have noted every one of the points and arguments raised and deployed, including those of Lord Oram. I want to say to my noble—and, I was going to say, "dear"—friend Lord Oram that I did not say that I was going to bash him. I said that I was not going to abash him. That just shows your Lordships how articulation breaks down. I appreciate what my noble friend said at great length on behalf of the Government. I still feel intransigent on some points; but, on the other hand, we have heard a full and frank disclosure of the Government's position and what our arguments will be.
The only thing I want to see coming out of this conference is an effective and long-term agreement which in fact will take the form of international law. I agree entirely with my noble friend when he says that we ought to aim for multinational agreements and not be intimidated by unilateral claims. We have in the past learnt to recognise that countries are quite capable of taking unilateral action which eventually acquires the force of international law. I refer in particular to my bête noire— which may not be the bête noire of a lot of other people—which is the position of the Continental Shelf. That arose originally out of a unilateral declaration by the United States.
Therefore, I am not going to argue again about the merits of the separated ballast tanks at this point, except to say that I am not yet—and I repeat this quite seriously—I am not yet convinced that the arguments against separated ballast tanks are operationally valid. I said during my speech that I had no reservations in accepting COW, or crude oil washing, as a very important contribution to this whole problem. I would be prepared, in a longer and more investigatory debate, to dispute a great many of the figures which have been canvassed today; and therefore I am not entirely reconciled to what is
400
likely to be the British position, simply not promoting crude oil washing but, on the contrary, using that as an alternative to separate ballast tanks.
I hope that out of this debate today we have given the Minister and the Government some insight into our thinking, and that we shall find the delegates to this Conference going there in the spirit in which I always hope that members of my Government will go—that is, being responsive to the thinking and the wishes of others and not merely taking up an intransigent position. We are asking at this Conference for flexibility of thinking and I am sure that something very constructive will come out of it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY
5.42 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE rose to call attention to the contribution made to the economy by tourism; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to call attention to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and to move for Papers. I am grateful for this opportunity to open this short debate on the contribution of tourism to the economy. It is indeed some time since the House last had the opportunity of discussing an industry which now ranks as our largest invisible export, having overtaken insurance and shipping for the first time last year. It is an industry which produced estimated foreign currency earnings of £3,000 million in 1977–50 per cent. greater than the estimated contributions made by North Sea oil to the balance of payments in 1977. It is also, my Lords, an industry which provides some 1¾ million jobs.
As chairman of a regional tourist board, a non-statutory body, I am not bound by the restrictions on speaking which apply to the chairmen of statutory boards. However, I should like to declare my involvement in the work of the London Tourist Board. I am particularly pleased to see that a number of noble Lords who are members of regional tourist boards have put down their names to speak in the

401
debate this afternoon. I am also particularly pleased to see that my noble friend Lady Birk is going to reply to this debate, as I know that she and her Department, although not responsible for tourism, have done much to improve the amenities which are enjoyed by tourists.
In my view, the health of the British tourist industry depends to a large extent on the continuing vitality of London as a tourist attraction. Because we just have experienced a bumper inflow of tourists, we must not be lulled into a false sense of security about the future health of the tourist industry. We must remember that constant efforts are needed if we are to remain an attractive venue for overseas visitors.
I should like to deal with a number of problems which face the tourist industry at the present time. First, I should like to raise the question of the degree of priority which the Government gives to tourism. Within government itself, tourism is the responsibility of the Department of Trade, and within that Department it is a junior Minister who is responsible for tourism. He also has a number of other responsibilities, such as export credits, newspapers, film publicity and distribution service trades. No Minister is solely responsible for tourism. I think that positive consideration must be given to the appointment of a Minister for Tourism. Whether such a Minister is one who is appointed in the same way as a Minister for Sport in the Department of the Environment or whether he will be a Minister with a separate Department is a matter for discussion. In either case it would serve to illustrate the Government's concern about tourism.
What would also underline the Government's concern is for the Civil Service Department to refrain from continually promoting or transferring the principal civil servants who are responsible for tourism. At the top level, the industry has had to deal with seven civil servants in the past seven years. No sooner does each new holder of the office become conversant with the needs of the industry than he is whisked away. The creation of a Ministry for Tourism would mean that tourism would be dealt with at a higher level within the Civil Service. I know this suggestion has been made before: I do not hesitate to make it again, although
402
I know there are some who feel such a course would just increase the bureaucracy within the tourist industry, adding yet another layer of authority, and a complication, above that of the national boards. However, I do not see it in that way. Government machinery is already there for dealing with the national boards, and such a move would primarily serve to demonstrate to the industry, and not just to the tourist boards, the Government's concern and desire to understand the needs of all facets of tourism, upon whose continuing health so many sections of the community depend.
Last year, in opening the Brighton Conference Centre, the Prime Minister looked to the new jobs which tourism could provide, in the absence of new jobs in manufacturing industry. Of course, we all welcome the fact that tourism is providing an expanding number of jobs, but I am sorry that all too often these jobs are seen as "second-class" jobs, not to be compared with jobs in manufacturing industry. This, I fear, is one of our national faults. We regard service jobs as inferior jobs, unlike many European countries, where hoteliers and restauranteurs enjoy the highest standard. I should like to remind your Lordships that, during the past five years, employment in the hotels and catering sector has increased by almost 25 per cent., whereas employment in the manufacturing sector has decreased by 10 per cent.
It is almost 10 years since the Development of Tourism Act reached the Statute Book, and it is time to consider how well it has worked. In many ways it has worked remarkably well, but the establishment of a hierarchy involving the British Tourist Authority and the national and regional boards has inevitably led to conflicts and overlapping responsibilities between the different organisations. The British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers' Association argued in their tourism policy document in 1976 that the British Tourist Authority should have a full-time chairman. That, in fact, has almost happened now with the appointment last year of Sir Henry Marking as a four-day-a-week chairman in place of a two-day-a-week chairman.
The British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers' Association also argued for national board status for the London

403
Tourist Board because of its strategic importance as a tourist centre. That has not happened and I am very doubtful if it ever will happen, as all Governments find it extremely difficult to accept arguments for special treatment for London. However, that does not detract in any way from the strategic importance of London to the tourist industry. London is the gateway to Britain for the vast majority of inter-continental and European visitors. In fact, 92 per cent. of all overseas visitors arrive in Britain at one of London's five airports or at one of the seaports in the South-East corner of England. Only if London can continue to attract overseas visitors will the tourist trade in the rest of Britain flourish.
For this reason, we have to be very concerned about London's ability to compete in overseas markets. Already we know that a recent survey of top hotels showed that London's hotels were only marginally less expensive than the hotels of Geneva and Paris. Any strengthening of sterling would further reduce that price advantage. Added to that, the shortage of hotel rooms in the summer months can act as a further disincentive to visitors. The Government must consider whether the time is ripe to re-introduce the Hotel Development Incentive Scheme as an encouragement to additional hotel building. However, if past experience is anything to go by, I would consider that to be the wrong way to tackle this problem, as it would lead to indiscriminate hotel building. The Government should give serious consideration to speedily agreeing to the classing of hotels as industrial buildings, thereby enabling capital allowances to be granted for tax purposes. If we accept that tourism is an industry on a par with manufacturing industry, there should be no difficulty in coming to that decision. I know that the Government are held back from it for financial reasons but, in equity, it is a decision which should and must be made.
Besides being the gateway for holiday visitors, London is Britain's number one convention centre. Based on the number of international conventions held, London vies with Paris for the European accolade. But we do not, as Paris has, have a purpose-built, centrally-situated convention centre capable of seating up to 5,000 delegates. The organisers of international
404
conventions are not tied to any city; they want the best deal for their members. We can offer numerous hotel venues for conventions of a few hundred—Grosvenor House and the West Centre Hotel, for example, are there for conventions up to 2,000. Already, the Wembley conference centre, and soon the Barbican Centre, will be able to offer facilities as good as any in the world for conventions of between 2,000 and 2,700 persons. Some other halls, such as the Royal Albert Hall, can house larger numbers but not in a purpose-built conference facility.
London's conference business is important to Britain. This is a field where London competes for Britain with other European and American centres in a very competitive international market. It is wrong to think that many other British towns can be promoted in competition with attractive and popular resorts in Europe such as Monte Carlo, which will shortly open a superb new convention centre. We must not forget that London is the magnet which brings people to Britain and therefore we must make certain that London can compete on equal terms.
The fact that we have not got a large 3,000-plus, centrally-situated convention centre means that this is an area in which we cannot compete. Such a centre may well lose money for its owner and consequently private enterprise is unlikely to embark on the project, but it would certainly make money for the city and the country in which it was situated. That is why there have been large injections of public money into the centres established by our competitors in so many towns in Europe, America and Asia. In the past there have been proposals for such a centre in London. This is an issue which obviously merits continued investigation. In my view, the ideal place for a centre of this kind would be at Hyde Park Corner, in the heart of hotel land. When Government come to decide what it is going to do about St. George's Hospital in the mid-1980s when it is no longer needed for National Health Service purposes, they ought to decide that this is the right site for such a centre. In the 1990s we shall certainly be needing such a centre.
May I now come to an area where I should like to see more practical assistance

405
being provided by Government for our effort to win international conventions for Britain. By this, I mean the annual congresses of international associations. In order to succeed, it is usually necessary to persuade the local British association affiliated to whatever may be the international body in question to act as host, to shoulder the burden of organisation, and, usually, to provide some of the finance, at any rate in the early days. Knowing how valuable to our economy, directly and indirectly, such international conferences are, many British associations would like to do this. However, while they have the enthusiasm, they often lack the finance. What is needed is the availability of bridging finance to get such meetings established until the income from delegate registration starts to flow. This may take a period of up to three years or more.
I would ask that the Government consider a method of underwriting this preliminary investment. If a float of, say, £100,000 were maintained for the purpose, all repayable in due course, I am sure we should win far more international conferences than we do and bring many millions of pounds of foreign currency into the country, to say nothing of the valuable gain when professional people such as doctors and scientists and trade unionists from all over the world come to Britain's capital to meet and share experiences with their British counterparts. There are probably few instances where such a moderate investment could bring such magnificent returns and I believe that the idea deserves close consideration. After all, many of the countries with which we are competing offer far more than this in incentives and inducements.
I have spent some time in talking about the convention scene. I make no excuse for doing so because convention business is particularly valuable business which may not otherwise occur. A large convention such as the Sweet Adelines, which came to the Royal Albert Hall last November, is worth something of the order of 3 million dollars.
Last year we were debating the Berrill Report. If I had had the opportunity of taking part in that debate, I should have asked that overseas embassies and consulates should be more aware of the potentialities of London as a convention
406
centre. The British Tourist Authority maintains representation in 22 cities overseas, of which four are in the USA. Wherever there is BTA representation there is a good working relationship and awareness of the situation but in many other overseas locations there is little awareness of the convention potential of London. This is a task which the diplomatic service should take on in a more systematic way. Obviously, it would be more satisfactory if the British Tourist Authority was able to increase the level of its overseas representation instead of continually having, for financial reasons, to cut the number of people employed in its overseas offices.
Despite the increasing revenues enjoyed nationally from tourist earrings, the British Tourist Authority has had to cope with rapidly expanding business on a frozen income. For two years, there has been no real increase in the Government grant for this vital work. Some of its leading overseas counterparts have received greatly increased grants; for example, the figure is up 30 per cent. in Denmark and 12 per cent. in Germany in real terms. Action on this is essential, if we are to realise the future potential for travel to Britain. The British Tourist Authority estimates that by 1985 tourism can generate some £9,000 million expenditure per annum. The implications of this growth are important, particularly in job terms, creating perhaps another half a million jobs, many of them in small industry.
However, this is not a mater solely for central Government. There is a need to secure the full commitment of local authorities to the development of the country's tourism potential, not only in a financial sense but also in a planning sense. For example, an adequate transport infrastructure is just as important to the resident as to the tourist. As our economy improves, we must expect a larger movement of British people abroad which will make more room for overseas visitors to Britain. Indeed, accommodation, transport and other travel establishments will need the extra foreign business to make up for the lost home business.
However, we should not take all of this for granted. International competition could well increase. We could lose more of our competitive edge, if the pound continues to go up and not down. We must ensure that world travellers get the

407
standards of service they expect. They want value for money on standards judged internationally and not by what is acceptable domestically. Surely, in the light of the high level of unemployment, Government will wish to take special action to encourage the recruitment and training of staff in the service trades, especially tourism.
Another matter which I have not mentioned so far, and which I shall mention only in passing as I know that a number of other noble Lords intend to deal with it, is the role of tourism in conserving the heritage, contributing to the environment and, potentially, to urban renewal. It is quite wrong to consider tourism as a destroyer. Thirty per cent. of the audiences in London's 50 theatres, and at concerts by London's five symphony orchestras, two ballet companies and three opera houses are international visitors. Twenty per cent. of all visitors to historic houses are foreign. Without this support, the heritage would certainly be out of business.
I have already referred to London's role as a magnet in attracting visitors to London. London needs the business, and visitor spending keeps many amenities going, as well as having an important side effect on manufacturing. London is now an international shopping centre. Tourist spending on textiles, for example, is equivalent to one-third of the value of all direct textile exports from Britain. How many firms are now dependent on visitor spending and on London's retailing skills? One does not know, but it would certainly be unwise if Government guidelines discriminated against London.
In conclusion, let me say that if we want to keep the substantial benefits of international tourism business, then the tourist trade must be given a major place in our priorities. We must take it seriously. In recent years, cool, cultural Britain has done better than many hot, sunny, beach resort areas, which have suffered seriously. Our share of world tourism has increased from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. over the past decade. The position can be reversed. The tide can go out. But the job cannot be done by Government alone. All aspects of the tourist trade have their part to play. One of London's greatest dangers is that the image may be tarnished,
408
not by realities but by the cries of critics condemning London, its facilities and, worst of all, the tourists themselves. Such people are ready to pocket the visitors' money, but they do not wish to be bothered to act as friendly hosts.
I look forward to hearing the contributions to the debate this afternoon and, particularly, to hearing any plans which the Government have for the future of the industry. My only regret is that this is a short debate, and that the contributions which follow mine will inevitably have to be limited, as I know that the Minister who is to reply will require some time to answer all the points. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who has just sat down, and who has made such an excellent and expert speech on a subject which has brought no fewer than 12 expert speakers to your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord has pointed out, tourism and the industry associated with it deserve such a list containing so many experts who can give the House the benefit of their practical experience.
I wonder whether any of your Lordships can disclaim an interest in the tourist industry, when all of us in this House spend so much time in the warmer months of the year dodging visitors from all over the world who throng to see us and to listen to our proceedings. Indeed, the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, who I am happy to see will be speaking later in the debate, may recall that one morning when I turned up at your Lordships' House at 9 o'clock I found a group of Americans waiting at the Peers' entrance. They had flown the Atlantic the night before, but they were so keen and resilient, both young and old, that they listened to a debate in your Lordships' House on, I believe, cruelty to dogs, and then went on a tour of the House conducted by myself. As I said, they had just flown the Atlantic, and any of your Lordships who have done that will know that one is not then in a very fit state to do a lengthy tour of both this House and the sights of London.
I think the House will wonder what it is that attracts so many visitors to Britain

409
and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, to London. Is it merely our hospitality, is it the quality of our life, is it our historic buildings and traditions, or is it indeed the Royal Family? Surveys cannot give much more than relatively fleeting impressions of what is good or bad in what we have to offer to our visitors, yet none of us can doubt that tourism is more and more a part of our lives, both nationally and individually, as well as being an enormous source of earnings to us.
Tourism provides approximately 16 per cent. of our invisible exports year by year, and even the projected figures for both the number of overseas visitors and what they spend here have been swept aside during 1976 and 1977. Various estimates that I have managed to glean show that over 11 million visitors arrived in the United Kingdom during 1977, and they spent approximately £2,500 million. That is a very large sum. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out that it is comparable with, or indeed superior to, the benefits from North Sea oil. The surplus on this account rose from approximately £240 million in 1975 to over £1,000 million in 1977. We should not forget that, in addition to this very large figure, the United Kingdom earned over £600 million in transporting these foreign visitors to our shores and back home again. Thus, it is absolutely right that the Government should heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and of all the experts who are to take part in this debate, and I hope that the Government will be able to give encouragement to the tourist industry when necessary.
Everybody is aware of the marvellous work done by the British Tourist Authority and the other bodies mentioned by the noble Lord. The British Tourist Authority receives over £9 million in funds from the Government, but what is interesting is that it is able to call on no less than £3 million from other sectors of the trade; for example, British Rail and British Airways. I do not think anybody could seek a better form of co-operation, when the British Tourist Authority receives such a large amount, voluntarily, for promotion and advertising from its fellow members of the industry.
We must remember—indeed, we can scarcely fail to notice—that tourism is
410
not all good. The centralisation of the tourist industry means that almost all of the visitors to the United Kingdom wish to spend at least some part of their time in London. This fact has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. It is in this city that most of our historic buildings and traditional sites lie. One of the surveys which I looked at during my research showed that overseas visitors in 1977 spent approximately 32 per cent. of their holiday funds on bed and breakfast accommodation and over 45 per cent. on shopping Those Members of your Lordships' House who travel far and wide in the United Kingdom, as I do every week, cannot envisage the existence of enormous shopping precincts in, say, the Western Highlands of Scotland or in Snowdonia. Therefore, it appears that most of the shopping takes place in and around London. I believe that it is this aspect, just as much as the historic sites, which is responsible for the wish of almost all visitors from overseas to spend at least part of their time in or around London.
Nobody who spends the summer in London can fail to be aware of the problems as well as the benefits which result from what I can only term the masochistic wish of overseas visitors to join millions of their fellow compatriots and others in and around our capital city. It seemed that the great hotel building boom which followed the Development of Tourism Act 1969 would lead to overcapacity in London hotel accommodation. This view was expressed in 1972, 1973 and 1974. However, visitors who wish to come to London have to stay as far away as Brighton and Oxford because London hotels are overflowing. Therefore, all of us must admit that the development of hotels in London was a very wise course of action, especially when we consider the huge amounts of money which are spent by visitors in and around London.
London in high summer presents, I regret to say, the ugly face of tourism, with huge crowds in the stores and at the historic building sites. Public transport in and around London is barely adequate. The theatres, cinemas and what I may call eating houses are all full, yet our visitors are almost entirely happy, so far as we can understand, with what London has to offer them.

411
The benefits to London are enormous, despite these very large disadvantages. It seems that 7½ million visitors spent £900 million in London during 1976. The nearest estimates we can obtain for 1977 show that 8½ million visitors came to London and spent over £1,200 million. This represents a very large proportion of the total expenditure by tourists. While staying in London these visitors would be paying on average over £2 per night in the form of rates. So, it is interesting to note that the public good also benefits from this influx of tourists. London Transport have informed me that they believe that in 1977 visitors put over £50 million into the ticket machines. It seems that London's contribution to our total national tourist industry is out of all proportion, yet the British Tourist Authority wishes to enables those of us who live or work here to benefit, albeit slightly, from this influx of tourism.
Intensive advertising over the past five years or so has been successful in pointing out that Britain is unique. I am afraid that the United Kingdom cannot compete on equal terms, or indeed at all, with Spain or Italy when it comes to what may be called the sand and the sun league. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, pointed to that fact very clearly. But there are many other interesting things to see and to do in both the spring and the autumn. First, I believe it to be important that the tourist authorities have spent a great deal of time upon advertising the fact that the season for visiting Britain is very wide. The tourist season does not cover just the summer; the spring and the autumn are also very good times for visiting Britain. The advertising carried out by the tourist authorities has done much to increase the spread of visitors and to ensure that their spending throughout the country over the year is far wider.
Secondly, the advertising carried out by the tourist authorities has been successful in encouraging visitors to see all that they wish to see in London but also to see other parts of Britain. Visitors pour into Stratford-upon-Avon, which is one of the other ugly faces of tourism in the United Kingdom. Very large numbers of visitors also go to Scotland. The proof of the success of this project
412
is evident from reports that foreign visitors spend under half of their time in or around London, yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, mentioned, 92 per cent. of the visitors who come to London arrive at either the South-Eastern seaports or the airports. This proves that they want to spend at least part of their time in London.
I believe that both the "spread" of tourists and their spending is one of the major successes of the many tourist boards and authorities in opening up Britain to tourists who otherwise might well not have considered visiting other parts of our country. As we have heard, the 1969 Act encouraged spending on tourism, especially in the development areas and in areas of high unemployment. I am given to understand that tourism employs 1½ million people nationwide, both full-time and part-time. We have also heard that tourism is a labour-intensive industry. For this reason, any Government aid which might be forthcoming—we look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say—will be both welcome and beneficial. Tourism makes a tremendous difference to the lives of us all, both individually and collectively.
In the short time available I have touched upon only some of the details and examples which illustrate how tourism works. Many noble Lords who are to follow me in this debate have specialised knowledge and a very great deal of practical experience of coping with, encouraging and entertaining tourists. We look forward to hearing their contributions, and we await the reply of the noble Baroness.
I believe that all noble Lords wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for raising this subject. The House has found his speech most informative and relevant. I believe that in moving for Papers this afternoon he has done the House a service, especially in giving it the opportunity to discuss this massive export industry—because that is what tourism is. If tourism is given the kind of judicious and farsighted aid that it was given in 1969, I believe it is capable of growing during the 1980s as swiftly as it has grown during this decade.
6.18 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, a feeling of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for having introduced this very important topic this afternoon. I must begin by declaring an interest. In a minor way I have the same kind of interest as that of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I am the chairman of my district Area Tourist Organisation and am a representative of that organisation on the Highland Tourism Council and on the Scottish Tourist Consultative Committee. In a small way I am also a hotelier. Furthermore, I have a son who works in the tourist industry in London. Therefore, I have an interest in and some knowledge of the subject.
I feel that I ought to be able to help noble Lords by at least telling them something about what happens in the Highlands of Scotland. We have already heard of the indeniable importance of tourism: of the £4,000 million or so which are turned over in the economy and of the £3,000 million of foreign currency which is earned. We have heard that 1½ million people are directly employed, and 2 million or so indirectly employed, in the industry. We have also heard that tourism is an intensive employer of labour. If we improve tourism—make it better and give it a greater capacity—we do not necessarily need to reduce the rate of employment of people within the industry. At this time of high unemployment this is a very valuable point.
These facts are reflected in even greater magnitude in remote parts of Britain such as the Highlands of Scotland, In the Highlands we entertain 2 million visitors every year with a population of about a quarter of a million. About £100 million goes into the local economy. This works out at roughly £300 per head of the population—men, women, children and babies—and if we extrapolated that on to the national scale it would mean that the United Kingdom was earning something like £16,500 million out of tourism.
So your Lordships can see that we go in for tourism in a fairly big way in the remoter areas. Tourism employs some 10 per cent, of the working population in the Highlands of Scotland and like elsewhere it gives a great deal of part-time
414
employment and is an important source of part-time income to people who otherwise might find it difficult to make ends meet in their chosen professions and occupations. Bed-and-breakfast, farmhouse accommodation, crofting accommodation and so on, all add to the income available to people living in these remote parts. Indeed 20 per cent. of the income of people living in rural areas of Scotland comes from tourism, and of course we get the spin-offs. These have been mentioned—museums, theatres, music, the arts, festivals. The Edinburgh Festival would not exist if it were not for tourism. Then there are the sports: we have golf courses and swimming pools in the remoter parts of the country which are there for the local inhabitants to enjoy and which would not exist if the tourists were not there to make use of them in the season.
We also get basic services: we get road, rail, air and ferry services. We get shops, and so on. In fact I am told that Caledonian-MacBrayne, who run many of the ferry services to the outer islands of Scotland, get 70 per cent. of their turnover from tourists. We get other development spin-off in the Highland area as well. Many of our craft industries depend directly upon tourism and they give full-time jobs for the people who work in them. We have potteries, we have glass factories—to mention something in which I also have an interest. We have all sorts of craft industries and other industries that are helped by the tourist trade. In the Highland area, in the remoter parts of Britain, tourism is still a growth industry, and it could grow more if we were to do the right things for it. That is why it is so valuable to have this debate today. As has been pointed out, if we can get growth in the outlying areas and the rural areas of Britain, we can get growth in the total tourist industry of Britain without necessarily overloading London.
How then do we suggest that we should develop this priceless asset? I suggest the first thing we must do is to improve our transport, making it better, cleaner, faster, cheaper and not London-orientated. It is a fact that it would cost me more—and does, in fact, cost the taxpayer more whenever I come down here—to fly from Wick to London than it would to take Freddy Laker's flight to New York. That is a journey within Britain. It is a fact that on the Highland line we are traveling

415
in carriages which I knew as a boy. I have no doubt that if I looked hard enough I should probably find my initials carved on a seat somewhere. They look as though they are that old, too; they feel as though they are that old, and if we are to get visitors to move around the country we must give them decent transport to move in and we must give them good, fast services at a reasonable price. Unless we do that, we shall simply not be able to bring the tourists out to the outlying areas. Indeed we cannot be complacent about tourism in the remote areas because last year Scottish tourism fell in value by some 8 to 10 per cent., and in Scotland we are convinced that this was due largely to the high cost of transport and, particularly, to the high cost of petrol. Petrol is zoned from the South outwards and in the remoter areas we are paying something like 6p a gallon more than is paid in Aberdeen and probably a great deal more than people are paying in the environs of London. So, if we can do these things to reduce the cost of transport and to reduce the high cost of petrol in the remoter areas, we shall in fact be doing things immediately to help tourism in those areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned this very important point of treating hotels as though they were commercial premises—manufacturing premises, one might say. I feel that we should seriously consider the derating of hotels and allowing hoteliers to amortise the expenditure which they put into the development of their businesses in the form of expansion of hotel rooms, and so on. People ought to be able to write off the high cost of providing this accommodation, because it is extremely expensive. Only this morning I was speaking to the secretary of the club where I stay in London and where they are about to refurbish the bedrooms. Simply to refurbish the bedrooms in London will cost £3,000 a room. One can imagine what it would cost to add a wing to an hotel or to build a new hotel. The prices are rising every day. So if we are to give hoteliers a chance of recouping their money, of keeping down their prices and giving service at the same price in improved accommodation, then we must treat the hotel trade on the same footing as a business which manufactures something and which brings in the sort of foreign currency that has been mentioned.
416
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out, we must give proper support and a proper degree of priority to the industry. Indeed, this was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. We must give more money to the BTA, which is the body responsible for selling abroad. That is the only body responsible for selling abroad, and it is ridiculous that when we are trying to increase the amount of tourism that we attract to this country we are not increasing the money which it has to spend. We must give proper support to tourist-orientated projects. We really should look at this in a regional sense and ensure that, if there are projects which are not exactly tourist in themselves but which have a tourist element in them—such as the provision of golf courses or swimming pools—these are properly looked at from the point of view of the value that they bring to the tourist industry. The Government should lean towards them and give them proper financial support if they can really show that they are tourist orientated.
We must see also that it pays to work in the industry, whether people are employers or employees. There is still a good deal of underpayment of people within the tourist industry. There are people being paid wages which no other industry would consider adequate for somebody to live on. We must see not only that the rates of pay for people working in the industry are adequate but also that the employer of these people should be able to earn the money to pay them.
As I have said, there is no room for complacency. I have already mentioned that Scottish tourism fell last year: we must try to bring tourism back to the level which it had reached previously, and indeed we must try to exceed it. For that reason we must tackle travel problems and petrol costs. We must overcome people's inability to afford to holiday in the remoter areas. We must sell harder, especially abroad, and we must think of the possibility of internal packaging because we save a great deal of foreign currency by giving people holidays at home. We must use all of our ingenuity, and to this end I would certainly support what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said; we must give a degree of priority to tourism as an industry.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Phillips and I have changed places. I hope that that is acceptable. I should like to thank Lord Ponsonby for this debate, and, if I may say so, for the most excellent speech with which he opened it. He raised many different questions that we should all like to pursue, and I hope he will realise that it is not lack of enthusiasm but lack of time which makes it impossible to do so at the present moment.
Over 1½ million people in Britain depend for their jobs, directly or indirectly, on our travel movements, and, unlike many other trades in Britain today, the tourist services urgently need more people. Last year, there was a record number of some 12 million tourists and overseas visitors to this country. They spent over £3,000 million in Britain and on fares on British carriers. The Prime Minister recently said:
"Tourism is a world phenomenon and Britain is now placed among the countries of the world to attract international tourism".
This is an internationally competitive business, and I want to suggest that Lord Ponsonby has given us this debate at exactly the right time. It will come as a most useful curtain-raiser to 1st March, when the British Airports Authority is to give a presentation on Heathrow to members of the British Tourist Authority and others with a particular interest. I think that this presentation may well not be confined to Heathrow. Sir Henry Marking, Chairman of the British Tourist Authority, says that from the point of view of the Authority the welcome that a visitor from overseas arriving by air in London receives is of immense importance because it colours his whole attitude towards Britain. Indeed, he went on to say that airlines, Her Majesty's Customs, the Immigration Service, taxi-cab drivers, all have their part to play. I want to add one more—the new underground link between Heathrow and Central London, and I should like to spend the remainder of my remarks on this subject.
This link should be a golden opporttunity to welcome visitors to Britain and an equally golden one to speed them on their return journey. It is not. It has one considerable drawback. It is not meant to service all passengers but only
418
those with hand luggage. Almost five years ago, on 2nd April 1973, I raised this matter in your Lordships' House. At that time, most people had imagined that this new rail link would be for the benefit of all travellers. Not so, we were told; this had never been envisaged. There would be no porters anywhere, nor any access for that section of the community going out to the airport, although this was not stressed at the time. If anyone who is sufficiently interested can obtain a copy of Hansard for 2nd April 1973 and read the comments on the proposed rail link made at col. 107 by Lord Kinnoull, I think our joint anxiety will be clear.
I think it fair comment today, and true, to say that this rail link is excellent for business travellers, for the staff at Heathrow and for passengers with hand baggage. Unfortunately, no consideration has been given to those with baggage going on holiday or returning, not forgetting our foreign visitors. It does seem quite extraordinary that a new link to Heathrow airport, constructed at considerable public cost, should expressly exclude use by air travellers with luggage. After ail, this is a normal condition for people who are going away. I believe that foreign visitors—the tourists whom we are talking about today—with luggage, as well as we ourselves with luggage, who have helped to pay for the rail link, should be able to use it.
Having said that, I should like to put forward a suggestion. Gloucester Road underground station is on the Piccadilly line—the Heathrow link—and it has a lift. I am asking London Transport to make this lift available from street level to Piccadilly line level, to have porters also available, to site a taxi rank outside, and to publicise such arrangements. From this debate, backed, I would hope, by the influence of Lord Ponsonby in the world of tourism, and by the words of the Prime Minister himself, there should go out a demand for an attempt to be made to rectify this omission. I should like an immediate inquiry into which station or stations on this rail link can offer entry from ground level outside to platform level below for travellers with luggage who are unable to cope with escalators. Surely we could appeal here to London Transport, to the British Tourist Authority and to the Airport

419
Authority. Also what about the interests of all the airlines? After all, people going on holiday do pay air fares. They are entitled to some consideration. They, too, would like to use this new link.
One final query and I shall have finished. London Transport tell me that it is an essential part of the scheme that the coach service should be retained. When I made inquiries some years ago, London Transport told me the position was that these buses were operated by London Transport on a cost-plus basis under contract to BEA. I wonder if the same arrangement is operating today with British Airways. Speaking for all those who so enjoyed using this bus service up to the early 1970's, and who cannot afford private transport, I must tell London Transport and British Airways that it is not enjoyable today. Until there is access to the rail link from street level for travellers with luggage, may we take it that the coach service will not only be retained and not reduced but that the frequency will be increased if necessary?
So I am asking only two questions today, and the Minister has had notice of both. First, may we have an inquiry into which station on the Heathrow/London rail link could best accommodate travellers with luggage, and have this treated as a matter of urgency? Secondly, will the coach service be retained and, if necessary, increased until a station is made available? After all, looked at purely on an economic level, if our visitors brought in £3,000 million last year alone, we could afford to do what I am asking in order to give them a better welcome. Let us not throw away any golden opportunity that Lord Ponsonby and our own tourist economy has given us.
6.38 p.m.
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank Lord Ponsonby for initiating this interesting debate on this important subject. As an owner of an historic house which is visited by many tourists and as President of the Thames and Chiltern Tourist Board, I feel that I can claim to have a little knowledge of the tourist industry. Your Lordships have already heard how important tourism is to our economy. I should like to put forward some proposals for improving the facilities for our visiting tourists.
420
Let us start when an overseas visitor arrives in this country. While I do not have first-hand experience of many of the airports, I know Heathrow well enough to say that I think the facilities and overall impression the traveller gets leaves much to be desired. I believe that the first impression one gets is always very important. I have often seen long queues of visitors awaiting immigration clearance, and if any of your Lordships were fortunate enough to be going on holiday last year, but were, unfortunately, using No. 2 terminal, you will recall the chaos and confusion caused by the rebuilding work. I must point out that this was before the air traffic controllers problems; it was even worse after that. The airport employees were working under appalling difficulties, and the cooperation and help they gave was much admired and appreciated by the travellers. But why cannot we plan ahead for these eventualities. Is the British Airports Authority too large? Does it control too many airports? I believe we need an airport policy document to enlighten us on this important question.
I now come to four specific points which I believe would assist the development of our tourist industry which, as has already been pointed out, is one of the few growth industries which contribute enormously to our balance of payments. First, reform of the Shops Act 1950. That Act was passed before the growth of inland resorts and touring areas. Although it would seem to have relatively little effect on trading in traditional seaside resorts, there is substantial evidence that it is seriously hampering the development of tourism in inland areas. While the Government's position on this Act is that any inland area can obtain a designation as being a resort and therefore be entitled to open on 18 Sundays a year, this is unsatisfactory since, from a retailing point of view, consistent opening ail year round is necessary.
The inland areas of England do not have the heavily seasonal pattern of visitors which is characteristic of the seaside resorts. Moreoever, the limitations imposed on what can be sold, by the Seventh Schedule relating to Section 51 of the 1950 Act, are such as to make Sunday opening for most shops very difficult. The Government's policy is to

421
support tourism in the parts of England which have not hitherto benefited from it. If that policy is to become a reality then the number of permitted Sundays a year must be increased from 18 and the Seventh Schedule must be greatly broadened.
My second point is the reform of the licensing laws. The Committee of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale came up with a series of well thought out recommendations for reforming the licensing laws which were widely accepted among the hotel trade and others in the tourist industry as good, commonsense recommendations. It is ridiculous that someone having a holiday on the Thames should be forced to buy drinks at different hours depending on whether he ties up on the left bank or the right. In the Thames and Chiltern Tourist Board leaflet Eating and Drinking Along the Thames we have had to explain at what point on the river Berkshire ends and Oxfordshire begins. I believe that there will be widespread support for the introduction of some of the recommendations of the Committee of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, yet the Government have simply shelved this issue.
My third point concerns a Government loans scheme for hotel extensions. This varies slightly from the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. At present, there are virtually no new hotels under construction anywhere in Britain. Building and land costs are so high that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a room rate which gave a realistic return on investment. If our tourist industry is to expand and continue to grow, more rooms will be needed. The best way to achieve that is through the extension of existing hotels where the owners already have the land and already know their market. A very great difficulty arises in borrowing money over a reasonably long period of time. The clearing banks will generally lend for only five years, sometimes seven years. While in practice they will often extend the loan well beyond the initial agreed time—perhaps in the form of an overdraft facility—it is vital that the small businessman or independent hotelier knows at the time of borrowing that he can rely on a 12, 15 or perhaps even 20 year repayment programme.
422
We have heard that the Government wish to help small businesses. I think that we shall hear more in the future about them wanting to help small businesses. Therefore, I believe that a fixed interest loan scheme would in fact cost the Government very little and the pay-off in terms of assisting new hotel extensions would be substantial.
My fourth point concerns a low level grant scheme for tourist projects outside the development areas. Under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 the Government are empowered to make grants and loans for tourist projects inside the development areas. In recent years the grant element for these schemes has been as high as 50 per cent. The Minister has consistently refused to extend this scheme outside the development areas.
I believe that if there were a Section 4 scheme available in, for instance, the Thames and Chiltern Region with grant assistance as low as 15 or 10 per cent. of the total capital cost, then a substantial number of new projects would be forth-coming. Again, the cost to the Government would be very little and the pay-off would be very much higher than is possible in the present development areas. Both of those last two proposals would help the unemployment problem.
During the debate attention has been drawn to the social and economic importance of tourism and to its contribution to the economy. However, the importance of tourism is not recognised at Government level in terms of ministerial responsibility. As noble Lords have heard, the secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for tourism at Cabinet level, but within the Department of Trade and Industry, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is responsible for many subjects. Jostling with such matters for the attentions of a Minister with comparatively junior status represents a completely inadequate provision for the needs of tourism policy and the complexities of the industry. That situation is also reflected in the level of Civil Service responsibility for tourism.
What happens elsewhere? In Australia, Canada, Spain, France, New Zealand and Turkey there are now Ministers solely responsible for tourism and related matters. It therefore seems essential that the Government should consider appointing

423
a Minister of State within the Department of Trade with special responsibility for tourism trades and policies. Such an appointment would confirm that the Government recognise the importance and complexity of tourism matters, and would give greater impetus to the development of a national tourism policy and to the resolution of policy problems in dealings with other Government Departments involved in tourism.
Let us be proud of our thriving tourist industries. Let us praise and thank all those who have helped to make this a real success story—especially, the British Tourist Authority—but, at the same time, let us not be complacent. We must remember that tourist competition is growing very fast. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that we continue to develop new ideas and improve existing facilities.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for introducing this debate, I should like to offer him congratulations for the wonderful work that he has done both as chairman of the Tourist Board and for London generally in the many activities that he has pursued.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I, too, love tourists, except when they are on my bus, on my pavements or in my shops. However, when one sees them around Buckingham Palace or outside the Houses of Parliament and listens to their admiring remarks, one realises that, in fact, here are people who have actually come to like us. Indeed, it is worth recalling, what the tourists say to me about the British. They say that we are cheerful—one may wonder about that on a Monday morning—that we are civilised and courteous and they always compliment us on our theatres and taxi drivers. They say that our taxi drivers are honest and courteous.
My particular interest in this subject is that I am President of the Institute of Travel and Tourism. That Institute is concerned with the people who work in this very exciting industry. I noted that one noble Lord referred to the fact that for all too long this has been found to be a second-class job. Indeed, those who sell either travel overseas or tourism here need to very fully trained and of a very high calibre.
424
In 1955 the Association of British Travel Agents set up the Institute. It was at that time called the Institute of Travel. The idea was that it would have a national training programme and pre-school link courses. I found that that was a great way of inspiring enthusiastic youngsters to enter this profession. There were also day-release schemes and the issuing of diplomas.
Over the years that idea has gradually grown. I should like to place on record that this is, in fact, an industry which has attempted to set its own house in order and which I believe deserves commendation for that fact. We now have among our members the promotion and information officers of tourism; the people who act as carriers, the tour operators; anybody who provides amenities for tourists; travel and tourist retailers and some 1,500 students in different centres; a whole mass of correspondence courses are provided and there is a general movement towards uplifting people towards professionalism. What does the Institute ultimately hope for? It hopes that qualifications will be required by more and more people within the industry and that the Government will eventually recognise that a travel agent or any component part of the industry—any worker in the industry—must have fully-trained staff qualified to the highest possible standard of professionalism. There is no need to say that they need be any different from the professional who is a solicitor, doctor or dentist. They are in a highly-skilled business.
We have heard reference to the fact that so many of our overseas visitors come to London. As a Londoner I rejoice in that, particularly as they always say that they like our city. I understand that half a million of those visitors flock down Oxford Street for shopping. There is little doubt that we have the best shops in the Western World. That is why people come here to buy.
What do they buy? Clothing and footwear account for 86 per cent. of what they buy. Frequently, one sees gentlemen—Arab gentlemen in particular—wheeling out whole racks of clothing—one wonders whether it is for their wives or whether they have some shops at home. China, glass, silver and leather account for 10 per cent. There is a distaff side to this.

425
There are a few people who do not buy, but who actually take goods without paying for them. In my work in the prevention of theft, I have learnt that unfortunately there is a very bad Press in their countries, which seems to suggest that the British do something to these people which causes them to act differently here from how they would act abroad.
I appeal to the tourist boards to have some kind of colourful and attractive leaflet—and I should be happy to collaborate with them in its preparation—explaining the joys and snags of buying in Britain. It is an exciting operation, but no doubt it can be confusing. It would be a pity if anyone was to be involved in something that could be embarrassing because he or she did not really understand the process. I believe that we, the British, who carried our skills and talents in previous days all over the world, now welcome the travellers to our shores and show them that we can still lead the world in what we have to offer.
6.52 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, first, I should like to declare a family interest in a small group of hotels in the Provinces. Tonight I particularly want to base what I have to say on my experience as the President of the Association of Conference Executives, which is abbreviated to the attractive title of ACE, which makes it easier to comment.
Although ACE specialises in giving advice on conferences and exhibitions, the officers have found that almost as a by-product their normal work leads them to play an increasing part in extending British tourism. Indeed, that is particularly evident when one realises that delegates to conferences are spending something like five or six times as much as the average tourist who comes here purely for a holiday.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who leads the London Bureau, is a member of ACE. I should like to support all that he said about the great work that has been done in London to make London such an attractive venue for world tourism. But, of course, London is not the whole of Britain. There are attractions and inducements outside
426
London, although one would not want in any way to depreciate the great part that the magnetism of London itself plays in bringing both tourism and conferences to the city.
However, outside London we have the new National Exhibition Centre at Birmingham, the new Brighton Conference Centre and the Harrogate idea will come on stream very shortly. It should be on the record that since the Birmingham Centre was completed some two years ago it has attracted 63 exhibitions which have brought in about 3 million visitors, and that during the 12 months ending September 1977, at a conservative estimate £25 million of revenue has been brought to the Midlands as a result of its activities. So it is justifying its existence in a very real way. For example, there were 14,000 overseas visitors at the recent INTERPLAS exhibition and that was 34 per cent. of the total attendance at the exhibition. So the part that that is playing in bringing people from other parts of the world to this as a conference and a tourist centre is a very real one. The Birmingham National Exhibition Centre is very optimistic that by 1980 it will double the business that it is at present doing, which will bring it pretty much up to its capacity.
Having said that about the big conference halls and exhibitions that hit the headlines, it is worthy of note that about 80 per cent. of the conferences and meetings held in the United Kingdom are of a size which often do not exceed 200 in number. So in addition to the major venues, there are many hotels, small conference centres and, indeed, country houses, which can accommodate such meetings and exhibitions. That is a great help in the height of the tourist season when it is so difficult to get bedrooms in London for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, outlined.
The conference business itself is now running at an annual expenditure of about £300 million in the United Kingdom alone. I believe that this is a contribution to tourism which is not inconsiderable. But it could be greatly improved upon if more companies and hotels became more professional in seeking out the great and growing potential of business in this conference field. That is the special contribution that ACE is trying to make.

427
ACE arranges training courses designed to extend such professionalism among its own members and among the British Tourist authorities, the tourist boards and the tourist-conscious local authorities. If they can give us their support and backing, I am convinced that the returns which they will receive from the experience that we are able to share with them will be very worth while indeed. For instance, ACE has helped local authorities by bringing this professionalism to them, by arranging exhibitions and meetings and by arranging visits of inspection. As a result of one such recent visit of inspection, some 30 senior organisers went to Bournemouth and £450,000 of conference money will now be spent there over the next two years. That is what professionalism and really getting down to it, instead of merely talking in headline language the whole time, can bring about.
I submit that Government Departments and Parliament should find ways of seeking to encourage such private enterprise endeavours as the work of ACE is proving to be. If they could give their help to bring people along to our workshops and to fit in with the plans that we are making to give them training and to share expertise, it would pay very good dividends indeed.
In France, a similar organisation known as ACCER has clear Government support. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is very eager that I in particular and others in general should not speak at any great length tonight. In return, perhaps she would undertake to use her influence at the Departments of Trade and Industry to meet me and my officers to see whether we cannot tell them ways in which they could help us, so that we could help to bring conferences to this country and encourage tourism. If she could give me that undertaking, it would be a very good reason for me to cut down my two-hour speech to the eight minutes which I know she has in mind.
There is some competition here. About a year ago the Association of Conference Executives was established in Australia. We are doing our best to bring it to Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy and the Scandinavian countries, because they are getting this expertise, because
428
they want to share this world tourism, and this world conference business which very clearly exists. The special attraction which ACE has for me as a business man, if I can claim to be that, is that its guidance and advice come mainly from active business executives. Their members are usually senior executives of companies and businesses; men who have their ordinary businesses and responsibilities apart from arranging conferences and exhibitions. Therefore, their approach is a practical one based on experience rather than being merely a theoretical textbook approach, which is so often the case when one has these seminars.
For such people to work in close cooperation with the tourist authorities in Britain, we have to get a partnership both with them and with the Government involved. That is why I call upon the appropriate Government Departments to encourage them. No time should be lost, for I venture to add my words to the warnings that have already been given. We are not the only nation which recognises the potential in this field. Many other national tourist offices are bidding hard to attract conference business away from the United Kingdom. This is very much evidenced by those who have enrolled to come to some of the ACE courses to get the training and expertise in order to do that.
My one plea to the noble Baroness is this. Could she use her influence to get Government action as regards the theatres? We remain absolutely supreme in only two fields. We are supreme in the world with our Queen and monarchy system; we are supreme in the world of the theatre. In most other things we are still high up, but not supreme. In those two we are. So far as the theatre is concerned, Government action which is crying out for a quick move is to relieve the theatre industry of VAT, particularly as regards the commercial theatre. The commercial theatre does not have the subsidies which go to the civic and State theatres, but it is still the main line of production for theatrical talent, and we shall let it die at our peril.
My final words are not mine at all. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, in a quick word to me a minute or two ago, said, "I don't want to take up time in debate, but try and emphasise that, apart from

429
buildings, apart from conferences, apart from stately homes, one thing which can make a place an attractive tourist venue is if the local population show good manners and helpfulness." There is just a possibility that in some fields we have seen a deterioration in what used to be the traditional good manners of the people of this country. If we can get some return to the normal courtesies which are inherent in us, together with all the mechanical ideas, that will help us to keep at the forefront of perhaps the most promising of the growth industries in the world today.
7.3 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, with the natural modesty and reticence that is native to the Welsh, I rise at this time to present to you the arguments that are relevant to Wales in the context of tourism's contribution to the economy. I would begin, if he would allow me and forgive me, by taking up a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, who found that the Government failed to understand the complexities of the tourist industry; that they did not properly relate at ministerial level to those problems; and that they were wanting in some regard in their attitude to the tourist industry generally. I want only to say that in the excellent publication which I hold in my hand of the Wales Tourist Board, Bwrdd Croeso Cymru, he will find a statement that seems to show other experience. The chairman of that tourist authority, Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies, while expressing thanks to his own staff in the area for the excellent level of work that has gone on there, also says that he appreciates
"the help which we get from our colleagues in the British Tourist Authority and in the Welsh office. Since taking office, I have had frequent contact with the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. John Morris, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Barry Jones. I have been greatly encouraged by their interest in tourism and their appreciation of its contribution to the economy of Wales and I want to thank them most sincerely for the courtesy, advice and kindness which I have personally received from them".
I do not make that as a political point; I put it in the balance in this debate in the short time available.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales recently asked the Welsh Tourist Board to carry out surveys into the possibilities for new developments
430
in what he described as "fragile areas", which could absorb more visitors without damage to their environment, and where there was a potential to promote features with tourist appeal. It is really reporting on that which is the basis of this report of the Welsh Tourist Board.
In common with other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord ponsonby, for his contribution. I apologise for missing it, but I have read his speech and have made my apologies to him. The revenue from tourism in Wales is estimated to have grown by an average of 10 per cent. a year in the past decade. In 1973 tourism earned some £170million for Wales and in 1974 £200 million was reached for the first time. This figure had increased to £300 million by 1976, and when the 1977 figures are available it is anticipated that a further increase to about £350 million will have been recorded. In 1976 a record 5.6 million holidays of 4 nights or more were taken in Wales making it—this surprises me—the second most popular tourist destination in Britain. The Wales Tourist Board is concerned about the effects on family hotels—which subject has been mentioned—of the recession in the domestic market during the 1977 season, and is currently engaged in a promotional campaign aimed at restoring the image of family holidays in Wales. However, the overseas market continued to expand in 1977. We have a phenomenon in Wales of a very greatly increased interest in our particular area, and our areas of beauty, from the Continent and our partners in the EEC, who seem to be discovering us in large numbers. The overseas market continued to expand in 1977 and it is hoped that this position will be maintained in 1978.
The growth in tourism in Wales is supported by the Government through the grant-in-aid to the Wales Tourist Board. The Board has the responsibility of encouraging people to visit Wales and to take their holidays there and to encourage the provision and improvement of amenities and facilities for tourists in Wales. The total amount of Government funds directed towards the promotion of tourism in Wales in 1977–78 is £2,388,000. The Board's operating expenditure, which includes the cost of its excellent publicity, promotional campaigns and general administration, amounts to £1,395 000 and the sum of £993,000 is allocates to the

431
Board to enable it to make grants available for projects qualifying for assistance under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act. These projects are designed to provide and improve tourist amenities and facilities of all kinds in the development area and it has long been the Board's policy to give special consideration to those parts of Wales where the contribution which tourism can make towards strengthening the economy is most needed. It is probably a phenomenon of the whole of Britain that those most beautiful areas, the most attractive, the ones which are most remote, in fact suffer most from unemployment.
Following a review of tourism policy by an inter-departmental working party, the emphasis of Government support for tourism is being geared less to the generalised promotion of places which need no advertising and concentrated instead on areas with under-utilised tourism potential which remain relatively unknown to visitors. There are still such places, thank God! in Wales.
Particular attention will be given to developing the untapped tourism potential of certain parts of the development areas with the capacity to benefit from an increase in the number of visitors.
One area which has been selected in Wales for this purpose is Blaenau Ffestiniog. The Wales Tourist Board is building on the success of two projects which they have already assisted, Llechwedd Quarry Tours and Gloddfa Ganol—if I am flagellated a little for being half a second over my time, might I point out that words have more syllables in Welsh than in English. The completion of the restoration of the Ffestiniog narrow gauge railway back to Blaenau Ffestiniog will complement these developments and help to encourage visitors to spend more time in Blaenau Ffestiniog itself. As part of this exercise the board has organised local discussions to determine how the tourism potential of the town can be more fully realised.
During 1977 the board also held tourism presentations in Milford Haven, which we have mentioned before this evening, and Anglesey. I would tell the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that 1st March is a rather important date for presentations in Wales
432
as well as at airports in London. The object of the presentations in Milford Haven and Anglesey were to increase employment through tourism, and the Board considers that the capacity exists to expand tourism in both these areas, and much could be achieved if the local authorities and the local tourist operators responded to its initiatives. I thank noble Lords for having listened to what is frankly a "commercial" for the beauties of my country; and I hope you will come and stay with us.
7.10 p.m.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, in this debate and I should perhaps begin by declaring my interest, having been involved in tourism for almost a lifetime. I am president of the Southern Tourist Board, president of the Historic Houses Association, 400 houses of which are open to the public, and I am the owner of one of Britain's largest tourist attractions.
It was 25 years ago that I was embarking on my first lecture tour in America on behalf of tourism and stately homes. It was certainly not clear then—it is now an historical fact—that, as sunshine has been a winner for Spain and Italy over the years, so our heritage would prove a winner for Great Britain. Consider the extraordinary figures: in 1952 there were 200 houses both private and Government-owned, open to the public—in fact only about one-quarter of them were private and they attracted only 1½ million visitors. Last year we had 800 buildings open to the public and attracting 50 million visitors—quite a success story.
It has been a double blessing, for, as the heritage makes an important contribution to the success of attracting tourists to Great Britain, so tourism makes a vital contribution to the conservation of the heritage itself. All over the world conservation costs money and there is no building or work of art that can be relied on to preserve itself. It is also clear that our ability to keep them in good order and to prevent them from being exported will depend primarily on political and fiscal decisions. I pay tribute to the Government for all they have done to help in the last few years and we await

433
the forthcoming Budget with great interest.
I also wish to pay tribute to the part played by the living arts and the museums. It is indeed sad to see the plight of some of our great museums. For example, the Victoria and Albert is giving an ever-decreasing public service; noble Lords may have been following the correspondence in The Times. I could not help but give a wry smile at the irony that many of the people signing the letters were the people who, in 1974, were vociferously leading the campaign against museum charges. Personally, I deplored the decision that was taken to cancel them when the present Government came to power. We now have a situation in which the national museums, which have so much to offer to tourism, contributing nothing, unlike the DOE properties which make a very significant contribution to the Treasury. Hence, the museums have lost their ace card when they are arguing for larger grants, and thus our tourist facilities are diminished, particularly for overseas visitors who are willing and able to pay.
Looking forward, I think it can be argued with some force that at least some of our North Sea oil revenue should be invested in making our heritage more attractive and accessible, and I hope that the Government will tonight accept at any rate the principle of such thinking. It will indeed be money well spent. It will certainly have public support and the Government should have no difficulty in persuading themselves that there are good economic reasons for doing this.
Looking back over the past 25 years, it is right that we should remember the remarkable success story of the British Tourist Authority which, with little resources, has done a superb job the world over, selling tourism to Britain against stiff competition. I pay tribute to Sir Alexander Glen, the recently retired chairman, whose energy and foresight have done much to lay sound foundations for the future, and all those concerned with tourism welcome the appointment of Sir Henry Marking; for once, exactly the right man has been appointed for this really important post.
I do not entirely agree with Lord Ponsonby on the question of a Ministry of Tourism, though as the success of tourism depends on so many organisations,
434
we need more co-ordination. However, I think it has been a good thing that we have not had a Ministry of Tourism because, if we had had such a Department, I do not think we should have achieved the success we have. This industry should not be subjected to the somewhat stifling effect of Whitehall and the political whims of different Ministers.
However, more co-operation is certainly necessary and whoever is appointed should have his job properly defined. We should welcome the fact that civil servants today appreciate the benefits of tourism, which so much affect our invisible earrings and which so often represent the difference between profit and loss on our monthly account, far more than they did 25 years ago. As has been said, tourism buys many jobs for men and women of all ages and—and this has not so Far been mentioned—it provides jobs for many school-leavers.
Lord Ponsonby was bound to say a good deal about London and I shall not disagree with him about that, but it is also important to get people out of London. Tourism makes an important contribution to regional prosperity and especially to small businesses. We must not forget that, outside London, the tourist industry is largely dependent on the domestic market. For example, in the Southern Tourist Board area, £225 million is spent every year, but 82 per cent. of that is spent by British tourists. At the other end of the country, in Northumbria, £75 million is spent, 84 per cent. of which is spent by the domestic market. We should, therefore, pay credit tonight to the regional tourist boards which, in spite of an economic situation which has left their market largely static, are nevertheless still responsible for 32 million domestic tourists. Comforting it is to feel that so many of our own people still appreciate the beauties of the British Isles. However, the tourist boards can and should contribute more to expand this market and local government should be urged to take tourism rather more seriously.
What can be done? First, I support noble Lords who have asked the Government to give the BTA a real increase in grant in the next, vital years. Other countries are doing it and it will be money far better spent than expenditure on propping up any ailing nationalised

435
industry—better to invest in success than in failure. Many BTA offices overseas are starved of funds to do their job properly, and that even includes money to get their leaflets translated into foreign languages.
Secondly, the Government are always calling for new investment. Why should the tourist industry and services to tourism be discriminated against? Hotels and other tourist amenities do not get industrial building allowances and even the modest grants for tourism are largely allocated to areas which many people do not wish to visit. Key resorts are neglected and will in due course fall behind internationally and be unable to compete. The regional tourist boards are keenly awaiting the Government's White Paper on airports. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, successful tourism depends on good communications and internal airflights in Great Britain are deplorably bad and expensive compared with the United States.
Cannot the Government and their Ministers proclaim loudly and clearly their faith in tourism as being greatly beneficial to Great Britain? It is indeed of permanent and lasting value, and will be there when the oil runs out. Will they not perhaps stand up against the current little Englander attitude of some vocal groups who greedily seize the benefits of tourism but deplore the source?
We are all tourists now and we should perhaps all deplore the attitude of those people who visit Switzerland and the South of France in the winter and return home to complain in the summer about the Swiss and French coming here. It is because we have a balance of £1,000 million on our travel account that they are able to travel so freely. Nor can we turn the clock back to the time when travel was the privilege of the favoured few. We in this country are blessed with the fact that millions wish to visit us. Let us welcome them and let the Government formulate constructive and long-term policies which will give us all the confidence to provide the ways and means for the country's benefit and for the benefit of our visitors.
7.20 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, although this debate, so admirably moved
436
by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is a short debate, it is nevertheless a very important one. I should first like to say a word about Scotland, where I have spent a good deal of my life. Yesterday's issue of The Scotsman quoted figures by the Scottish Tourist Board showing the increase in tourism in Scotland in 1977. It was 15 per cent. above the previous year, and £150 million was spent in 1977. I particularly commend the marvellous efforts made by that wonderful theatre at Pitlochry, in Perthshire, which has had a great success in helping the tourist industry there.
I have no financial interest in tourism to declare, but I have three close relatives in various stages of seniority in the hotel and catering industry, and I should like to make a very special plea for more help to be given to the smaller hotels, particularly those on our very lovely coastline. There are many hotels which, quite rightly, have had to spend substantial sums of money on improving their fire precautions because of the recent Act, and this has inevitably put some in financial difficulty. This is perhaps only temporary, but, although I believe that there are certain allowances under the local employment Acts and other statutes, I wonder whether enough is being done here, particularly for these hotels on the coast and in areas of great beauty.
Reference has already been made to training in the hotel industry. I believe that tourists visiting this country like to see hotels which have British-born managers and British-born staff attending to their needs, because, although it is a popular conception that some of our European colleagues are more efficient at running hotels, I do not think that that is always the case. I wonder, therefore, whether enough is being done by the Government to assist the Hotel Training Board to encourage more, so to speak, home-grown youngsters to come into this industry, which has a great potential for helping tourism.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned the insurance industry, with which I have been connected since 1948, and the fact that tourism is now bringing in more money than the insurance industry. This is very true. Lloyd's of London attracts many thousands of overseas visitors every year. Some come on business, some are

437
students, others are on holiday. I have personally taken round a number of groups, and I am sure that what they see is an enormous help towards getting more of their friends or relations over to see this great industry, among others. Here, I should like to pay tribute to the information office in Lloyd's, which has been of substantial help to me and others who work in that sphere, encouraging overseas visitors to come.
I think it should also be remembered that it is not only the Americans and those from the Middle East who visit this country as tourists. Many come from New Zealand, where I have strong family connections; from Australia; and from Scandinavia, notably Finland—a country which has sent an increasing number of tourists over here, some of whom I have had the pleasure of taking round your Lordships' House and also round the insurance industry. Finland is a country which has an enormous potential in this field.
Also, not every tourist coming over has an unlimited budget, and here it should be remembered that our smaller hotels have a great part to play. It has to be remembered, of course, that hotels have tremendous overheads these days—higher rates, more costs in electricity and so on. This is not the time to make special pleading on any scale, but it is to be hoped that the smaller hotels, many of which belong to the great chains—Rank, Trust House Forte and so on—may be recognised as places where help is needed; because there is no doubt at all that, whatever the future fortunes of this country may be in years to come, tourism is something which has to be actively encouraged.
7.26 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I want to speak about something which has so far hardly been touched on in the debate this evening, and that is the question of the costs of tourism to the community. Let me preface this by saying, please do not misunderstand me; I am not "knocking" tourism. I agree with every single other person who has spoken that the tourist trade is a fine thing for the country. It is civilised, it brings in money, and I am all for it; but I think we should look at the costs. My life has recently taken
438
me, perhaps more so than in the case of most of your Lordships, into countries in Southern Europe where there is even more tourism than there is here—and there is a limit. I do not know if it is generally known in this country that, if you want to climb the Matterhorn in summer, you are allotted a 10-minute time slot, party by party, to get to the rock faces—there is that degree of crowding—and that, for one or two days every summer, the local authority has to close the mountain (can you imagine it, my Lords?—they have to close the Matterhorn altogether to climbers) in order that parties of guides may go up to the top with spades, buckets and pickaxes to bury the human excrement on the summit. We know that the top of Snowdon will have to be physically replaced because it has been worn away by people's feet—and this, of course, is just the beginning of it.
It is not really the environmental cost which exercises me so much as economic cost. I have been looking at the documents put out by the tourist authorities, statutory and otherwise. There is a useful one called Tourism in Context, put out by the British Tourist Authority in November 1976. It says that it has been
"produced to challenge some of the myths and misconceptions which have been at attached to tourism activities in recent years by a wide range of critics".
It
"refutes the often canvassed view that tourism is a major source of environmental congestion, pollution and damage."
This is a document extolling the benefits of tourism, and does not touch upon the costs except to point out from time to time in rather curious language that the residents of our cities and towns themselves create social and economic costs simply by living there. Perhaps I can give your Lordships an example:
"Any increment in the numbers of visitors and of cars in an area conspicuously adds to the existing pressures created by its residents."
Poor old residents; they ought not to be creating pressures at all! Again:
"if there were no holiday staying visitors in Inner London at all, the problems of congestion, litter and so on would hardly be lessened."
So much for Londoners! Then, in this marvellous sentence, speaking of tourists, it says:
"their use of the transport system is doubly welcome".

439
Try saying that to a Central London bus queue at any time between 1st March and 31st November and see how it is received!
There is another document, Tourism in Britain, the Broad Perspective. Once again, I expected an objective, balanced view of the benefits and costs. It is published by—well, everybody: the British Travel Association and the English, Scottish and Welsh Travel Boards; but it is not dated. The thinking may be out of date. There is one small paragraph called "Costs" in this 24-page document. It says:
"Every industry operates at some cost to the environment."
It expands that a little—and I quote textually:
"While the argument of congestion gains a hearing there is little appreciation of the benefits of tourism in combating loneliness in remote areas. It is also said that the foreign exchange earnings of tourism are exaggerated since they arise as a result of large-scale importing to cater for the tourist influx. In fact the import ration of tourism (46 per cent.) is considerably lower than that of manufacturing industry (60 per Cent.)."
So somebody had done one sum somewhere. That is the end of the treatment of the costs of tourism in this document.
Last April, I asked the Government by Questions in this House how many foreign immigrants were working in the tourist trade, in the hotel and catering trades; what was the total number of their dependants; how many of those dependants were of school age; what was the cost arising from all that to the Health Service and the Education Service in this country—that is, what was the cost of the foreign workers in the catering and hotel trade? I asked what sums were repatriated by hotel and catering trade workers, with the permission of the Bank of England. Nobody could answer about sums repatriated without permission. I also asked what social costs of tourism had been identified by the British Tourist Authority or the Government; what was the cost to the taxpayer of the burden laid on the Police and the Immigration Services by the arrival and departure of tourists; and what calculations had been done? I ended up with the provocative question: why, if no calculations of costs have been done, does the British Tourist Authority assume that the arrival, sojourn and departure of 10 million tourists in 1976 will benefit the country more than
440
the 9 million who came in 1975? My point was not that I doubted but to ask why there was the assumption that it was so, if, as I suspected, no calculations had been done.
In a series of courteous Answers, my noble friend Lord Oram replied that none of the facts asked for was obtainable by the Government; that they did not know and neither did anybody else; that the cost benefit analysis I called for was impossible and that it was not worth the Government's while to obtain the facts so as to form some judgment of the cost and benefit. He afterwards wrote me a long and helpful letter about the difficulty of obtaining facts of this kind. Of course, they are considerable. Nobody would dispute that. He ended by saying that the facts could not be ascertained and, therefore, it would be wrong to make any effort to do so.
I wrote to him saying that I understood the difficulties that one is always up against in trying to obtain estimates of the cost of things whose benefits were easily estimated, and I suggested that he might think of setting up a working party of statisticians and laymen to look into the difficulty. I suggested that it might be better to do it now than to do so after being forced into it by a Press campaign—and pointed out that this might happen—and that the first sign of difficulties on the economic front in tourism can be seen in the form of the resource rationing by purse which is being introduced by the Cambridge colleges. You are not allowed to visit a Cambridge college now unless as an organised party below a certain size and you pay to get in. That will spread.
My point in bringing up all this now is not to cast doubt on the desirability of a rational expansion of tourism. It is merely to ask another Minister—with perhaps, greater hope of success—would it not be possible to call together trained minds to tackle this particular example of the quite familiar difficulties of a situation where all the good things about it are readily calculable and all the bad things are not? Or it could be the other way round: all the bad things are calculable and the good things are not. Society has time and time again faced such issues and, by the application of ingenuity and determination, has come to a way of

441
getting some sort of cost benefit analysis, some balance going. I urge the Government to try to do that in the case of the tourist trade and I repeat for the third and last time that I am not against it, that I love it as do you all.
7.35 p.m.
The Marquess of HERTFORD: My Lords, I must declare an interest as I am deeply involved in the tourist trade myself and I am President of the Heart of England Tourist Board. I should explain that the Heart of England area consists of the six counties always previously known as the West Midlands until somebody came along and created a new county and called that West Midlands. Although it is our duty as a regional tourist board to attract tourists away from London, I want to endorse every single word said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, with regard particularly to the importance of developing and looking after the attractions in London. It is clear that London is where most people want to go. Our job in the regions is to get people to come out of London after they have been to London. We are "as well as" and not "instead of". I would not grudge a single penny spent on improving London's tourist amenities.
On the subject of finance generally, I think that the financing of tourist regional hoards is not entirely satisfactory. I should like to quote a comment made by my own regional director, Mr. John Brown. He said:
"The regional tourist boards (I hope you will agree!) do a good job; yet much of the time and resources at their disposal are spent in having to raise revenue within their own region, from the private sector and from local authorities. While there are undoubtedly desirable side benefits from these activities, such as improving the knowledge of tourism among those approached, this does mean that people in my job are much less effective than they might otherwise be in the work of selling and developing their own regions."
Apart from what may seem a waste of valuable and expensive time, it has always seemed to me extremely unfair that certain local authorities can decline to support their regional tourist hoards while continuing, inevitably, to receive a good deal of benefit from our activities. I should have thought that by now the widespread advantages of the great golden flood of dollars which comes sweeping
442
across the Atlantic every summer are too obvious to need stressing; but far too many local authorities place tourism under the general heading of "recreation" and then decide to cut down on it, as though it were just another expense with no corresponding source of income. I appreciate and, indeed, share the Government's reluctance to make anything compulsory, but I do think that the Government could at least encourage local authorities to play their part and to pay their fair share of the relatively small cost of developing the tourist industry.
I have always envied the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, his ability to speak without notes. I feel that to answer any of the points he raised—although I long to do so—would take a long time. But there is one small point about London Transport. Those of us who have anything to sell, such as a seat on a bus or a ticket to an historic house, are very anxious to have more customers rather than fewer. We like to be crowded.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, the noble Marquess will agree that those who need to buy something, for instance, a seat on a bus, may need to do so in order to get to work and in order to get their children to school. They cannot do so daring the rush hour in London.
The Marquess of HERTFORD: My Lords, I think that with fewer customers, the price of the seat may have to be increased yet more.
I should like briefly to take up one point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, about our licensing laws, which are a frequent source of annoyance to a large number of people, including me. I should like to ask two brief questions without making a major speech. First, am I right in thinking that this is in fact the only country in Europe in which, if a man is feeling thirsty at five o'clock in the afternoon, he cannot buy himself a drink unless he is a member of a club or possibly a Member of this House? Secondly, is this the only country in which during opening hours a man cannot buy a glass of Coca-Cola, or whatever, for his children in a public bar? I should like to suggest that Parliament might consider extending to other people the privileges that we ourselves enjoy in this building.
7.40 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, may I first join with other speakers who have taken part in this debate to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the contribution which tourism makes to the economy. It is clear from the calibre of the speeches and from the number of people who wanted to speak and who have, if I may say so, exercised the most enormous self-restraint in the length of their remarks, that the whole subject deserved a far longer debate. It was also particularly interesting that, in addition to my noble friend who opened the debate, we have heard the Scots and Welsh "commercials" very well put over and seductively put forward.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby spelled out very fully the facts and figures, and I shall not take up time in repeating them. What I will say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, loudly and clearly, is that the Government recognise the value of the tourist industry. They are concerned and value the industry's contribution to the balance of payments, to employment—both directly and indirectly—and to our commercial and industrial vitality.
Tourism is the second largest invisible earner of foreign currency. I am aware my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said it was the first; I am not going to argue about statistics, otherwise I shall also get into a tangle with my noble friend Lord Kennet. I am obviously backing the horse each way; my noble friend backed it to win. Nevertheless, whether it is first or second, tourism is a large invisible earner. The importance of United Kingdom residents who take their holidays at home must not be overlooked. Those who do so by choice are indirectly helping our balance of payments problem, as are those who take an occasional trip to stately homes, museums or visit the country. I am going to emphasise the point that both the people who visit Britain and their motivations are extremely varied. This is not surprising, since our magnetism lies in the diversity of attractions we can provide. Like a
444
supermarket, every country has its shelves of tourist goodies and also temptations for the impulse buyer. Some have a short shelf life, others longer, and Britain's shelves are no less beguiling than those of our competitors. First and foremost is London, Edinburgh, Chester, Oxford, then the West Coast of Scotland, the Cotswolds, Yorkshire Dales, our marvellously beautiful countryside everywhere and, in case I omit it, of course the whole of Wales. All have their particular magic.
We have the most superb theatre. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, about this. Although the matter rests with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will certainly point out to my noble friend the Minister for the Arts once again this vexed question of VAT on theatres. I know he is sympathetic. We have good music, very good ballet; outstanding museums and lovely old houses. We are able to offer sports facilities, both for participants and spectators. There are few other countries that can offer more—except the sun.
Tourism not only feeds on but contributes to this country's quality of life. This has been pointed out by most of the speakers in this debate. London's theatres could probably not survive—certainly at present standards—were it not for overseas visitors. Most of our ancient monuments, historic buildings and stately homes rely, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, pointed out, to a substantial extent on foreign tourists. Our catering industries and shops also benefit.
However, it is also true that many people have a double-edged attitude. My noble friend Lady Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, also pointed this out. They like the economic benefits from the invisible exports emanating from tourism but wish the tourists would remain invisible too. Of course, large influxes of human bodies, however friendly, bring problems in terms of overcrowding, congestion and wear and tear. But the social cost umbrella often covers tendencies which are more "little Englander", I agree, than genuinely social. And since one of the reasons foreign visitors give for coming here is their appreciation of our way of life—which we as masochists are often too ready to knock—we must

445
approach the social cost with a welcoming smile on our faces while doing something about it.
My noble friend Lord Kennet asked me a number of what I can only describe as post-graduate questions on the social and economic costs. I shall, with great pleasure, pass them on to somebody who can answer them far better than I can: the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. I shall ask him if he will write to my noble friend direct. There is a fine balance to be struck. This was something that my noble friend Lord Kennet touched on as well. Wearing my environmental hat, I am constantly having to bear in mind this fine balance between giving people, whether from home or abroad, access to our heritage and, at the same time, protecting it from overcrowding, erosion and even destruction.
There are a number of ways in which we are trying to cope with this. For example, take that most famous and most visited ancient monument, the Tower of London. We have over 3 million visitors a year there. I recently had to raise charges there. It has been done in a way which I hope will encourage home visitors to go out of season so that visitors from abroad—and I am afraid we are having to do this by price—will be left with more opportunity to visit the Tower during the height of the season.
Another example is the gradual erosion and damage to Stonehenge. This is a particular headache for me at this moment. This is a matter of balancing the wish of people to have as near access as they can get to an ancient monument with the need to protect it not only for posterity but even during our own lifetime.
The same applies to the countryside; for example, the preservation of our national parks may conflict with some opportunities for people to enjoy them. We must give priority to conserving natural beauty where the two purposes are irreconcilable. While tourism brings benefits to local communities in terms of jobs and spending—and I very much take the point made by the noble Marquess regarding the variation in different local areas—more visitors mean demands for car parking, caravan and camp sites, congested country lanes and village streets.
446
For the most part, local authorities resourcefully meet the planning challenge that tourism creates. One of the problems is to ask them to spend more at a time when cuts are made in public expenditure. I agree that, when the tide turns economically, it is something that they should be encouraged to do.
Even so, much of Britain's beautiful countryside sees only a handful of visitors—and these concentrated in a very short period—and would benefit, as many speakers have pointed out, from more visitors or a more even spread. The ideal is not to stern the flow but to endeavour to spread it out in space and time. This has been Government policy since 974, but it cannot be taken to perfectionist ends. Of course everyone wants to come to London, and it would be a sad day for our capital city if tourists did not. I believe people who come to Britain, especially for a second or third time, should, for their own sakes as well as London's, be encouraged to explore less well known but very rewarding places. The British Tourist Authority and tourist boards are energetically and imaginatively promoting the variety of what Britain has to offer.
I listened very carefully to everything my noble friend Lord Ponsonhy, the dedicated chairman of the London Tourist Board, said in his speech. One of his main points concerned a new, large convention centre in London, and he mentioned Wembley, the Barbican and the dear old Albert Hall I think, frankly, it is difficult at this time to justify another centre in London as a high priority. In any case, before my noble friend casts his acquisitive eye on St. George's Hospital, I would remind him that it is a listed building and he would have to get my permission to knock it down.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, made a very good point when he stressed the need for exhibition and convention centres, even outside London. I have visited the Birmingham Exhibition Centre and believe that there is a great deal of potential, though there has not yet been the opportunity for it to be realised. As part of a deal I made with him across the Floor, I will certainly try to arrange a meeting with my opposite number at the Department of Trade.
Now I turn to the Government's role which is mainly promotional. Sixteen

447
million of the 20 million a year spent by the Government directly on tourism goes to the statutory tourist boards, mainly for marketing and publicity. Four million goes on encouraging selective tourism investment, improving tourist amenities and facilities in those parts of the country where they cannot be left to the market. Of course the tourist industry would like a heavier Government grant. I only wish I were in a position to offer it and hand it over this evening, but, being a healthy thriving industry, I am afraid it is not at the head of the queue, especially in times when cash is scarce. One hopes that the future will bring an easing of some kind.
My noble friend made an eloquent plea for capital allowances to be introduced for hotels, and that was followed up by other speakers. The Government recognise that there are strong arguments for such a step. As your Lordships are aware, this is a matter for the Chancellor and was discussed not long ago during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. However, I will bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend again. But I would remind my noble friend, and others who have pressed this point, that for several years now hotel plant and machinery has qualified for capital allowances. Also, the help that was given for small businesses in the last Budget assists the tourist industry.
The question of getting staff for hotels was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and others. That is not so much a Government problem as a question for the industry itself. One point which occurs to me is that the split-shift system which is used in this country but not, for example, in the United States, as I understand, probably makes it more difficult to get staff. I think that is something which the industry itself should probably look at.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, spoke about the contribution made by the heritage, and particularly by country houses, which are a great attraction to the tourist. I thought that the noble Lord was restrained on this occasion and did not refer to the financial difficulties with which the owners of country houses usually face me, and of which I am well aware. It has been, and remains, Government policy to encourage the owners to live in and maintain
448
the houses and to make them available for visitors. The fiscal measures taken by this Government have gone a great way to helping in that. I realise they have not gone as far as is wanted, or indeed, is needed. I hope and expect that we shall be able to do more as financial conditions allow. In return, owners will of course continue to live in their houses, to maintain them and provide adequate access to them. Those noble Lords who are concerned about this know that they have my support here.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby, supported by the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, argued that there should be a Minister solely responsible for tourism. That is a matter for the Prime Minister, of course, although I must say that I am not personally taken with the idea and would need a considerable amount of persuasion. Frankly, I cannot see its being of any great advantage: in fact, it could even be counter-productive. In this country we do not in general have a separate Minister for a particular part of an industry, which is what was being advocated here. The present arrangement, where the Secretary of State for Trade, assisted by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, has ministerial responsibility for tourism, and where other Government Departments bear tourist interests strongly in mind, seems to work well. Obviously it can work only if it is done, as it is at the moment, in conjunction with a responsibility for tourism discharged by the British Tourist Authority and the National and Regional Boards, including, of course, the London Tourist Board through relevant agencies.
Since the chairman of the BTA has direct access to the Secretary of State for Trade and to the Chancellor, I think that fact rather balances out some of the other arguments. Although this is not the moment to launch into a long discourse on Government and the Constitution, I do not always think that the health and prosperity of the industry would necessarily benefit by employing more civil servants and hanging a plate on the door of another Minister.
My noble friend Lady Burton, who was kind enough to warn me of the question she was going to raise, mentioned passengers with heavy luggage travelling between Central London and Heathrow.

449
I am very sorry but I have been into this matter carefully and find myself unable to agree with her on this, since the new Underground rail link is really meant to be for the lightly-laden as far as luggage is concerned and for business people, or people going on a short trip, who can get out and in to Central London very quickly. It is an extension of the Underground system to carry large numbers of passengers quickly. Lengthy stops at any station, if luggage was being carried, would disrupt the whole service.
My noble friend also asked about the coach service. There is no question of cutting down the coach service: if it is necessary to increase it to meet demand, that will be done. I shall also be at the presentation at Heathrow which my noble friend will attend, and all this can be thrashed out then with the people directly concerned: the chairman of the British Airports Authority and also the BTA.
In answer to the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, the White Paper on Airports Policy will be published very shortly. He will be delighted to hear that the major redevelopment of Terminal 2—and I entirely agree with him that it is absolutely appalling there—is nearing completion and should be ready before the beginning of the tourist season, although more work will need to be done after the summer is over.
I am not despondent in case the fact that the pound is recovering its strength may be bad for tourism. I am pleased that the pound is recovering its strength and I do not think we need to be concerned that tourism will suffer. If we can maintain standards and avoid the dangers of overpricing; if we can improve quality in some areas like catering where our reputation, though improved, is certainly not excellent by international standards; if we can get the balance right between conservation and enjoyment; if the tourist authorities and the boards continue with their same enthusiasm, and if we can keep to the different and interesting environment that people come here to see—receiving from us the civil manner that they expect, and frankly do not always get (I think they are sometimes very long-suffering unless, fortunately, they may not always understand what we are saying)—then we can face the future with optimism.
450
I am quite aware that I have not been able to answer every point that was raised, nor have I been able to give any financial help or even future hope of it in the short run. But I do hope I have said enough to show that interest in tourism spreads right across the Government, that their concern is very great and that the efforts of everybody who is working in tourism in any form are very much appreciated.
7.59 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Birk very much for her reply. I cannot say that I agree with everything she said, but this is not the opportunity or the time to enter into a long discourse. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. A great number of most useful and interesting points have been made. I think every noble Lord who took part managed to raise a new point and not to repeat points which had been made earlier. With those words, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  CHRISTMAS BONUS BENEFICIARIES
  CHRISTMAS BONUS BENEFICIARIES
  INCOME TAX AND EMIGRATION
  INCOME TAX AND EMIGRATION
  CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977
  CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977
  TAKE-HOME PAY AND NATIONAL INCOME
  TAKE-HOME PAY AND NATIONAL INCOME
  THE POUND AND EEC MEMBERSHIP
  THE POUND AND EEC MEMBERSHIP
  EEC MEMBERSHIP: ECONOMIC EFFECTS
  EEC MEMBERSHIP: ECONOMIC EFFECTS
  BAIL ACT 1976
  BAIL ACT 1976
  STATE BENEFIT FRAUD STATISTICS
  STATE BENEFIT FRAUD STATISTICS
  MOTOR CYCLE ACCIDENTS AND SPINAL INJURIES
  MOTOR CYCLE ACCIDENTS AND SPINAL INJURIES
  SEVERN BRIDGE: TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS
  SEVERN BRIDGE: TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS
  THE BLENHEIM ARCHIVES
  THE BLENHEIM ARCHIVES
  OVERSEAS DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  OVERSEAS DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  DEFENCE CUTS ESTIMATES
  DEFENCE CUTS ESTIMATES
  EEC AND UK PUBLIC HOLIDAY
  EEC AND UK PUBLIC HOLIDAY
  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT 1975:
    EMPLOYEES' PUBLIC DUTIES
    EMPLOYEES' PUBLIC DUTIES
  BROAD SANCTUARY SITE
  BROAD SANCTUARY SITE
  EEC AND UK CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR HOLIDAYS
  EEC AND UK CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR HOLIDAYS