Sitting of 31 January 1978

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

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (NO. 2) BILL
  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL
    LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL

  SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
  TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.

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

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Young Persons
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary or State for Employment what is the percentage of young people under the age of 25 years currently unemployed in England and in Wales, respectively.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): This information is not available for England and Wales separately. The latest reliable estimates for Great Britain relate to July 1977, when 13·6 per cent. of those available for work aged under 25 were unemployed.
    The July figure of course represents a particularly severe month, for it reflects the inclusion of about 240,000 school leavers. Since then, this number has fallen by over 180,000.
    Mr. Hooson: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is widely believed that there is a major structural problem and that structural alterations are necessary in our modern industrial society before we can relieve the youth unemployment problem and prevent it from being sustained through a new era? Will he propose to his Cabinet colleagues that revenue from North Sea oil should be used partially to finance these structural changes in our society?
    Mr. Booth: I am a little afraid of the term "structural," because some people use it to include demographic circumstances and others do not. Certainly, part of the problem arises from a structural change—the change in industrial demand for labour. Part of it also arises from the huge increase in the number of school leavers. I shall certainly put to my Cabinet colleagues the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that there should be a specific call upon the revenue from North Sea oil to deal with this problem. As a Government, we are already committed to doubling the provision for the 16-to-18 age group beginning in April this year, because so much of the high level of unemployment among those who are under 25 arises in the lower age group. I believe that we shall have a considerable impact on the problem and that we

    223
    shall reduce the number of unemployed young people in the coming year.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a reduction in youth unemployment can be achieved only by a planned Socialist change—by ensuring that we have early retirement at 60 and shorter working hours and by restoring cuts in public expenditure? Is he aware that he should be looking at the problem not with the Tories and the Liberals but in terms of a planned Socialist economy which will get these youngsters to work?
    Mr. Booth: Certainly, all the things that my hon. Friend mentioned are important components in a total solution of our unemployment problem. In addition to that, however, we still have special measures to deal with the massive increase in the number of young people leaving school while structural changes are taking place in employment.
    Mr. Bulmer: What construction would the Secretary of State advise young people to put on the headline
    "A million new jobs by 1980, says Chancellor?"
    Will he confirm that the Manpower Services Commission sees no chance of unemployment dropping below 1 million by 1980?
    Mr. Booth: One of the pieces of advice I offer young people is to take every advantage of the training that will be offered by the youth opportunities programme, since, whatever new jobs will be forthcoming as a result of our successes in overcoming economic problems, a higher degree of training and a greater range of skills will be of advantage to young people.

    Mexborough
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is aware that the unemployment in the Mexborough and district employment exchange area is now in the region of 10 per cent. and that there are threatened redundancies of 200 employees at the Manvers Main chemical plant; and if he will make a statement on his future plans to find work for these unemployed persons.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): At the latest
    224
    count the unemployment rate in the Mexborough travel-to-work area was 9·7 per cent., which is a matter for serious concern. I have seen reports of a possible reduction of capacity at the Manvers coking plant which suggests that any reduction of manpower which may be necessary will be achieved by natural wastage or by special arrangements for older men. So far, I understand, no decisions have been taken and discussions between National Smokeless Fuels Ltd. and local union officials continue.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is my hon. Friend aware that when redundancies of this kind are declared the whole work force fears that the plant itself might close? Is he aware that the promise was made that the plant would be rebuilt to replace obsolete equipment but that no action has been taken? Will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to make certain that the old plant is replaced, thus ensuring employment in the district?
    Mr. Grant: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxieties. I have seen reports only that the firm must reduce its manpower, and I hope that it can do that by means other than redundancies. On the second part of the question, I shall draw my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
    Mr. Hardy: May I endorse my hon. Friend's diligent concern for unemployment in this and the surrounding parts of the Yorkshire coalfield area? Will he look again at the problem, because it is most serious and is likely to last a considerable time unless action is taken?
    Mr. Grant: I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy the remarks by both my hon. Friends.

    Protective Legislation (Women)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many women in employment are covered by protective legislation.
    Mr. John Grant: About 9 million women—all those in employment with the exception of domestic servants in private households—are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Of these, about 1½ million are subject to the

    225
    relevant statutory provisions which differentiate in their treatment of men and women.
    Mrs. Short: I am obliged for that information. Is my hon. Friend aware that that figures includes women working in bakeries and laundries and working as office cleaners and so on who are outside the scope of the 1961 Act as it deals with long and unsocial hours? Ought not my hon. Friend to look at this whole question of unsocial hours as it affects particularly women, but men as well because they, too, are affected?
    Mr. Grant: I know that my hon. Friend has had a long-standing interest in unsocial hours of work, including unsocial hours in this place. I have much sympathy for her views. However, the whole question is currently being reviewed by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has a responsibility under the Sex Discrimination Act to keep the matter under review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked for its report and findings by the end of this year.
    Mr. Wise: Will my hon. Friend make quite sure that no changes are made which will make it easier for bad employers to exploit women, because women are in many ways still at a disadvantage in the labour market? Equality should not mean any worsening of conditions for anybody. Let men have the same conditions as women.
    Mr. Grant: The Commission is taking evidence from a wide range of bodies and individuals, including the TUC and the CBI and, of course, the Health and Safety Executive. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point will be covered and taken very much into account.

    Working Hours (Reductions)
    Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent reductions in working hours are taken into account by the Government in deciding whether a particular pay settlement is within the Government's pay guidelines.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Reductions in working hours, unless accompanied by corresponding reductions in pay, should be taken into account
    226
    in determining whether a settlement is within the pay guidelines.
    Mr. Higgins: The Minister may feel that they should be taken into account, but to what extent do the Government do that in deciding whether a settlement is consistent with the guidelines? Will he place in the Library a list of major settlements where there has been a significant reduction in working hours during the period of pay policy?
    Mr. Walker: As I have said, we take them into account in monitoring settlements. I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's second point. We would have to reflect carefully about that, and that I shall do.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a suspicion in the public sector that so-called productivity deals in the private sector, which include a reduction of hours and a redesignation or reclassification of posts, are causing serious difficulties for those who work in the public sector?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I understand that anxiety. I am glad to have this opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend that we seek to apply the guidelines just as strictly in the private sector and in the implementation of self-financing productivity deals as elsewhere. My hon. Friend will have noted from the publicity given to one or two cases recently how firmly the Government are seeking to sustain the application of the guidelines there.
    Mr. Michael Latham: How much longer will the Minister and his Department go on covering up the sanctions black list?
    Mr. Walker: I think I know to what the hon. Member is referring. The so-called black list is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has spoken in the House about it.
    Mr. Madel: On the question of monitoring pay settlements, is all the monitoring clone by officials in the Department or is some of the work farmed out to market research organisations? If so, how many of the organisations are involved, and what is the cost to public funds?
    Mr. Walker: No, there is no farming out to organisations outside the Government. The monitoring is done for the private sector in the main by the Department of Employment and the Treasury. With the public sector it is done mainly by the appropriate sponsoring Departments.
    Mr. Adley: Will the Minister say something about the agreement reached for the electrical contracting industry by the joint industry board on behalf of the employers and unions? Is he satisfied that the productivity agreement there is anything other than "phoney", and will he say how small employers will be able to cope with increases of up to 35 per cent., as have been agreed by both sides?
    Mr. Walker: My Department has not approved this settlement. Among other things, the agreement provides for the payment of lieu bonuses, which is a payment in lieu of productivity that is not evidenced. We have withheld approval for that part of the settlement, making it clear that we are prepared to approve payment of lieu bonuses up to 25 per cent., and we have asked the parties in the JIB to take another look at the settlement.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is not my hon. Friend confused by the Opposition saying at one moment that they want free negotiation while complaining the next moment when the guidelines are not observed? What do they want?
    Mr. Walker: It is a confusing task to try to understand the Opposition's attitude when they are constantly pressing the Government to apply pay restraint yet complaining every time we do so.

    Days Lost
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of days lost through industrial action and unemployment expressed as a single figure in 1977; and what was the corresponding figure for 1973.
    Mr. Harold Walker: About 340 million in 1977 and 145 million in 1973.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is the Labour Party slogan at the next General Election to be "Back to work with Labour" or "Labour brings industrial peace"?
    Mr. Walker: I assumed when I saw the Question that it had probably been tabled at the prompting of Tory Party Central Office to provide propaganda. That kind of approach helps neither industrial relations nor the unfortunate people who are unemployed
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my hon. Friend accept that my constituents at Otis Elevators in Kirkby are extremely grateful to his Department for the payment of temporary employment subsidy, which saved 1,000 jobs there? Will he also accept that, if the contract for lifts at the new Manpower Services Commission building in Sheffield were to go to a foreign competitor, a Swiss-based firm, we should be in the ludicrous position of the Department of Employment on the one hand paying out a subsidy to retain jobs in my constituency and on the other hand giving a contract to foreign competitors? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful for the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I have just been assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he has already entered into discussions with the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission about the lifts to be fitted at the new headquarters at Sheffield.

    Birmingham
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the Birmingham travel-to-work area.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): At 12th January, 42,691 people were registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area.
    Mr. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there will be a possible increase of another 600 if the Cadbury-Typhoo Tea factory is closed, especially in view of its inner city location? It would be contrary to Government policy to move it out, especially as it provides much-needed non-engineering jobs in Birmingham.
    Mr. Golding: I share my hon. Friend's concern about any loss of jobs from the inner area of Birmingham. I am not certain that the firm has taken any final decision on the matter. I understand that

    229
    the city council is in touch with the firm to try to find alternative sites in the city.
    Mr. Eyre: Does the Minister realise that Government policy on assisted areas offers heavy inducements for the movement of work from the inner area of Birmingham to the Cheshire area? Does he realise that the Government's policy on assisted areas is therefore greatly in conflict with the interests of dealing with areas of great unemployment in the inner areas, such as that in which this factory is sited? Therefore, will he urgently review that conflict?
    Mr. Golding: It was the last Tory Government who designated South Cheshire as an intermediate area, causing antagonism in my constituency and throughout thet West Midlands. Between June 1976 and 1977, employment in manufacturing in the West Midlands increased by 20,000, but the last Conservative Administration created a problem by doing what it did.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that the unemployment problems of Birmingham are reflected in areas such as Cannock, which has much greater unemployment than Birmingham? Does he also accept that in some of the pockets of high unemployment on the borders of conurbations there is an urgent need for special help?
    Mr. Golding: I think that the centre of Birmingham has severe employment problems, but I certainly recognise the problems that exist in Cannock and in Rugeley in Staffordshire, and my Department has to deal with both.
    Mr. MacKay: Does not the Minister agree that the Government's disastrous regional policy is rapidly making the West Midlands into an economic desert? Does he also agree that, if we are not very careful, more than the Typhoo Tea jobs will be lost and there will be mass unemployment for the first time for many years in the West Midlands?
    Mr. Golding: The assistance that this Government have given to the motor car, machine tool and foundry industries, which was opposed by Conservative Members, has stopped the West Midlands from becoming an industrial desert and has created 20,000 additional jobs.

    Employed Persons
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of persons in employment in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.
    Mr. Booth: At September 1977, there were 22,721,000 employees in employment in the United Kingdom. This figure is provisional.
    Mr. Hardy: Whilst unemployment has continued to cause concern, is it not to the Government's credit that, despite the urgings of the Opposition, they have taken action so that, despite the recession, more people are in employment than when the Conservatives were in office?
    Mr. Booth: It is certainly true that, as my hon. Friend says, there are more people in employment now than in September 1971 or September 1972, and there are almost as many as there were in employment in September 1973. However, I do not think that we can in any way be satisfied with this performance, bearing in mind the enormous number of additional jobs that we shall need in view of the much lower rate of retirement that we expect in the next year or two and the vastly greater number of young people coming from school to seek jobs.
    Mr. Raison: What does the Secretary of State think would be the effect on the unemployment figures if the money spent by his Department on job subsidisation were transferred to other public services such as education, health and defence?
    Mr. Booth: The effect would be to reduce slightly the number of jobs available. All the special job measures operated by my Department are tested for their cost-effectiveness and the labour-intensive effect that they can produce against expenditure in the public services. The expenditure of money in certain public services is extremely labour-intensive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support any measures that the Government bring before the House to spend money in spheres such as the Health Service, education or others which will produce many more jobs.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's last answer but one imply that the Government are to lower the

    231
    retirement age in the next year or two? If so, they have estimated how this will reduce unemployment? For example, have they worked out how it would affect unemployment at present if the male retirement age were reduced to 60, and what it would cost?
    Mr. Booth: The Government certainly have worked out the cost and the effect on employment. The costs figure has been given in the House more than once by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The effect now, as compared with the effect a period of full employment, would be about half, and the cost would be correspondingly reduced.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the temporary employment subsidy were withdrawn it would have a devastating effect on the current level of employment? Will he resist attempts by the Common Market Commissioners to have the Government withdraw this subsidy? Will he suggest what alternative legislation can be introduced if this is foisted upon us by the Common Market?
    Mr. Booth: I can assure my hon. Friend that the withdrawal of TES would have a serious adverse effect on employment, particularly in certain industries in the area that he represents. In fact, I would expect that its total withdrawal might increase unemployment by about 200,000. As for resisting the attempts of the Common Market Commission to restrict the application of TES, I shall do my utmost to prevent that. I undertook yesterday to lay before the House legislation which would give us an undisputed right, I trust, to introduce measures to offset any action by the Commission to reduce the effect of temporary employment subsidy.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Secretary of State take this early opportunity to correct the very misleading information that he gave to the House yesterday, when he used OECD figures to try to say that we were seventh in the league of unemployment, when in fact he was quoting from Table 7 on page 29 of the latest OECD Economic Outlook, which has a footnote which says
    "These rates are not comparable between countries."
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really must ask a question.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am asking the Secretary of State whether he will correct this very misleading information and quote from the table in which the figures are adjusted which fully sustains the position put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that unemployment is worse than in all the other OECD countries except Canada.
    Mr. Booth: If the hon. Gentleman is to hand out advice about reading footnotes, he might first direct his attention to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). The figures I quoted in the House yesterday give a far more accurate reflection of the position than did those of his right hon. Friend. I very much resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I misled the House in this matter.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has for reducing unemployment.
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures he intends to propose to alleviate unemployment.
    Mr. Booth: I would refer the hon. Members to the speech I gave in the House yesterday, and in particular to the references concerning the small firms employment subsidy, the temporary employment subsidy and the job release scheme.
    Mr. Goodlad: Will the Secretary of State accept that most of the measures to which he referred have a short-term effect and that, important though they may be, they do nothing towards solving the long-term problem of productivity? In view of the survey of 82 manufacturing industries that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech yesterday, which showed that the 10 industries with the fastest growing productivity increased employment by 165,000, compared with a fall of 600,000 in the 82 as a whole, does he agree that productivity is the friend rather than the enemy of employment and that it should be assisted rather than obstructed by Government policy?
    Mr. Booth: I entirely agree with one proposition only that the hon. Gentleman put, namely, that productivity is the friend of employment. I disagree with virtually everything else he said. I believe that the small firms employment subsidy scheme can considerably help to increase employment opportunities and raise productivity in small firms. I also believe that the temporary employment subsidy can enable firms to restructure in a way that improves their productivity and their chances of maintaining employment. I believe that the job release scheme, by enabling older employees to leave and younger employees to come into their places, can also help productivity. Even where it does not help, it certainly cannot be contended that it in any way hinders productivity.
    Mr. Speaker: It seems that the House has forgotten how to ask a brief question and how to get a brief reply. That means that hon. Members who thought that they would be called to ask a Question will not be called.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that deep-seated and long-term unemployment will not be solved in manufacturing industry alone but will need social action as well? Is he aware that if we reduced the retirement age for men to 64 there would be potentially another 250,000 jobs for young people? Will not the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—now take immediate action on this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said. He has asked three questions instead of one.
    Mr. Booth: The last two of my hon. Friend's three questions are really for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The answer to the one that falls directly to me is that I certainly believe that my Department is aiding by the extension of the job release scheme that I announced yesterday. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in persuading people to make the maximum use of it.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—namely, how much extra employment would be created if the money spent on job sub-
    234
    sidy were diverted to conventional methods of increasing public expenditure? Secondly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—will he say how much extra—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must play the game or we shall never reach Question No. 15.
    Mr. Booth: The answer is "None Sir".
    Mr. Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the invaluable help given by the TES, unemployment is still increasing in the textile industry, and that what is needed is more purchasing power, which must mean a return to free collective bargaining?
    Mr. Skinner: That is a bit better.
    Mr. Booth: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend if he implies that increases in wages without regard to their true purchasing effect are a solution. We must have an increase in real purchasing power, I agree, but that will depend on a permanent relationship between increases in wages and increases in prices.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman's proposals include an effort to reduce the amount of overtime being worked?
    Mr. Booth: The amount of overtime worked is principally a matter for negotiation between employers and unions, but I would certainly urge those considering any arrangements which would enable them to reduce overtime and increase employment to give this a maximum priority.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what possibilities he sees for an increase in manufacturing employment in the United Kingdom in 1978.
    Mr. Harold Walker: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, the sector working parties in manufacturing industry have come to the conclusion that it is possible to increase the productivity of their sectors sufficiently to improve our balance of payments by some £2½ billion by 1980. Although in these sectors employment overall is not

    235
    likely to increase dramatically from such improvements in productivity, the balance of payments benefit they generate should enable the Government to run the economy at a level of demand sufficient to produce between ½ million and 1 million additional jobs, although many of these jobs will be in the service sectors.
    Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question that his right hon. Friend did not answer in the debate yesterday? Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer consult the Secretary of State before quoting his figure of a 1 million increase in new jobs over the next two years? How many of those jobs will be in the manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman does not take for granted the close liaison between members of the Cabinet, he is thicker than he looks.
    Mr. Litterick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of the Conservative Party to assert out of one side of its mouth that unemployment in Britain is higher than in any other industrial country of the world whilst out of the other side—the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the sect that follows him—it asserts that British unemployment statistics exaggerate the level of unemployment? Is not that cynical opportunism?
    Mr. Walker: I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend says.

    Merseyside
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he is taking to reduce unemployment on Merseyside.
    Mr. John Grant: Merseyside will continue to benefit from the special measures which the Government have introduced to relieve unemployment and which have so far benefited over 41,000 people on Merseyside. In coming months, Merseyside should also benefit from the special temporary employment programme and the youth opportunities programme.
    Mr. Loyden: Does my hon. Friend accept that the unemployment position on Merseyside still causes grave concern and that many of us are concerned about the rate of progress? As his Department is the Department of Employment, will
    236
    he ask the Secretary of State to resist any measures that may be taken in the near future to increase Merseyside unemployment by the closure of any Leyland plant in that area?
    Mr. Grant: I cannot anticipate discussions that, I understand, will take place tomorrow between the chairman and the unions and management at British Leyland, but certainly I and the Government appreciate the earlier point that my hon. Friend raised. Merseyside already has special development area status and so qualifies for the highest levels regional assistance under the Industry Act. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry in particular continues to give the area high priority.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend accept that within Merseyside, Kirkby is the unemployment black spot—indeed, one of the three in the country—and that, given the nature of its problems, what is needed there are special measures tailored to meet its particular needs?
    Mr. Grant: If I were not aware of Kirkby's being a particular black spot, I should be aware as a result of my hon. Friend's efforts to draw the Government's attention to the matter. But many other areas would claim special attention. Kirkby, like other parts of Merseyside, must benefit from the measures I have already outlined.

    Training Opportunities Scheme Courses
    Mr. Corbettasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications were made in the last period for which figures are available for places on training opportunities scheme courses; how this compares with the period 12 months earlier; and whether he will make a statement on the provision of training opportunities scheme courses and places.
    Mr. Golding: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that in the three months ended 31st December 1977 48,803 applications were received for TOPS courses. In the same period 12 months earlier, the number of applications received was 56,851. The Manpower Services Commission is currently reviewing the training opportunities scheme and will be considering its future

    237
    scale and balance in the light or the review.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend ask the Manpower Services Commission to pay particular attention to the handling of applications and the speedy placing of those who apply, especially in areas of higher-than-average unemployment, against the background of the growing need for a number of people now out of work to retrain if they are to obtain jobs?
    Mr. Golding: I shall certainly do so.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister look at the administrative and bureaucratic elements within the training opportunities scheme, which seem to be growing rather faster than is justified?
    Mr. Golding: I shall draw the attention of the Manpower Services Commission to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

    Young Persons
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of registered unemployed young people in the United Kingdom; how many of these are in Scotland, England and Wales; what is the total number of registered vacancies in the United Kingdom for such age groups; and how many of these vacancies are in Scotland, England and Wales, respectively.
    Mr. Booth: The latest information available is for July 1977, when there were 708,517 young people under 25 unemployed in Great Britain, of whom 89,627 were in Scotland, 575,710 in England and 43,180 in Wales. As I told the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) earlier, these figures reflect the inclusion of about 240,000 school leavers Since then, this number has fallen by over 180,000.
    Unemployment figures for Northern Ireland are not directly comparable with those in Great Britain.
    There is no age analysis of vacancy statistics.
    Mrs. Bain: Irrespective of any decline which may have occurred, in view of the earlier answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) concerning North Sea oil revenues, and in view of the right hon.
    238
    Gentleman's own commitment yesterday to doubling the youth opportunities programme, will he now tell us exactly what level of funds will be made available for this programme? Will he also indicate whether any discussions are taking place to ensure that training undertaken during this period will be recognised as training towards apprenticeships?
    Mr. Booth: Yes; the funding which we have estimated as being the requirement of the youth opportunities programme is in the order of £160 million a year. The existing programmes in Scotland have produced more than 38,000 job creation places, as the hon. Lady knows, and nearly 6,000 work experience places. The limitations on these have not been from funding. I think the hon. Lady will appreciate that wherever a worthwhile scheme has been proposed, my Department has made arrangements to fund it.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in all parts of the United Kingdom there is still a grave shortage of personnel in the professions supplemental to medicine? Will he have urgent talks with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in order to set up a crash programme to get young people recruited and absorbed into that sector?
    Mr. Booth: I shall certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services how far I can assist in this through the programmes that my Department is running for young people.
    Mr. Marten: If in the years ahead there are to be a million more jobs, as I understand the Government have said, I urge them to use again their slogan "Back to work with Labour" at the next General Election, so that we can have a very fair debate on promise and performance.
    Mr. Booth: Whatever slogans parties may choose in the next General Election. I hope that all parties which promote candidates will put forward their proposals and their assurances concerning job creation. When we initially proposed these schemes from the Government side, many of them were condemned very harshly in debate by Opposition Members, who now suggest that they should be extended.

    Textile Industry
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers were employed in the textile industry in Lancashire or the North-West of England during the years 1973–74, 1974–75, 1975–76, 1976–77 and 1977 to the latest date for which there are statistics.
    Mr. Golding: At June in each of the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976, the numbers of employees in employment in the textiles industries in Lancashire were 44,000, 44,300, 40,000 and 39,300 respectively. Figures for 1977 are not yet available.
    Mr. Thorne: I recognise that those figures would be worse without the temporary employment subsidy, but will the Minister indicate what other steps can be taken to avoid the ultimate death of textiles in Lancashire?
    Mr. Golding: The Government are already to be congratulated, I believe, on the conclusion of the new Multi-Fibre Arrangement. The aim is to create a competitive industry in Lancashire, to compete with the industries of other countries.
    Mr. James Lamond: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the only response from the Tories to the success of the Government in the renegotiated Multi-Fibre Arrangement, and the success of the Government in maintaining jobs in Lancashire through the temporary employment subsidy, has been to decry and object to both these measures. Does he not think that Lancashire textile workers should take careful note of that?
    Mr. Golding: I have noted that both employers and workers in Lancashire and Yorkshire have supported the Government very strongly in their endeavours to save the textile industry.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 31st January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings
    240
    with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be the guest of the Indian Journalists Association at the Indian Republic Day Dinner.
    Mr. Neubert: With reference to the Prime Minister's undertaking, to read the speech of the Secretary of State for Energy at the School of African and Oriental Studies, may I ask whether he has found time today to do so?
    In view of the Prime Minister's own recent statement that millions of pounds of public money have been put into British Leyland without too much to show for it, may I ask whether he agrees with his right hon. Friend in putting public ownership back on the agenda?
    The Prime Minister: I read only the headlines, as I told the House last week. I found some of them this morning pretty disquieting.
    I have made my position clear concerning Leyland. The Government will clearly have to determine the future policy on this matter. A new leader for the company has been appointed. He must be supported. When he chooses to follow any path, we cannot tell him that he should do something else. If we put him there, we must back him. We shall have to wait and see what plan he produces.
    Mrs. Renée Short: In what is obviously a busy day, will my right hon. Friend find a few minutes in which to call in the Leader of the Opposition and to explain to her that, if she is complaining that political parties are not discussing immigration, she has a remedy in her own hands? Since she became Leader of the Opposition, she has had many opportunities to choose a Supply Day for this debate. Will my right hon. Friend perhaps inform her of this?
    The Prime Minister: I should be very happy to do so. Indeed, I think it is appropriate, now that the right hon. Lady has opened up the subject in the manner she has, that there should be the fullest possible discussion of it. I go further and say that I think the right hon. Lady now has a responsibility to make absolutely clear what she is proposing to do and not to take refuge three times in the statement that what she wants is a clear prospect of ending immigration. If that is her object, she

    241
    owes it to all of us to tell us how she will do it.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. David Steel.
    Mr.David Steel rose—
    Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recall an occasion when, from that Dispatch Box, he said that numbers entering were an important element in racial harmony? Does he still take that view, in which case is he saying—
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: How would the right hon. Lady end immigration?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is the Prime Minister's job to answer questions. When I am asked a straight question on television, I try to give a straight answer. I wish that the Prime Minister would do the same. Does he still take that view, in which case is he saying, 18 months later, that he proposes to take no action whatsoever to tighten up the immigration rules?
    The Prime Minister: I have never wavered in my view on the significance and importance of limiting immigration in order that we should have good race relations. Indeed, I introduced a Bill, which became an Act, to that effect. What I am now saying is that the loopholes have been closed and that the only way in which the right hon. Lady can fulfil her undertaking is to take away the rights of wives and children or United Kingdom passport holders or elderly relatives to enter this country. [Interruption.] We had better get the facts clear. Let us get it quite clearly on the record. There were 28,000 new immigrants to this country last year. Only 750, up to 1st October, came in on the basis of work vouchers. The rest came under the headings that I have already outlined.
    I ask the right hon. Lady—no, I do not ask her; as she said, it is my job to answer questions. However, I am entitled to ask the Conservative Party to make its position clear. As these 28,000 people fall mainly into these categories, how does the Leader of the Opposition propose to avoid their entry? The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) made a clear and unequivocal statement to the Conservative Party conference on 12th October last, saying that it would be unthinkable for his party to
    242
    go back on its commitment to the entry of these people. There is no way in which the Leader of the Opposition can promise a clear end to immigration unless she goes back on that unequivocal commitment. If she does so, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will have to consider his attitude.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. David Steel.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I take up the Prime Minister on one of those figures? [Interruption.] He has given the impression that there were only 28,000 immigrants last year. I do not think that that is the full number. Will he give us the full number and, further, will he give us the full number who have the entitlement to come here under the present rules? We have frequently asked for this figure. In fact, the Franks Committee was set up to determine the number. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he intends to take no action whatsoever further to tighten up the present rules of immigration?
    The Prime Minister: As regards the right hon. Lady's last question, there is such rigid control over immigration now that it is very difficult to think of ways of tightening it further, unless the Conservative Party goes back on its commitment. The right hon. Lady is quite correct—thought not in the way she has put it—about the numbers. I said that 28,000 people entered the country last year. There were 16,200 already living here for several years who were given citizenship. Is it proposed that they should be sent away? Is that what the Conservatives propose? What are the Opposition going to do? As I see it, they have two choices. They can send back people who have been living here for years—those 16,000 who were given citizenship—or they can go back on their clear pledges to wives and children, elderly relatives and United Kingdom passport holders. Which is it to be?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mrs. Thatcher rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I had called the Leader of the Liberal Party when the right hon. Lady rose last time.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has received any specific proposal from the

    243
    official Opposition for reducing immigration? If not, will he agree that simply talking in a vague way about reducing it, far from improving race relations, merely encourages fear, uncertainty and prejudice? Does the Prime Minister agree that all of us in this House, but the Government in particular, should concentrate instead on bad housing, poor schooling, and high unemployment, particularly among second generation immigrants? Is this not the best way of improving race relations?
    The Prime Minister: The Home Secretary tells me that he has received no detailed proposals—indeed, no proposals at all—from the Conservative Party for reducing immigration. Therefore, I have to base my view of Conservative Party policy on the statement made to the party conference last October by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. He said:
    "It would be dangerous to society and to good race relations to refuse a man the company of his wife and children."
    Do the Opposition stand by that?
    Mrs. Thatcher: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) set out the policy at the party conference by saying that it was important that we should hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration.
    Mr. Faulds: Why does not the right hon. Lady give the job to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister say how many immigrants are entitled to come in under the present law? If he does not know how many but proposes to admit all of them regardless, he cannot stand by—
    Mr. Faulds: That is what we would expect from the Leader of the Opposition. What is she going to do about it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) must control himself.
    Mr. Faulds: With that bloody woman in the House, how can you expect it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me too far. We must listen to the points of view with which we do not agree. That is what this House is all about.
    Mrs. Thatcher: If the Prime Minister does not know how many there are, and
    244
    if he admits them all, regardless of numbers, he cannot agree with his previous statement that the numbers entering are an element in good race relations.
    The Prime Minister: I would beg the House once again not to engender too much heat on this matter. I am not speaking to any particular hon. Member.
    I am entitled to say that the headlines in the Tory newspapers this morning were designed for a particular end. Therefore, it is important to get the facts out if we are to have good race relations. The Franks Committee tried to find out the total number of possible immigrants. On that Committee there was a Labour Member and a Conservative Member—the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). They decided that it would not be possible or useful to produce a register. They did not think that it would be accurate enough. As the right hon. Lady knows very well, there is no figure, but, because of the tight control of work permits, the number of new people admitted permanently for work was only 750 for the first nine months of last year. It must follow that the numbers are likely to fall, and that is what is happening.
    The numbers arriving for settlement in 1977 were 25 per cent. down on the numbers in 1976. In the interests of this country as a whole, we should try to debate this now and bring the issues out before we get into the excitement of an election. I am glad that we are debating it now. I hope that the right hon. Lady is not hoping to appeal to certain elements in the electorate. [Interruption.]
    The reality of the situation—I cannot repeat it too often—is that there is close control over numbers. There is agreement on both sides of the House, up to this moment and I hope after this moment, that dependants of those who are already here should be able to enter. I hope that there is agreement on both sides also that, if there are loopholes that are abused, they should be tightened. I know of no better policy than that and I shall stand by it.
    Mr. Bidwell: May I say that I do not regard the Leader of the Opposition as a racialist, but I do regard her as an extremely muddled woman on this question who does not have the good grace to await the work of her hon. Friends

    245
    and my hon. Friends on the Select Committee considering this matter which is now nearing the time when it will report.
    When I was in India, I was asked—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Bidwell:—whether the right hon. Lady would be—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Bidwell:—Britain's first woman Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not see that I was on my feet. Will he please ask a question?
    Mr. Bidwell: Does the Prime Minister agree that, by the way things are going, the majority of people in this country would give him the benefit of the doubt as he seems to be Hobson's choice when one looks at the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure who is supposed to be most flattered by my hon. Friend's last comment, but I shall not leap to his defence and refer to him as a philosophical anarchist when he is under attack next time.
    In the discussions that I hope we shall have in which we can thrash out these matters and get the figures clearly on the record of what people intend to do, I hope that we shall not play up the fears of people which are not real and genuine if they are not based on accurate expectations or figures. I hope particularly that the party opposite will not give rise to expectations that cannot be fulfilled when it gets back to office—if it ever does.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) raised a complaint of privilege concerning what he alleged to be false evidence given before the Select Committee on Abortion in 1975. In accordance with recent practice, I undertook to consider the matter and to give my ruling today.
I have now had time to consider the hon. Member's statement and the circumstances that led him to raise the matter when he did. It is not my duty to rule upon the merits of complaints of privilege, but only to decide whether or not they should have precedence over the other business of the House.
246
Although I am satisfied that the hon. Member has raised a very serious matter, the facts have been known since at least 18th January 1978. I have, therefore, no authority to accord priority in this case.
Later—
Mrs. Renée Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to your ruling on the question of privilege raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). I have no wish to challenge your decision, but it is surely without precedent, at least since I came into the House, that we have evidence of deliberately misleading information being given to a Select Committee. Can you say what remedies the House has for dealing with this pair of self-confessed liars?
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that I am bound by the Standing Orders and rules of the House. This matter was not raised at the time it should have been raised. I am the guardian of the rights of the House and I can perform that duty only if I maintain the Standing Orders.
Later—
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)? When such a violation of privilege has occurred but has not been raised with you in time, what avenues are open to us to take steps against people who have deliberately lied to a Select Committee of the House? Although we may not have raised the matter at the time we should have raised it, the crime still exists. What should we do?
Mr. Speaker: This is a very old complaint. A statement was made in open court on 18th January. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are many ways of pursuing this matter that are open to any hon. Member. I cannot give it precedence.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has become apparent during Prime Minister's Question Time that the right hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly interested in asking questions of

247
the Opposition rather than answering our questions. In view of his rather morbid interest, would it not be possible to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the possibility of our allocating a quarter of an hour between 3.15 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on Wednesdays during which the Prime Minister could put down Questions to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: That is not for me to decide.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the ruling you gave during employment Questions that both questions and answers should be speeded up could also be applied to Prime Minister's Question Time? I am not complaining because I had Question No. Q3 to the Prime Minister, but we dealt with only Question No. Q1.
Mr. Speaker: We always allow a little extra latitude to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I know that they would not take advantage of that fact.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time, while my right hon. Friend was discussing the numbers already settled in this country, the 16,000 who had been allowed permanent settlement last year, he asked the Leader of the Opposition—and she gave a negative shake of the head in reply—whether these people should be put out. The right hon. Lady did not have the courage to get to her feet to make that reply.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to hear a point of order and not an argument that is continuing from Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Faulds: Since the Leader of the Opposition did not get to her feet to make clear that she did not want those people put out and as she agreed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House very well. He must not continue Prime Minister's Question Time by raising a point of order to score points. Let us have either a genuine point of order or none at all.
Mr. Faulds: Since the right hon. Lady made clear only by a negative shake of
248
the head that she was not prepared to have these people put out, can you, Mr. Speaker, instruct the Editor of Hansard to make a note of that physical gesture?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You and hon. Members will know that no Member has the right to demand a reply of a Minister and that a Minister is fully entitled to reply or not to reply as he thinks fit.
However, when, as was the case with the Prime Minister, a Minister accepts a Question—as my right hon. Friend did yesterday—and says that he will answer it and give the information requested and then declines to do so, is that not a matter that you could consider? I am referring to the general principle rather than the specific case. If a Minister says that he will give information—as my right hon. Friend said yesterday—and then fails to give it, is that not treating the House with contempt? I am raising a general question and not a particular case.
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend is raising a general question, I do not know why he refers to the Question put to me. My hon. Friend asked me to
"publish in the Official Report a detailed list of persons and their designations and salaries"
and so on
"at No. 10 Downing Street."
I replied:
"I am ready to continue the normal practice of answering Questions from hon. Members about the numbers of staff in various grades employed at 10 Downing Street, and the total cost of their salaries."—[Official Report, 30th January 1978; Vol. 943, c. 70]
Mr. Lewis: I am glad that the Prime Minister has done that. You will note. Mr. Speaker, that he said that he would do it and then refrained from doing so—[Interruption.] That may be funny, smart and "slick Jim ", but that is not how the House should be treated. I am not concerned with "slick Jim". If a Minister says that he will do something, surely it is incumbent upon you, Mr. Speaker, to say "If you say that you will do it, you will do it". In my Question I asked my right hon. Friend to do something. He said that he would but he failed to do it.
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I answered

249
the Question that my hon. Friend tabled. If, inadvertently, he did not put his Question in a form that demanded the Answer that he required, I suggest that he tables another Question. As in the past, I shall answer all my hon. Friend's Questions. I receive a daily letter from him and he receives a daily reply. I would miss it if a morning passed without a complaint from him.
Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note that the Prime Minister undertook to reply to all the Questions put to him by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Surely it was wrong, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister to offer to do that for an individual hon. Member. Is it not right that that facility should be extended to all hon. Members?
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a long established tradition that hon. Members may question the Prime Minister about the speeches of members of the Cabinet. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has now come out with the dictum that he does not read those speeches and, therefore, does not answer questions about them. Once again, that underlines the need for a further reference of Prime Minister's Questions to the Select Committee on Procedure so that we may find better ways of questioning the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The content of Ministers' replies is nothing to do with me.

SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS (STORM DAMAGE)
Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the severe weather conditions in the Scottish Highlands, he would make a statement about conditions in that area.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): Since the blizzards of the weekend, large parts of the Highlands have been gravely affected by snow. Four people are known to have died as a direct result of the storms. I wish to express my sympathy to the relatives. One man is still reported missing.
Because of the disruptions to communications by road, rail and telephone, information about the effects of the storm on the more remote areas, particularly
250
North-West Sutherland, is not comprehensive. There have been widespread power failures which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is doing its best to remedy.
Emergency operations are being co-ordinated by the Chief Constable of the Northern Constabulary, who has had considerable assistance from the Armed Services, local authority departments, motoring organisations and many private individuals. I consider that these arrangements are working satisfactorily.
While I am keeping a close watch on events, I think it best to leave the detailed organisation to the people on the spot who know the local circumstances. The chief constable tells me that, with the help of some 16 helicopters, he is arranging for surveys of the remoter areas to check on food supplies. His forces are continuing to probe the larger drifts of snow on the roads to check whether there are any more cars still buried, but these operations are being hampered by continuing falls of snow.
I would like to pay tribute to the most excellent work of all those involved in the rescue operations, particularly the Service men, who have been responsible for the rescue of about 200 people up to date. Without the services of the helicopters and their crews, it would have been impossible to deal with such serious disruption over such a wide and sparsely populated area.
The main tasks now are to ensure that people who are in immediate difficulty are given the help they need and to restore communications and electricity supplies as quickly as possible. All the services concerned are working hard towards these ends. I have arranged for extra snow-clearing equipment to be sent to the area as well as machines from the North of England and Northern Ireland; a very large snow blower is being transported by the Royal Air Force from Switzerland and should arrive in the Highlands tomorrow. Units of the King's Own Scottish Borderers are helping British Railways to clear the railway line north of Inverness. Telephone and electrical engineers are being taken to the site of breakdowns by helicopter, if necessary.
The Government are ready to supplement the efforts of the local authorities and police in any way possible and will

251
respond to any call for help. So far, the local people responsible have not felt it necessary to ask for such help beyond that which I have already mentioned. I have, however, arranged for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to travel to Inverness later today so that he will be available on the spot.
Mr. Gray: I thank the Secretary of State for making that full statement. I wish to associate myself with his remarks about the sympathy that the House extends to the relatives of those who have been so tragically killed by storms.
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on two matters? First, while we appreciate greatly the work that has been done by the linesmen of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in trying to restore power, will he bear in mind that in parts of my constituency there has been no light, heat or television since Friday last? The linesmen are working under great pressure. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to try to arrange for reinforcements to assist them? Secondly, will he ask his officials to keep the closest possible contact with the local branches of the National Farmers' Union? I have had one case already reported to me today where a farmer has lost 50 sheep as a result of the storm, and that sort of situation is liable to be revealed throughout the whole Highlands area.
Mr. Millan: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. First, I shall keep in touch with the hydro-electric board. As I understand the position, all the available linesmen are already working in the area. Secondly, the problem of providing fodder stuffs for livestock is that basically it would have to be done by helicopter, and we are using all the available helicopters to save human life. However, I appreciate that there is a problem. If we are able to do something about it a little later, we shall be anxious to do that.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State aware that I wish to be associated with the commiserations for those who have died, to whom he has referred, the congratulations that he has given to the public services, which have made a remarkable effort, and the remarkable expressions of fortitude and compassion that we have had from individuals such
252
as John and Mavis Sinclair in the Slochd, who provided food for 65 people without any warning?
In pursuit of what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has said, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman's Department and his office be taking to quantify the cost of the enormous storm both to the local authorities and to individuals such as farmers, to whom reference has been made by the hon. Gentleman? Secondly, has the hydroelectric board made any request for the availability of extra staff, perhaps from the South of Scotland Electricity Board?
Mr. Millan: I cannot give a definite answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question, but I shall pursue the matter. As far as I am aware all the available resources are being used in the areas concerned, which extend over a wide area of Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman understands very well, there are problems of access. Even if personnel are available, there remain problems in getting people to the various locations.
On the subject of cost, I shall want to examine that aspect when the situation is clear and when we can see the extent of the damage and the financial burden which has fallen on local authorities.
Dr. Bray: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that all the helicopters that are available from private charter firms and operators are being used and will continue to be used as long as the emergency lasts?
Mr. Millan: At present, Service helicopters are being used from Navy, Army and Air Force establishments. As far as I am aware, the resources available to the chief constable who is in charge of the operation are adequate. But if he needs additional help that can be obtained only from private sources, I shall be happy to examine the situation. To repeat the point I made originally, operational control lies with the chief constable and the local authorities. I have no reason to believe that they are not doing everything possible to deal with the situation.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I wish to associate myself and my SNP colleagues with the expressions of sympathy. I also wish to express admiration for the courage of all concerned, particularly to many of my

253
constituents in the area of the two stations who took part in rescue operations.
I wish to thank the Secretary of State for Scotland for all the practical steps which are being taken, but I should like to ask him whether he agrees that there is a long-term lesson to be learned and that we should set up some kind of contingency disaster fund to be called upon when freak spells of weather take place. May we not also learn the lesson that when local authorities face these special burdens they should be given consideration in the allotment of funds even after the present terrors have passed?
Mr. Millan: When these natural disasters occur, there is a financial burden on the local authorities concerned and one has to deal with representations for financial assistance on their merits. I have recently dealt with the subject of flooding in the Borders and have received representations from the local authorities on that issue. I believe that we should wait to see what is involved before we commit ourselves to whether Government money will be available. I shall examine the matter carefully when we have the information.
Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the district engineer at Bath-gate has, in common with many other district engineers, sent all available linesmen to the Highlands? Since we in Central Scotland also have a problem, would it not be possible to obtain some help from snow-free areas of England?
Mr. Millan: I can only repeat that so far as I am aware the hydro-electric board, which has a great deal of experience in operating in adverse weather conditions even in a normal winter in the Highlands, is doing all it can to deal with the situation. However, I shall pursue this matter with the board following these discussions.
Mr. Fairbairn: I wish to associate myself with the tributes paid to those who have suffered, to the courage of their rescuers, and to the endurance of those who live in the rural areas of Scotland without complaint of any kind.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? In these blizzard conditions, which may not yet be over, is he taking special precautions to ensure that
254
steps are taken not only to rescue human lives but to provide food for the livestock that is endangered? Does he intend to enlarge on the present efforts? Secondly, in regard to the rural areas and the plight of hill farmers, who are particularly financially deprived, will he look with special sympathy at any claims for the loss of livestock, life and property and will he consider the extra burdens that are being put on local authorities?
Mr. Millan: I shall certainly look at those matters sympathetically, but we must wait a little to see exactly what is involved in terms of financial loss. On the subject of contingency plans, when this episode is over we shall want to see whether there are any lessons that we may draw from this experience and whether the stocks of equipment in the affected areas are adequate to deal with the situation. At present the important consideration is to get on with the job, and I know that all concerned are working extremely hard. I should like to pay tribute to them and to the many individuals who live in these areas, who is some cases have behaved with great courage in rescuing people trapped in the snow.
Mr. Watt: I, too, wish to pay a tribute to those in the public services who have carried out such excellent rescue work. However, will the right hon. Gentleman guard against complacency in respect of many farmers in the uplands and Highlands? The right hon. Gentleman claimed that so far he had had no communication with those people. That is not surprising, because in many cases they are totally cut off from outside communication. Furthermore, will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the fate of livestock in these areas? Does he realise that many thousands of sheep have now been in drifts for periods of up to four days, and that unless they are rescued within the next 48 hours they are certain to perish? Will he consider moving troops into these areas by an air lift so that they may assist farmers in rescuing sheep from snowdrifts, which in some cases are as deep as 18 ft.?
Mr. Millan: I think that I have already answered the comment about livestock by saying that in the present situation we must give most of our attention to rescuing human beings. Having said that, if there is anything that we can do to help

255
farmers with livestock, we shall do it, but all the equipment and personnel are already very heavily engaged. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that I did not say that I had not had representations because, naturally, I cannot have contact with farmers at this early stage. However, I said that I would later examine the position to see the extent of the damage. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all wish to pay tribute to the magnificent rescue operation, one of the best that has occurred and throughout which there have been many examples of individual courage?
I wish to put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the great amount of suffering and hardship in the last few days in the most severe weather conditions that have obtained for many years, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of weather prospects? Is this situation likely to go on for some time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I understand that the Government obtain advice on these matters, which I am sure would be valuable.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to review the arrangements for giving advice or adequate warning to motorists and other travellers of severe weather—warnings which may have assisted many who have been stranded in the snow on major roads?
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have we not reached the utmost depth of absurdity when an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman asks a Minister for a weather forecast?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard a lot worse than that in this House.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was simply inquiring whether scientific advice is made available as to likely weather prospects.
Mr. Millan: Perhaps I may reply to the hon. Gentleman by saying that there are continuing falls of snow today. This is a serious matter because rescue operations are now being hampered by these continuing falls of snow. I cannot add to that point.
256
On the other point relating to the giving of advance warning to motorists, undoubtedly many people were caught unexpectedly, but the severity of the blizzard occurred very quickly indeed. After this episode is over, we shall want to examine all these matters.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call only the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick).
Mr. MacCormick: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that although I entirely agree that the main effort should be aimed at saving human life, we should also remember that human life is still at stake because many old people and others—and this applies to many of my constituents on the Isle of Islay—have been without electricity since last Friday? May we be assured that everything possible is being done to reconnect those homes to the electricity supply as soon as possible?
Mr. Millan: I can only repeat that the electricity authorities are working hard to restore the situation. One should pay tribute to the linesmen because they undertake their work in savage conditions of snow and cold, even in a normal winter. They are a dedicated body of men and are working excessively hard.

MEDICINES (PRESCRIPTION ONLY) ORDER
Dr. Vaughanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the action that the Government propose to take regarding the introduction of the Medicines (Prescription Only) Order 1977.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): The essential provisions of this order were made known to interested organisations in October 1977, when they were notified that the date
"proposed for implementation of Part III is 1st February, 1978, i.e. the appointed day."
No concern was expressed by the pharmacists until after the order had been made and laid. Since it is our policy to work in close co-operation with the pharmaceutical profession and industry, we have taken account of these last-minute representations by announcing

257
today our decision to make an amending order as soon as possible allowing a transitional period of six months. This order will cover the human and animal medicines in question which have not previously been subject to prescription only.
We are, of course, required under the terms of the Medicines Act to consult interested organisations before we make such an order. The amending order will come into operation as quickly as possible, and with the good will and cooperation of all concerned I would hope that it will be made in about two weeks.
Dr. Vaughan: Is the Minister aware that to anyone who knows the real situation that statement will be totally and completely unsatisfactory? The Government have created an unbelievable muddle over this matter. I ask the Minister to take immediate action to stop these regulations.
First, the law will be changed from midnight tonight. For a great many chemists the first time that they heard about this was at the end of last week, and for some of them it was only yesterday. The Government have chosen to ignore representations from every side of the industry, including the recommendations from the Ministry of Agriculture.
Second, the Sixth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments voted against considering the order this morning.
Mr. Joseph Harper (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): So what?
Dr. Vaughan: I cannot believe that this House will wish to have the law changed tonight knowing that it will cause confusion and inconvenience to a very large number of people. I understand that it will have to be changed again in a few weeks' time, so I ask the Government to face up to their failure, to withdraw this order today and to replace it with a new order with a transitional period of six months, starting immediately.
Mr. Deakins: On behalf of the Department I entirely refute the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, which he also made in Committee this morning. For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not present and may not know, we had in that Committee one and a half hours' full debate on this issue. There has been no muddle. We have not
258
ignored representations. We have taken account of the representations that were made. That is why we have announced our intention of introducing an amending order.
For the benefit of hon. Members who may not know the background to this order, we had four years' consultations with the industry. The basic details of the order, the essential provisions, were known more than three months ago. The order was laid in Parliament on 20th December 1977. It is absurd for members of the industry or those seeking information on their behalf to come along now and say that they knew about it only at the last minute. That is absolute nonsense.
Mr. Grimond: If I understand the Minister aright, the order is postponed for six months. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What is to happen during the interim period? Have chemists been informed exactly what the present position is? Secondly, am I right in thinking that many ordinary medicines which people buy from general merchants in the countryside will be affected? If so, what arrangements is the Minister making about these?
Mr. Deakins: First, the order takes effect tonight. It contains many provisions and it will continue in full force until we have an amending order merely for those medicines that I mentioned earlier, human and animal, which have not previously needed to have a prescription before one could obtain them from a pharmacist. For reasons which I explained in detail to the Committee this morning, the Government have no power to postpone the order, nor any power to make an amending order which would have retrospective effect.
The right hon. Gentleman's second point concerned the consumer aspects of this matter. This is an order that brings into force a great piece of consumer protection legislation.
Mr. Mayhew: Absolute rubbish.
Mr. Deakins: Those who say "rubbish" should read the debate that took place this morning and the explanation that was given.
Dr. Vaughan: Rubbish.
Mr. Deakins: I am sorry to hear an Opposition spokesman say that this great consumer protection measure is rubbish. I think that consumers throughout the country will be interested to know that that is the official Opposition view. There have been a few stories in the Press—I think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) may be aware of these—to the effect that this affects not only pharmacists in rural areas but pharmacists throughout the country. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of home remedies will remain available without prescription.
Mr. Pavitt: Is it not a fact that this order, which implements part of an Act passed 10 years ago, has been under discussion for years with the interests concerned? It is very complicated, having 10 pages of facts and 84 pages of schedules covering many diverse matters. If the Government withdrew it tonight, apart from some problems being solved, would that not mean that the Minister would add to his Department many more problems? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the second order that he proposes to introduce will in practice—in spite of the fact that at midnight tonight the order comes into legal operation—mean that with the Government's new announcement of a new order coming in giving a six-month transitional period there will be no real difficulty in the interim?
Mr. Deakins: I do not expect any real difficulty whatsoever and would not have done so even if we had not announced an amending order, because the representations of the pharmacists were merely for a period of delay. For those who were not aware of the letter sent to all organisations, including pharmacists, in October, those who were not aware that the order had been made, those who were not aware that a Press notice had been issued by my Department, setting out on 5th January, some weeks ago, what was to happen, and those who ignored all those indications that something was in the wind—it is in order to please and to help those that we shall have this amending order. Until that order comes in there may be some inconvenience to some pharmacists, but I hope that the vast majority of the profession has already made its plans.
Mr. Graham Page: Is the Minister aware that, inadvertently perhaps, he misled the House just now when he said that the order was laid on 20th December? It was laid on 5th January. That was the first that the House knew about the order, whatever consultations he may have had with other organisations. Has the Minister not recognised the blunder that the Government have made? He has recognised it by saying that he will bring in an amending order.
Is it not putting it far too lightly to say that it is just an inconvenience to the chemists? Will not they be acting illegally for a matter of the month or two months that it takes him to bring in the amending order? What is he going to do about that? Will he have an indemnity for them acting illegally for all that time? Can he not bring in the amending order, treating the consultations that he had under the order that we are now discussing as sufficient consultation for the amending order to be brought in overnight, so that chemists will not be committing illegal acts tomorrow?
Mr. Deakins: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. I do not think for one moment that any chemist would disobey the law as from tonight. The law is quite clear and it has been notified to pharmacists. There is no blunder. The point that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and his right hon. and hon. Friends cannot appreciate is that the Government have made a last-minute concession in response to last-minute representations. Had the pharmaceutical industry made representations after the letter of October, of course they could have been taken into account much more quickly than they have been.
Dr. Vaughan: One cannot govern by letter.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: For the benefit of hon. Members who were not appointed to the Committee this morning, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the measure that he is proposing will meet the problem faced by the pharmacist who finds that he has stock in hand that he would otherwise not be able to sell after midnight tonight? Will my hon. Friend accept that, whatever the case for

261
the new regulations, there was never a case that they should cause financial loss to the pharmacist with stock in hand adequate for the normal demands of his clients?
Mr. Deakins: Stock in hand will be affected only to a limited extent by the provisions of the order, that is, making certain medicines previously available over the counter in pharmacies in fact available from midnight tonight by prescription only. They will obviously have to alter the labels on the stock or await the amending order coming through. But I cannot believe that this will cause more than a temporary and slight inconvenience.
Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the Minister will try to be a little less cross and even less aggressive about this matter. Will he reflect upon what he has said today—that this is only last-minute opposition? Will he reflect as to what is the correct date on which the order was laid? Is it, as he said, 20th December, or is it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, 5th January? Will he not also reflect on the fact that at least one pharmacist, Crown Chemicals Ltd., which happens to be a manufacturer in my constituency of veterinary medicines, is caught by the Part III provisions and complained on 13th December to the Ministry of Agriculture that it would be caught by the prescription only rule? How does that marry up with the representations that the Minister has given to the House about last-minute objections?
Mr. Deakins: The point about last-minute objections concerned pharmacists dealing with medicines for human consumption. That was the main concern expressed in the Standing Committee this morning. There were earlier representations on the veterinary side by certain firms. These have been taken into account. That is why the amending order will cover both human and veterinary medicines.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Crosby and the House for a slip of the tongue. I said "laid" instead of "made". The order was made on 20th December and laid on 5th January.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I declare my interest. Does the Minister accept that an individual chemist, who cannot have been party to the discussions on the details of the order, will have had only 21 days' notice at most if he acted promptly on the full details of the regulations? If he fails to absorb a total of nine Statutory Instruments by tonight, he can certainly accidentally be breaking the law from tomorrow. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any precedent for the solution that he has proposed whereby certain acts are to be unlawful from midnight tonight until the Government come back, in at least a fortnight, with an unspecified amending order which will put the law back to where it was?
Mr. Deakins: The pharmaceutical industry had very good notice—over three months—in the letter that was sent out to representative organisations. I do not know about the relationship between head offices of representative organisations and the individual membership—that is a matter entirely for them—but the Department obviously cannot undertake to circularise every individual pharmacist in the country.
When the order was laid before Parliament, a Press notice was issued. I find it incredible that any pharmacist could have been unaware that something was in the wind. The details, which are basically reproduced in this order, were set out in October. It ill becomes representatives purporting to speak for the industry to show it in such a poor managerial light.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the Under-Secretary realise that what he is recommending amounts to letting the trains run over the Tay Bridge for two weeks after it has been swept away? Is not the way to deal with the problem for the Leader of the House to announce a change in business for today for the Government to table a Prayer against this Statutory Instrument, to be taken tonight, and for them to advise the House to pass it, in which event they will annul this Statutory Instrument? That is the way to deal with the matter. It is within the Government's power. Why do they not do the sensible thing instead of letting the trains go on running for another 14 days after the bridge has been swept away?
Mr. Deakins: The procedure today is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We indicated in Standing Committee this morning and to the House this afternoon what we intend to do. We think that is the best way to deal with the situation that has arisen—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Clumsy.
Mr. Deakins:—because of the last-minute representations—I stress that—by pharmacists in the past few days.
Mr. Dudley Smith: If the Under-Secretary is so guiltless, why is he proposing to introduce amended legislation? Is he aware that any fair-minded person who attended the Standing Committee this morning would believe that the Department had been guilty of a crass bungle, because the order was laid during the recess and there has been no opportunity for discussion or consideration before this morning?
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I declare my interest, as well as my interest on behalf of the public. As a result of the Department's bungling, many members of the public will be denied the medicines that they are used to getting.
Mr. Deakins: I should like to put the record absolutely straight. That is not a correct statement of the position. The vast majority of home remedies will continue to be available under a parallel order—the Medicines (General Sales List) Order—which will also be effective from tomorrow. An extensive list of medicines that can be sold with reasonable safety, other than by a pharmacist, has been specified. These medicines are not affected by the Prescription Only Order. Commonly used products—for example. codeine and kaolin and morphine mixture—which may at present be purchased over the pharmacy counter will continue to be available at the recommended dose without the need for a prescription.
The story that started this matter off yesterday in the Daily Telegraph—a paper not exactly noted for its ability to get scoops—was wrong in some respects.
The amending order is being introduced not to save the Government but to help pharmacists whose representatives have pleaded with us to do something for their members.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the two hon. Members who have been rising all the time.
Mr. Fairbairn: I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the certainty with which he knows what is good for us all. However, his arrogant aggression in this matter overlooks the fact that we do not want a lot of Socialists telling the consumer how to look after himself. The consumer can do it for himself.
Mr. Deakins: I thought that there was all-party agreement that we should restrict the sale of medicines, and dangerous medicines at that—some are extremely dangerous—to the general public in the way that we have done.
Mr. Michael Morris: I should like to make a final plea to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not understand that some of these products are seasonal where the off-take in the winter months is very low? Stocks will have been left over from the summer. Does it not seem farcical that for two weeks such medicines are to be banned and that after that time they are to be allowed to be got rid of over a period of time? Will he confirm that pharmacists will have to relabel products for the interim two weeks? That is what he said earlier.
Mr. Deakins: The order requires products to be relabelled before they can be sold. No products have been banned. They have been put into three categories under a related series of orders, including this one: the general sale list, the medium list and the list for prescription only. The fuss is about products that have previously not been on prescription now going on prescription. This is a consumer protection measure. Products have not ben banned. They can still be obtained on prescription.
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House. under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, of which I have just given you notice, Mr. Speaker, it not having been possible earlier by reason of the fact that the Under-Secretary was to make a statement in answer to a Private Notice Question.

265
The matter that I desire to raise is the making of the order with which the House has just dealt and the refusal of the Minister to seek to annul that order pending the introduction of a transition period that he proposes to introduce after consultation.
I submit that this matter, in respect of veterinary products at least, is both specific and important and requires urgent consideration.
The reason is that the Minister, having spoken with great indignation of last-minute objections by the pharmaceutical industry, nevertheless makes the order binding equally on those who manufacture veterinary products which may be caught by the provisions of Part III of the Medicines Act. These are now to be sold only on prescription. That, as the Minister knows, means that manufacturers, such as the one I identified earlier, will have six to eight months of stock left on their shelves and be unable to get rid of it through ordinary trade outlets I know not whether it is to be left to them to break the law until the transitional order is made. But this is a matter of grave concern and importance.
The Minister, having said that only last-minute representations had been made by the pharmacists, took care to exculpate from that charge manufacturers of veterinary products. It is right to point out that representations were made to the Minister of Agriculture as early as 13th December. Why in those circumstances this course should be taken defies belief and understanding. Therefore, to my mind it is a matter of which the House should be informed at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he belives should have urgent consideration, namely, the application of today's order to the manufacturers of veterinary products. I have given careful consideration to the hon. and learned Gentleman's representations. I listened to him with care. But I must rule, after taking into account the several factors set out in Standing Order No. 9, that I cannot submit his application to the House.
266
As the House knows, I am discouraged by the Standing Order from giving the reasons for my decision.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of that last matter, will you give some guidance to the House on the procedure in dealing with difficult problems which confront us when Statutory Instruments are tabled in this way?
I attended the proceedings of the Committee this morning, although I was not a member of the Committee, as did a number of other right hon. and hon. Members. It was the only opportunity that the House has had to debate this matter. The debate lasted one and a half hours, and it was held on the day upon which, at midnight, all these regulations were due to come into effect.
At the end of the morning, a majority of those hon. Members present who were members of the Committee were able to vote, and they cast their votes contrary to the Government's wishes. However, the vote was utterly meaningless.
This is or is supposed to be a legislative institution. It was the clear wish of most of those right hon. and hon. Members who spoke this morning, as evidenced by the vote, that something should be done to delay the implementation of the order at midnight. However, it seems that our procedures allow no way in which that opinion can be expressed and no way in which the Minister's determination to go ahead with the regulations can in any way be modified.
Can you at least bring this matter to the attention of our Committee on Procedure, or can you give some guidance about how it can be bought within the capacity of Parliament to check the Minister's determination to carry on with his regulation-making powers?
Mr. Pavitt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I request you to ask the Procedure Committee to look again at the way in which we deal with these Statutory Instruments in Committee upstairs? It is highly unsatisfactory to right hon. and hon. Members in most parts of the House that, at the end of a long discussion, whether we take note of, or whether we have considered, the Statutory Instrument in question makes no difference at all to the outcome.

267
I think that it would be desirable, therefore, to have a Committee make a decision that something should be done to give effect to a vote which has that result and that hon. Members should not feel that whatever they say makes not the slightest difference to what follows.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you give this matter any consideration, I hope that you will take into account the many documents which we receive from the Common Market, some of them asking us to take note, some asking us to approve, bearing in mind that occasionally they are not approved by the House, that sometimes we get the wrong documents and that sometimes we get them in the wrong language. You know, Mr. Speaker, all the instances during the course of the past several years.
If there is to be an in-depth study of this matter by you or by the Procedure Committee, I hope that that matter, too, will be investigated. I know that the Opposition are not interested. They are the European party, represented by their Leader, as she has said on many occasions. Nevertheless, if we are to have an investigation in depth, let us study the lot.
Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This debate started by an Opposition Prayer. Has that Opposition Prayer been removed from the Order Paper by the matter being sent upstairs to a Committee? Does not that Prayer still stand on the Order Paper, and is it not possible to debate it?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is quite correct. Paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 73A lays down a procedure which enables the House to take a decision on a Prayer to annul an order which has been referred to a Standing Committee after the Committee has reported. This Committee has reported.
In reply to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), this really is a matter for the Select Committee. My task is to interpret the rules as best I can. However, those who are responsible will have heard the discussion, and they will know that the hon. Members want this House to have its feelings registered.
Mr. Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it to you—and perhaps the Leader of the House will listen—that, since it is apparently possible for the Opposition Prayer to be dealt with and, if it were carried, to restore the matter to some sort of sanity, it would be reasonable if early time could be found for the debate on the Prayer?
Mr. Speaker: I may have misled the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). I hope that I did not mislead the House. What is open to the House under this rule is to take a decision—not to have a further debate, but to come to a decision.
Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, through you, ask when the Leader of the House will allow us to take that decision? Will it be sprung on us tonight, or shall we have notice on the Order Paper for it tomorrow? I fear that it may come before us without a sufficient number of right hon. and hon. Members knowing about it. I hope that we shall be given due warning.
Mr. Speaker: That is not for me.
Mr. Skinner: Hon. Members want to clock on. They are too busy lining their pockets.
Later,
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have handed in to the Clerk at the Table a Prayer praying that the Medicines (Prescription Only) Order 1977, a copy of which was laid before Parliament on 5th January 1978, be annulled.
May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House whether he will permit that Prayer to be taken tonight, which is the last occasion on which the House can take it so that the order can be annulled before it comes into effect? I am sure that if you heard the exchanges a little earlier you will be of the opinion that that is the wish of a substantial number of hon. Members, and this is the last occasion on which the Prayer can be taken if it is to be effective.
I think that the House would want to hear from the Leader of the House not silence but a "Yes" or "No" to this proposal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a matter for the Chair.

AGE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make void any provision for compulsory retirement on the ground of age below the age of seventy; to provide for exceptions to the general rule; and for connected purposes.
The Prime Minister is 65. He was reported in the Daily Telegraph last week as saying
"All the best Prime Ministers I know are over the age of 65. On the whole, I would not want anyone to become a Prime Minister till they are over the age of 65,"
and the newspaper account goes on,
"he said in an apparent reference to Mrs. Thatcher, who is 52."
The Prime Minister is lucky. There is no compulsory retirement age for politicians. My Bill seeks to extend the Prime Minister's good fortune to everyone who is fit and willing to continue in employment after reaching pensionable age.
We have had excellent Prime Ministers who have been in their 80s. We have had at least one in his 20s. We shall shortly have an exceptionally fine Prime Minister, in the person of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), in her 50s.
In terms of quality, age is as irrelevant for Prime Ministers as it is for plumbers. There is no fixed age determining when a man's usefulness to his employer suddenly ends. It is a ridiculously old fashioned and fuddy-duddy idea that men and women lose their capacity for employment while they are still in their 60s. For Britain it is a terrible waste of manpower, experience and skill, and we badly need skilled manpower. For the individuals concerned, it is a matter which can easily cause great personal unhappiness and loneliness.
I am not speaking about pensionable age. I am all in favour of people retiring on pension as early as they please. For some of them, of course, the earlier, the better. But my Bill will do nothing to prevent that.
I seek to remove the contractual restraints on people who wish to go on working after pensionable age but who
270
are prevented from doing so by an arbitrarily determined age figure. In some respects our society is obsessed by age figures when those figures are irrelevant to the contribution which any individual can make.
We all know that this House has among its hon. Members many elderly so-called young men and many very virile so-called old men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them!"] I shall not mention examples. I am sure that every hon. Member present at the moment can think of some.
People are living longer nowadays and are more active in old age than ever before. A man of 65 can expect, on average, to live for at least another 12 years, and a woman of 60 for another 20 years. We should not condemn them all, regardless of their skill, wisdom and experience, to spend those years in enforced idleness if they wish to be employed.
Some people look forward eagerly to the prospect of retirement and enjoy it and lead happy and useful lives when they do—and good luck to them—but there are others who dread it. Very often they dread it simply because their employment is their whole life. They depend upon it and dread the prospect of losing their job, and therefore they dread the prospect of retirement.
The White Paper, National Superannuation and Social Insurance, published by the Labour Government in 1969, argued against lowering the pensionable age for men on the ground that
"Such a move would undoubtedly encourage earlier retirement when the general need of the country's economy is for people to continue to work as long as possible; and the increase in pension expenditure and loss of contribution income would be serious."
That was the Labour Government's view as recently as 1969.
I make no argument about pension. As far as I am concerned pensionable age is a different matter from the right to continue to work after pensionable age, but there is a lot of truth in that quotation.
The Beveridge Report of 1942 noted that
"there is no reason to doubt the power of large numbers of people to go on working with advantage to the community and happiness to themselves after reaching the minimum pensionable age of 65 for men and 60 for women."

271
So Beveridge provided that men and women could defer their retirement on pension for up to five years and so earn an enhanced pension when eventually they did retire. Unfortunately, that wise provision in the Beveridge Report is still not effective because some employers, including the Government, and some trade unions cling to the notion that a man is too old to work at 65, and a woman at 60.
I am told by some people that later retirement would increase unemployment. That is a fallacious argument, because a country cannot reduce unemployment by cutting the size of its labour force. Many people who have been compulsorily retired at 60 or 65 are now among the registered unemployed. At the Orpington employment office, for instance—and this is an area where the average age is lower than the national level—on 12th January of this year 304 out of 1,235 of those registered as unemployed were over the age of 60. There was no comparable problem for school leavers.
Strong feelings are held by individuals who are affected by rules of this kind. Among the letters that I have received is one from an engineer designer who was compulsorily retired by Hawker Siddeley Dynamics at the age of 65. He had been working on a device to harness wave energy, and he said:
"I know that this is the time of my life when my ideas are most fruitful. Never in my 'teens or' twenties could I have the knowledge, experience and confidence I have now—and yet they make me retire or else! Incentive, yes, for volunteers to carry on. I would welcome it."
Another letter is from a senior principal scientist who has just been retired at the age of 61 from the Ministry of Defence. He had been working on an advanced technological project of great value to this country. There is no one at the Ministry of Defence to replace him. There is no one even to work the equipment that he had been using, which is an extremely expensive item.
My third example was an usher at the Old Bailey. When he was retired last year at the age of 65 he was still a fit and strong gentle giant who added to the smooth running and efficiency of that place.
The country cannot afford to dispense with the services of such people, and
272
the view of Age Concern, the charity that is devoted to the interests or the elderly, is instructive. It wants the compulsory retirement age to be abolished and replaced by a flexible retirement age that will allow men and women to retire at a time that is appropriate to their own wishes, abilities and needs, without regard to income, social status or sex. I believe that we in this House should support that objective. I equally believe that the Bill will go some way towards achieving it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ivor Stanbrook.

AGE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT
  AGE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook accordingly presented a Bill to make void any provision for compulsory retirement on the ground of age below the age of seventy: to provide for exceptions to the general rule; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10th February and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND BILL
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th January.]
  [MR. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I rise to speak briefly and not to challenge your selection of amendments, although you will appreciate that I and some of my hon. Friends are disappointed that the Committee will not be able to debate New Clause 2.
  I rise to say something about New Clause 1. I might be wrong, but I have looked at Hansard for the previous debates in Committee—certainly for the first two or three days—and I remember seeing New Clause 1 in your provisional selection list among the clauses to be debated.
  During the intervening weeks I have presumed that that clause had been disposed of and that, when the Committee came to consider the new clauses, New Clause 1 would be available only for a Division if required. For that reason, I thought that my New Clause 2 stood a better chance of selection. Can you confirm, Mr. Murton, that New Clause 2 appeared on your provisional selection list which I saw in the "No" Lobby several weeks ago? If so, may we debate the new clause today?
  The Chairman: The amendment to which the new clause was attached was overtaken by the guillotine.
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. We all have great sympathy for you in your difficult task of selection from the myriad of amendments and new clauses. To what extent are your hands tied by the provisional selection of amendments? Is it possible, even at this stage, for you to reconsider your selection? You will understand my disappointment that New Clause 14, which is signed by members of four parties and which is an alternative to New Clause 1, cannot be debated during dis-
  274
  cussion on New Clause 1 or voted upon as an alternative to it. Perhaps you can reconsider this matter and advise the Committee later that you have seen your way to selecting New Clause 14.
  Mr. W. Benyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Many hon. Members are disappointed that New Clause 14 has not been selected, but my angle is different from that of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr Henderson). If New Clause 1 were to be passed, the appropriate number of Members participating in the Speaker's Conference would depend on the duties and powers of those Members. If you are not prepared to accede to the request, would you be prepared to widen the debate on New Clause 1 so that the substance of New Clause 14 can be considered?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) that there is a case for debating New Clause 14, because it raises a crunch issue.
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this matter with me. The Committee knows that I give great care and consideration to all the selections that I make. But this new clause affects the working methods of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is the reason why I decided that it was outside the scope of the Bill. It would not be strictly appropriate to link it with New Clause 1.
  Mr. Henderson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I am most grateful for that explanation. To what extent does your selection differ in respect of New Clause 1, which also affects the workings of the United Kingdom Parliament?
  The Chairman: New Clause 1 deals with the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. It is clearly a matter affecting the Government of Scotland and it is, therefore, within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Are there not many other things in the Bill which affect the workings of the United Kingdom Parliament? It seems somewhat strange that you should use this criterion in this context and not in any other context.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Last week we discussed the functions of the Scottish Assembly. We discussed the type of legislation with which it would deal. That affects the working methods of the House of Commons. I cannot see why we cannot discuss this new clause.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: With great respect, further to the observations which you have just made, Mr. Murton. You said that New Clause I was concerned with the government of Scotland, which it manifestly is. But I presume that you meant that it was concerned exclusively with the government of Scotland. Since New Clause 14 also is concerned with the government of Scotland, in so far as Scotland is legislated for and governed by the House of Commons, if it is acceptable that the composition of the House of Commons in respect of Scotland is in order, the conduct of the House of Commons in respect of Scotland should also be in order.
  The Chairman: New Clause 14 is not on all fours with New Clause 1 because it affects the methods by which the House of Commons deals with United Kingdom matters. That is the object of my ruling and why the new clause was not selected.
  Mr. David Rice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. New Clause 14 appertains to the duties of Scottish Members who are elected to the House of Commons after the Bill becomes an Act. It therefore has a direct bearing on the matters in New Clause 1 which deal with the number of Members and whether they are to vote on everything or have a limited remit. This has a direct bearing on whether we wish to pass New Clause 1.
  The Chairman: The last line of New Clause 14 reads:
  "on matters certified by Mr. Speaker as applying exclusively to England and Wales."
  In my submission, it is therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
  Sir David Renton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. You have made it clear that you did not select New Clause 14 because it refers to the internal workings of Par-
  276
  liament. With respect, the Committee has already passed clauses of the Bill which do just that. I refer you to Clause 74:
  "Confirmation by House of Commons of resolutions passed by it but not passed by House of Lords."
  That is but one example. There are half a dozen other clauses which affect the way in which the House of Commons will have to operate if we ever have devolution. I join with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and other hon. Members in asking you to reconsider your provisional selection.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I, too, find it impossible to distinguish between New Clause 14 and New Clause 1 for the purpose of being within the scope of the Bill. It seems to me, with regard to English matters, that what New Clause 1 is saying is that the number of Members from Scottish constituencies may be reduced, or that steps may be taken with a view to reducing them. What New Clause 14 says in regard to English Members is that the reduction can come down to zero.
  I could understand if neither clause were considered to be within the scope of the Bill, even given the Committee's decision to delete Clause 1. In the light of representations made to you, Mr. Murton, and bearing in mind that it will be impossible and illogical to exclude discussion on the nature of New Clause 14 during our discussion on New Clause 1, would you be prepared to consider whether you will add it to the list so that it might be possible later for you to permit a vote on it? In that connection may I remind you that this section of the guillotined debate runs until 9 o'clock tomorrow night and that therefore one extra vote will hardly take a massive bite out of our allocation of time?
  The Chairman: In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), let me say that the Bill gives Parliament certain powers in relation to the Assembly. To the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) I must point out that there is a line to be drawn and that I have to make a decision. That is where I have to stand. On the other hand,

  277
  during the discussion on New Clause 1 I am prepared to listen to arguments which have some relation, however tenuous it may be, to New Clause 14. I cannot, however, promise the hon. Gentleman any question of a vote.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Murton. In the light of that most helpful response, will you simply allow the debate to take place and, if it transpires that the debate is addressing itself as much to New Clause 14 as to New Clause 1, in the end permit a vote on New Clause 14?
  The Chairman: I cannot give any undertaking. The other day someone mentioned to me a passage out of Lucretius which said something about the fleeting melody of the swan being rather more persuasive than the long-drawn-out clangour of cranes high up among the northward racing clouds. I am referring, I hasten to add, entirely to myself in this connection and I am no scholar. I do my best, and I hope that the Committee will agree with me to stand by the point that I have made.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. The selection that you have made is only a provisional selection, which can be varied in the light of submissions made to you. Like many other hon. Members in the Committee, I find it difficult to draw a distinction of principle between New Clause 1 and New Clause 14. May we ask you most respectfully to consider the submissions that have been made and to give a ruling fairly early in our debate, because although we can continue until 9 o'clock tomorrow it would be helpful if you could now consider the submissions made to you?
  Mr. Paul Channon: I support the request by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and others on this point. It strikes me that the House is in a real difficulty. We understand your ruling, Mr. Murton. However, we are now about to undertake a debate in which we shall discuss whether it is appropriate to call a Speaker's Conference to consider the requisite number of Scottish Members for the future should this Bill become law. Surely, in consideration of the appro-
  278
  priate number of Scottish Members it must be relevant to refer to what they are going to do. Whether or not that has any effect on the internal workings of Parliament, I do not know. It is nevertheless appropriate to consider what Scottish Members are to do in this place in the future. If they are to have lesser or different duties, that will surely affect the number of Members who it will be appropriate to have here. If one cannot discuss the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) one is in a real difficulty. We are not expecting you to rule now, Mr. Murton, but without commitment will you consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and perhaps make a statement during the debate?
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: May I add my weight to the plea that you reconsider this matter, Mr. Murton? I happen to disapprove of both the new clauses, but I cannot see the distinction of principle between them. New Clause 1 is concerned with the reference of Scottish representation to a Speaker's Conference, which might well result either in a reduction or an increase—let us not beg the question—in that representation, which must affect the Government of England and Wales. That is why I can see no distinction in principle between that and the wording of New Clause 14.
  Mr. Henderson: The whole Committee is grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for the way in which you have approached this matter and considered the representations that have been made. We are grateful that you have indicated that we may dwell on arguments that are relevant to New Clause 14, even though only New Clause 1 has been selected. Might not the course of these arguments lead hon. Members to feel that New Clause 14 offered the correct solution? If that had not been selected along with New Clause 1 it could not be voted on, and hon. Members would not have the opportunity of putting into effect the arguments to which they listened in Committee.
  The Chairman: I gave this matter very careful consideration. In my view, nothing that any right hon. or hon. Member has said brings New Clause 14 into order. I have conceded that it would be in order to argue the point during the

  279
  deliberations on New Clause 1, but that is as far as I am prepared to go.

New Clause 1

  SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE
  ' (1) For the purposes of this Act there may be appointed a Speaker's Conference, being a conference convened at the request of the Prime Minister and presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons with the function of considering and making recommendations of the House of Commons relating to the appropriate number of Members of the House representing Scottish constituencies after the enactment of this Act.
  (2) Those participating in the Conference shall be Members of the House of Commons invited to do so by the Speaker, who shall secure that the balance of parties in the House of Commons is reflected, so far as practicable, among the participants in the Conference.'.—[Mr. Pym.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The need for the new clause derives directly from the type of devolution proposed in the Bill. We have no wish to alter the number of hon. Members of this House representing Scottish constituencies and we have never recommended any scheme of devolution that would require a change in the number or would lead to that consequence. No Assembly that we have ever proposed would have had consequences for the House of Commons such as this Bill undoubtedly will have.
  We have never proposed a second Executive, because we believe in the Executive that Scotland already has. We have never proposed completely separate legislative powers. We have proposed an involvement by an Assembly in Scotland in the legislative process, as part of the parliamentary legislative process, but never a completely independent legislative capability.
  This Bill, however, provides both for a separate Executive and an independent legislative competence. It follows, therefore, that the number of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies must be reconsidered and reviewed, because the House will not have the same responsibilities for Scotland as it has now. The Bill makes a deliberate transfer of power
  280
  and responsibility over a wide area. It removes responsibilities particularly from Scottish Members, but from all the rest of us in the House, too.
  We have no wish to alter the number, but we have no wish either to alter the responsibilities. That is, however, what is happening under the Bill. Once those responsibilities are transferred to the Scottish Executive and Assembly, how can 71 Westminster Members for Scotland be justified? Some people argue that that number cannot be justified now. On the basis of population, Scotland is overrepresented already, and quite substantially so. It takes on average 66,000 electors in England to return a Member of Parliament. In Scotland the number is only 53,000, which is 20 per cent. fewer. That represents a big difference.
  There is a very good case in favour of over-representation, and but for this Bill there would be no need to reconsider it. However, that over-representation has existed for a long time. There is a tradition of over-representation for the outer fringes of the United Kingdom, dating back a long time. There is the distance factor—the factor that the North of Scotland is the furthest point from the capital of the United Kingdom. That justifies extra representation.
  There is the geography of Scotland itself, with a scattered population which, if combined in constituencies of average size, might make an impossible task for a Member of Parliament representing one of the Highland seats.
  5.0 p.m.
  Then there is the special Scottish parliamentary procedure in the House. We have specific Scottish parliamentary business handled in a special way that justifies added representation. But if the Bill were enacted, only United Kingdom business would be left. This over-representation has been accepted without question as being fair and reasonable. I do not remember anybody inside the House or outside it challenging the representation of Scotland. The Minister is raising his eyebrows. It may be challenged in Scotland, but I am not aware of its having been challenged before the Bill came on to the Order Paper.
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Is the right hon.

  281
  Gentleman saying that the Conservative Party has never officially suggested that there should be a reconsideration of the number of Scottish Members, without reference to devolution?
  Mr. Pym: It may be that it has, but I am not aware of it. The number of Scottish Members has not become an issue or a source of anxiety or worry to people.
  The over-representation has been accepted without question. It is part of the illogical but successful and proven pattern that makes up the United Kingdom and, indeed, is the United Kingdom. There is a heavy responsibility on this House to do nothing that will upset the pattern, or upset the balance, within the United Kingdom and all its constituent parts unless and until we have confidence that whatever change we intend will maintain a proper balance.
  One reason why I think the House hates the Bill is that the balance will be upset. In the context of what is proposed it is inconceivable that the present level of representation in Scotland can continue without challenge or without change. It certainly cannot and will not go on without challenge.
  In my view the new clause provides the proper method for considering the matter. I should make the point that it is permissive. The reason for that is to make sure that we do not run the risk of becoming out of order and that, for one reason or another, Mr. Murton, you will not select it
  We believe that a Speaker's Conference is the right way in which to approach the subject. But there is a precedent for doing it in another way. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 established 13 seats for Northern Ireland as part of the Bill. Therefore, it would clearly be possible to do the job in this Bill. But we think that the Speaker's Conference is a better way, because all the factors can be considered round the table under Mr. Speaker's chairmanship. There is already a Conference in session under Mr. Speaker's chairmanship on the question of representation for Northern Ireland. It seems to us that it would be wholly appropriate, unless, miraculously, the Bill were defeated, to do exactly the same thing for Scotland.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed any views on the position that the Conservative Party should adopt in such a Speaker's Conference? Would it not be helpful for him to tell us tonight rather than to leave it until later? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Speaker's Conference that is already sitting on the question of Northern Ireland representation, but he seemed to imply that any significant change in the constitutional arrangements, such as devolution, raised the question of representation. Is he, therefore, supposing that the present under-representation in Northern Ireland ought to be retained if there is any prospect of further devolution being granted?
  Sir David Renton: I ought to make one correction. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is suggesting that a Speaker's Conference should act on a party basis. I happen to be a member of the present Speaker's Conference. As the Committee may learn in due course, the views are cutting right across party. I was a member of the longest Speaker's Conference ever to be held. It started under Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster and finished under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker Maybray-King. There again, except on the important issue of proportional representation, there was a clear division cutting across party. The tradition of Speaker's Conferences has been not to follow party lines.
  Mr. Pym: The case that I am making is to propose the procedure by which, in my opinion, the House will arrive at the most satisfactory answer to the question about the representation of Scotland after the Bill is passed. There would be no point in anyone now putting forward a particular number. The matter should be properly considered and then the House can decide, on the evidence, what will be the right kind of representation. That is a proper parliamentary practice and procedure.
  Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman asked the perhaps rhetorical question "How can 71 MPs he justified?" The clear implication of that question was that the right hon. Gentleman individually, or representing his party, would propose to any Speaker's Conference that the number of Scottish MPs should be reduced as a consequence of devolution.

  283
  Is that what he is saying? We ought to know.
  Mr. Pym: Perhaps I may be allowed to get on with my speech. I was about to ask what was the case for a possible reduction of representation, or, at any rate for a reconsideration of the level of representation that requires the deliberation that the clause asks for.
  That case rests principally upon three arguments. The first is the changed role. There is no escape from the changed role affecting the House under the Bill, because wide areas of legislation and administration are being transferred. Over the whole range of devolved areas Members representing Scottish constituencies will be unable to vote on matters affecting Scotland but will be able to vote, as things now are, on matters affecting England. That applies to every Member.
  The difference is the difference of responsibility of the House as between the one country and the other. Hon. Members representing English constituencies will not be able to vote on matters affecting Scotland, but, unless there is a change, Scottish Members will be able to vote on those same issues so far as they affect England. That is the problem. The day that the votes of Scottish Members cause this House to decide a matter for England in a way with which the English Members do not agree will be the day when this theory is blown right out of the water. That will be the day when the British people will experience and understand, perhaps in real terms for the first time the horror of what is proposed in the Bill.
  I do not believe that Members of any party representing Scottish constituencies want to impose decisions in that manner on England. But the role is relevant to the number. Northern Ireland is the precedent, where devolution in the form of Stormont carried the logical consequence of reduced representation. Now, in the changed circumstances of Northern Ireland, the numbers are being adjusted.
  Mr. John Smith: It was not logical.
  Mr. Pym: It might not have been logical, but it was accepted and thought to be reasonable and fair at the time. It lasted basically without question for about 50 years. It was perhaps challenged from time to time, but it never became
  284
  a major issue. There was, in a sense, a certain logic about it.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the objectionable matter to which he referred is not simply that Scottish and Welsh votes may decide domestic English issues but that they will decide them for the first time when English votes can no longer decide purely Scottish matters? That is the change.
  Mr. Pym: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. He put it in another way, but we are both pointing to the exact difficulty that would arise.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Committee may recall that when a question arose of steel. my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the late Mr. Desmond Donnelly and Mr. Woodrow Wyatt had a few things to say about Northern Ireland representation.
  Mr. Pym: That is another story. I referred to it on earlier occasions in the debate.
  As I was saying, the Northern Ireland case is a precedent. But in the circumstances of the Bill the Government do not want even to consider the possibility of changing the role or the effect of the changed responsibility. Of course they do not, because part of the object of the Bill is to have Labour Members voting on English matters. Will they succeed in maintaining that position? We shall see. Perhaps they will be able to in the short run, in the Lobbies during the passage of the Bill, but if the Bill comes into force in the United Kingdom, I predict that in the long run it will not endure.
  But if the role remains unchanged, what about the numbers? We know the Government's views. We had it from the Leader of the House on 1st February last year, when he said:
  "we do not believe that representation in this House should be altered by the Bill."
  A little later he said:
  "I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to propose any alteration in representation."—[Official Report, 1st February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 386–390.]
  Even without those words, we knew it. The object of the Bill is to get those Members here so that their votes can be used to continue the process of imposing Socialism upon the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Heffer: That is the best case for the Bill that I have heard.
  Mr. Pym: I believe that the House will not accept both an unchanged role and unchanged numbers for very long, because it is illogical and unworkable, unreasonable and unfair. The harder the Government stick to their plot to carry out what amounts to rigging their position here, gerrymandering their strength here, the more likely is the Bill to be defeated. The choice is either to retain Scottish representation as it is today, in full numbers and with full responsibilities, or, if the Bill is proceeded with, to have a consideration of the consequences for the representation of Scotland both as to numbers and to role.
  It is entirely possible that as a result of the process recommended in the new clause the House will decide to accept the anomaly and leave everything exactly as it is. But that must surely be properly discussed and positively decided. The Government have a duty to Parliament to recognise the existence of the problem and to ensure thorough consideration and a conclusion at the end of it.
  Mr. George Cunningham: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he would expect to see not only the number of Scottish representatives but their role in the House reconsidered. Is his proposal that the Speaker's Conference would be entitled to address itself not only to the question of number but to the question of the functions of the Scottish representatives?
  Mr. Pym: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not in my new clause, but it seems to me only logical that such a Conference should consider both. I have problems with new clauses, which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) found in trying to put down a new clause that would be in order. But I think that the logic is that, as the one affects the other, both should be considered. I am absolutely at one with the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Would the right hon. Gentleman look with favour on the possibility of a Speaker's Conference also considering the overloading of the Scottish Grand Com-
  286
  mittee, dealing with purely Scottish matters, with English Members?
  Mr. Pym: By all means, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  I have deployed the first case for the reconsideration of the representation. I come now to the second. The number of representatives that Scotland will have after the Bill comes into force is 221. There is productivity—221 doing a job now done by 71. I do not think that the Government have properly assessed the number appropriate to the Assembly. They have simply decided on two Assemblymen per parliamentary constituency. I think that the Minister has maintained that in the Government's view 150 are necessary to provide an Executive from the majority party, but that produces an Assembly larger than Stormont, larger than the provincial Parliaments of Australia and Canada and, incidentally, larger than the Australian Federal Parliament.
  The Royal Commission thought that 100 was adequate, but even with that number there must surely be a review of Scotland's representation in this House. The House may decide to make no change, but at least the matter must be examined and tested.
  The third argument concerns the English or Anglo-Welsh dimension. A growing sense of unfairness is being aroused amongst English Members. It has not yet risen to the point of anger, but there is a feeling of soreness about the representation in Scotland. I remind the Committee what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnson) said in the course of the Second Reading debate:
  "The question of representation in this House is a matter of genuine concern among English Members. In the event of devolution, English Members will be wholly entitled to object fiercely to Scottish Members … helping to carry through the House matters dealing with English education, housing, health, and so on ".—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 112.]
  5.15 p.m.
  The Royal Commission showed that on an equivalent basis Scotland would have 14 Members fewer, Wales five Members fewer, Northern Ireland five Members more and England nine Members more. It recommended that if legislative devolution were introduced, as it will be under the Bill, parity should follow. Is not that

  287
  recommendation, of itself, enough to suggest that the House should pass the new clause?
  I do not think that the parity argument will go away. Indeed, I believe that it will be positively encouraged and will fester unless all the circumstances surrounding the argument are fully and frankly debated and discussed.
  All this is quite apart from the exceptionally small constituencies in Scotland, particularly in Glasgow. I think that at least 10 of the 14 Glasgow seats are below the average size. But this matter would be reviewed in the normal way, and is no part of the consideration that I am now bringing to bear. I am sure that a Speaker's Conference would give due weight to the sparsely populated areas of the Highlands and to the special geographical factors.
  In no way do I or my right hon. and hon. Friends want Scotland to be other than fully and adequately represented. We are firmly of the view that the special needs of Scotland, especially distant Scotland—Orkney and Shetland, Aberdeen and similar places—will receive a sympathetic hearing and a more generous response in the House than they are ever likely to receive from an Assembly dominated by the central belt.
  I have seen Press suggestions that the clause is a delaying tactic. I assure the Committee that it is no tactic at all; it deals with a real issue. Let me remind the Committee what the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), said about the allocation of time motion:
  "I would accept the Kilbrandon proposal of reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to the correct number proportionately."—[Official Report, 16th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 620.]
  I believe that the matter should be handled in the way proposed in our clause. To turn down the clause or any amendment with the same intent would be to highlight what many fear are the true motives of the Bill.
  Mr. John Smith rose—
  Mr. Pym: I am coming to my conclusion, but I give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Smith: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he is coming to his conclusion and has been brief. Before he sits down, will he say whether he accepts that what he calls for gives a reduction, so that we may know whether the Conservative Party is arguing that there should be a reduction in the number of Members post-devolution? May we know the Conservatives' view on the matter before we decide on a Speaker's Conference?
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman wants me to say in advance exactly the line that we would take and to make it a controversial party political issue. That is exactly what I do not wish to do. f he parliamentary way to inquire into these matters is to have a Speaker's Conference. No hon. Member started challenging anybody about how many Members he thought were appropriate to represent Northern Ireland before the Speaker's Conference on that matter was set up.
  Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that all the main political parties have made submissions to the Speaker's Conference which is dealing with the representation of Northern Ireland. I think that I am right in saying that it is the normal practice for such a Conference to call for an opinion of the parties and to take them into account. So it is not unreasonable, perhaps, for the right hon. Gentleman, since he is calling for a Conference, to give some indication of the kind of evidence that his party would submit to that Conference.
  Mr. Pym: I think not. Of course we submitted evidence to that Speaker's Conference, and if this one is set up we shall submit evidence to it. But at no stage was the evidence that my party was to submit to the Speaker's Conference about Northern Ireland either asked for or mentioned, and I do not think that anyone asked for the evidence of any other party to be brought out into the open. I do not think, therefore, that my stance is in any way unsual or exceptional
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has made many equivocal speeches in this House. One wonders about his position on his wedding day, when the minister asked

  289
  "Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?" One can imagine him saying "Maybe". Will he not, for the second time in his life, give a straight answer to a straight question?
  Mr. Pym: If we proposed a change, or if the Government felt a change to be appropriate, and we were to take the precedent of Northern Ireland, we would debate it across the Floor right now, but that is not the way in which we are recommending it. The new clause does not call for that. The Minister seemed to think that it was extraordinary that I was suggesting a procedure without saying precisely what the conclusions of the Conference ought to be. What would be the point of having it if we were to put down beforehand the exact conclusion to which it was to come?
  The Government would like to pretend, and would like everyone to think, that the problems that we are discussing in the new clause—Scottish representation, the role of Scottish Members in the House, and the question whether they should have power to vote on English matters—do not exist. The Government would like to think that that is not an issue. It is an issue, and it has to be thrashed out, either in the Bill or in a Speaker's Conference. There is one sitting at the present time, and exactly the same process ought to be gone through for Scotland.
  If the new clause is accepted, my party will, of course, send in evidence to the Conference, and so will every other party. That will be the position from which the Conference begins. That is the right and proper and appropriate way to do it.
  I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
  Mr. John Mendelson: I have no sympathy for the wrangling that has been going on over the last 10 minutes on the question when submissions should be made and whether a Member is entitled to make a proposal for a particular matter to be referred to the Speaker's Conference.
  I believe that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is entitled to make his proposals if he and his colleagues think that this is the best way
  290
  to deal with a measure of this kind. None the less, I oppose the amendment, and call on the Committee to vote against it on altogether different grounds. I believe that this is an important matter of principle and not of tactics. It should be treated as a matter of principle.
  As is well known, many hon. Members are opposed to the Bill. I remain unalterably opposed to it. I hope that it will not succeed and have not given up hope that that may yet be the case. Whatever tactical interpretations may be given, I do not believe that the people in Scotland will do other than make the accusation—in my view, a justified one—that the House of Commons, in its major Committee dealing with the Bill, is in an awful hurry to start talking of curtailing the number of Scottish Members in the British Parliament.
  It would be deplorable if that accusation were to be made. Although I do not charge any right hon. or hon. Member with that intention, that is the way in which it will appear in Scotland. Certainly some hon. Members would make it their business to present it in that light, even if no one else did. That is the first danger that the amendment creates.
  The second, in my submission, is equally important. Part of the case of those who are opposed to the legislation is the positive point that the contribution of the Scottish Members of this House has traditionally been and is at the present time of very great importance to the quality and work of the House of Commons. It would be a matter of great regret if that contribution were to be lost or curtailed. But how can we maintain a consistent course if we are already beginning to cause resentment by arguing that in the future people will talk about the need to reduce Scottish representation?
  Mr. John Stokes: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on the whole question, but in this respect I do not think that he is being fair to England and the other parts of the United Kingdom. He has omitted to say that the main point of the Bill is to give Scotland an Assembly, which no other country in the United Kingdom has. Under the present proposals, if the Bill remains unamended, Scotland will have its

  291
  cake and eat it. It will have full representation here and it will also have an Assembly. No other part of the United Kingdom will be in that position.
  Mr. Mendelson: If I omitted to mention the main purpose of the Bill, no discourtesy was intended. I omitted it only because I assumed that it was the common knowledge of all hon. Members, without my needing to repeat it on this occasion. I believe that my third reason for opposing the amendment is perhaps even more important. This matter may be seen in future as a watershed of our constitutional debates. I think that it is very important that in the future, when the present political battles have passed away, no one in Scotland should misunderstand the attitude of those who were opposed to this legislation. Although it is well known, I repeat that our serious and fully justified fear is that we are taking the first serious step that will inevitably lead to the dissolution of the United Kingdom. That is the basis of our opposition. That is why no tactical argument and no party advantage can in any way alter or shake our position.
  That being the case, we must be very careful that we do not appear as wishing to respond to certain dangerous tendencies that will inevitably develop if the Bill is passed. The people responsible for these dangerous tendencies will be the promoters of the Bill, not its opponents. I do not want its opponents to be put into a false light on this matter. The Government and the supporters of the legislation must assume responsibility for these dangerous developments.
  What are these dangerous consequences? Obviously, no matter what I say or what is said by any other right hon. or hon. Member, and no matter how we vote on the amendment today, once the Bill is passed and its implementation begins, many of our constituents are bound to begin to raise the question of Scottish over-representation.
  Mr. Dalyell: Of course.
  Mr. Mendelson: As the years go by—and as my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have pointed out—there will be people in the country, in the shires, in the towns and in the boroughs who will begin to ask whether they are being
  292
  under-represented in terms of quality, political power and numbers. On that point a very powerful case would then develop throughout the Kingdom. It is precisely because I do not want these complaints ever to arise that I do not want the Bill to be passed. Many other Members have the same reason for opposing it.
  There are those who do not believe in the Bill any more than I do, but who still support it, but they are beginning to threaten my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with all sorts of dire consequences if he does not make the Bill a matter of conscience. That is the new demand now being made in the Scottish Press. That is the new threat now being made. Judging by the latest polls of Scottish opinion, they are not doing it very successfully. I believe that my own more optimistic view on the matter, which I have urged unsuccessfully on the Government—that the opposition to the Bill does no harm to the Scottish Labour Party—will be fully justified in the event. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing to be afraid of, but the threats are being made just the same.
  Why are these threats being made by people who have no belief in the Bill? They are being made because members of the Scottish National Party, like me, take only one view of this Bill. They see it as a stepping stone towards the dissolution of the United Kingdom. That is why they are supporting it. In reality, they have no time for it. They do not want to create a basis for the good government of Scotland and the Scottish nation; they want to use the Bill for continuing their fight of defamation and aggression against other members of the United Kingdom. That is their task. Let us leave them to it and isolate them.
  Any amendment moved and accepted by the Committee which even begins to talk of giving a lead to our constituents rather than receiving their regrettable complaints when they arise can only give aid and comfort to members of the SNP. On principle, and as a matter of political intelligence, the new clause is completely misguided and I hope that the Committee will reject it.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Powell: As the Committee has been reminded several times, a Speaker's

  293
  Conference is sitting at present on the question of the representation of Northern Ireland in this House. That conference is sitting as a result of a decision announced by the Government on 23rd March last year. They announced that their view was that the under-representation of Northern Ireland in comparison with other parts of the Kingdom, was unjust, unjustifiable and ought to be remedied.
  There was something further and essential that the Government added. They said that they believed that the proposition stood, irrespective of whatever measures of devolved government might in future be devised or applied to Northern Ireland. It was that proposition that made it possible for the Northern Ireland people to see the rectification of what they had long—and more intensely in recent years—regarded as an intolerable unfairness, and through the mouths of my hon. Friends and myself, had petitioned this House should be remedied.
  Therefore, clearly it is impossible for my hon. Friends and myself to support a new clause to the Bill which repudiates that proposition which is, for us, the Magna Carta of what we regard as our fair and just representation in this House to be expected as a result of the Speaker's Conference.
  It cannot be unfair, however, to regard the placing of the new clause before the Committee as more in the nature of a logical exercise than a serious legislative suggestion. We are, by a pleasing irony, bringing to a conclusion our unduly curtailed proceedings in Committee with the very same topic with which our examination of this question began, way back in the days of Green Papers and White Papers, and which has followed us hand in hand throughout our examination. It is the question confronting all proposals for the introduction of Home Rule in part of a parliamentary State. It is the huge conundrum which bars our path. It is the conundrum which we have been willing by common consent to designate as the "West Lothian conundrum", as a tribute to the assiduity of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in exploring every possible aspect of it.
  It is common experience, and part of our nature as practising politicians, that
  294
  when we find a conundrum, an actual logical impossibility, barring our way like the angel in the path of Balaam's ass, we tend to pass that difficulty swiftly on to someone else. When the attempt to define a prices and incomes policy which will conquer rising inflation by prescribing every permissible increase in every wage and price comes up against unanswerable questions, one Government after another say that they cannot be expected to be concerned with such problems, that this is not a matter into which politics should be brought, and that therefore they are going to set up a board or a commission—call it what you will—and give it the task of deciding how to deal with the matter.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is well aware that this is another specimen of that genre. There is a certain elegance about the proceeding. The reason why we are inviting a Speaker's Conference to square the circle and resolve the unresolvable is that we know we cannot do it ourselves and would rather that someone else had to say "This is a nonsense and there is no way around it." We are asking others how two and two are to make five, so that they may tell us that they cannot do it and that nobody can. So, in the guise of referring this question to a hypothetical Speaker's Conference, we are once again examining the built-in impossibility of maintaining a unitary parliamentary State while establishing Home Rule in part of that State.
  We have been here before. In fact, we were here a long time ago. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred to the precedent of Stormont. That is a recent, fragmentary precedent; the year 1920 was a late stage in the story. It all started with the attempt to institute Home Rule for the island of Ireland in 1886. Once it was proposed, once the Grand Old Man let it be known from Harwarden around Christmas 1885 that he was contemplating this, the question was immediately asked: how would the island of Ireland thereafter be represented in the House of Commons?
  There are four different ways of answering that question. First, it would not be represented at all. Secondly, it would be represented as at present, as though nothing had happened. Thirdly, it would be represented only at a fraction of the present representation. Fourthly, it would

  295
  be represented by "in and out" Members, who popped in and out according to the subject before the House.
  I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that alternatives three and four are not true alternatives, nor are New Clause 1 and the unmentionable New Clause 14 alternatives to one another. The arguments for New Clause 14 would be almost as appropriate if there were a reduction in Scottish representation as they would be with the full representation of 71 seats. However, for purposes of easy exposition I posit four possibilities for tackling the conundrum.
  First, then, if there were no representation, this would be the end of the Union; for a population cannot be bound by decisions made by an assembly in which it is not represented. Yet that was the first of the solutions suggested in Gladstone's Home Rule proposals. When the question was raised by Joseph Chamberlain, that was the answer that he was given, and that answer was responsible for Chamberlain and another member of Gladstone's Cabinet resigning, with consequences that were felt in British politics for generations after.
  One then reacts to the opposite extreme, the one which is represented in the Bill, the extreme which we are accepting. I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) for not poking that dog at this time; but the difficulties are acute and have been felt throughout these proceedings—the manifest absurdity of crucial decisions upon what may be the crucial legislation of a Parliament being decided in this House of Commons by hon. Members from a part of the kingdom to which that legislation will not apply. It is a contradiction quite different from the fact that we do legislate as a whole for parts of the kingdom; for that is a mere consequence of the unity of the realm and of the parliamentary union.
  The more the possibility has been envisaged that 71 Scottish Members or a majority of them might determine for the rest of the realm—I do not know why Ulster was omitted from Clause 14—questions so important that the Scots, we are told, demand to decide them for themselves, the more there has been in the House and outside increasing disaffection
  296
  towards the whole nature of this approach to devolution and to the discontents of various parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland.
  Both extremes then being intolerable, it is natural to look for a mean somewhere. Perhaps the device or compromise which it is convenient to examine first is the "in and out" proposition. It is suggested that as hon. Members from Scotland come from a part of the realm in which decisions on certain subjects are made in a separate elected Assembly, they should have no voice or vote on those matters in the House.
  The more this is examined the more impossible it appears. Most potent, though least easily expressed, there is, in the human sense, the intolerability of a situation in which 71 or 50 Members from Scotland would be jealously watched as to whether they were peeping in on our proceedings on matters that did not concern them. The nature of this House is that it is a body corporate. What concerns any part of it concerns us all. We are, in the best sense of the word, peers in every respect and sit on a basis of equality of responsibility and rights.
  Mr. Henderson: In his inimitable way, the right hon. Gentleman is painting an incredible picture of what might happen, but my hon. Friends and I have adopted in the House the posture that he is outlining and we have found it a most agreeable experience.
  Mr. Powell: That proves the point. I understand why the SNP, which is a separatist party, wants to behave in the House of Commons in a manner that expresses its intention of being separate. That strengthens the implicit, destructive logic in the conundrum that we are considering.
  5.45 p.m.
  Apart from the fact that the "in and out" system is inconsistent with the nature of the House of Commons and would be intolerable to the House as a whole, it is unreal to suppose that we could separate out one category of our business and say that it affects England, Wales and Northern Ireland but does not affect Scotland.
  The very notion is absurd. So preponderant a part of the United Kingdom is England—let alone England, Wales and

  297
  Northern Ireland—that, on a whole range of subjects that are to be devolved under the Bill, what is done and decided for the rest of the United Kingdom is bound to influence, limit and, in some senses, determine or predetermine what can be done in Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the sort of pressure that a Chief Whip such as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) might bring to bear on his Scottish colleagues if the Government were in a corner and short of numbers and what malicious arguments there would be over what such Members could and could not vote on?
  Mr. Powell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. We should be placing an absurd and intolerable duty on the Chair. Almost from moment to moment—or even from Question to Question at Question Time—the Chair would have to decide what was or was not a matter exclusively concerning England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  Then look at finance. Devolved services in Scotland will be financed from the general revenue and the general national income of the United Kingdom as a whole. Is anyone suggesting that decisions taken on legislation and administration and, therefore, on expenditure, in regard to England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not influence the potential scale of provision for Scotland? Of course not. It is the financial nexus which gives unity to all the topics we decide in the House of Commons. Without that financial nexus, we would not share the practical responsibility of knowing that our pleas for expenditure in one direction were pleas for the limitation or reduction of expenditure in another direction.
  If I may now take up the point interjected by the hon. Member for West Lothian, the maintenance of a Government based upon a majority in this House cannot be divided into two, with a majority for English, Welsh and Northern Ireland matters and a separate majority for United Kingdom matters. They are the United Kingdom Government and they have the right to claim the support of those upon whom their exis-
  298
  tence as a Government depends in whatever legislation comes before the House—[Interruption.] They have at least the right to ask for that; they should not be debarred from calling upon their colleagues who have stood in Scotland on basically the same platform, whether Socialist or capitalist, to support the consequential measures for any part of the kingdom.
  That solution, therefore, is as incompatible with the nature of this House and with the unity of the United Kingdom as it was found to be when it was exhaustively examined in 1893 and dissolved in gales of ridicule and laughter.
  The fourth possibility is put forward by those who suggest that we should try to deal with the problem by reducing its scope. Perhaps, they say, no one will then notice the anomaly. Perhaps, if we can make it small enough, the difficulty will go away or will not matter. That is the only argument for a proportionate reduction. There is no sense in saying that, because three-quarters of the subjects that we debate are to be devolved to the Assembly, there should therefore be only one-quarter or even two-thirds as many Scottish Members as at present. There was never any logic behind the figure in the Asquithian Home Rule Act of 1914, which provided 42 Members instead of 100 for the island of Ireland. There was never any logic in that; it was merely a broad suggestion, a sort of sop to anaesthetise our sense of the gnawing impossibility of reconciling the presence in the House of Commons of a large block of hon. Members who were there upon a different basis, representing a part of the kingdom that had extensive Home Rule.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred to the precedent of Stormont. The precedent to be remembered is that this fourth course—namely, reduced representation—was never tested in practice. There never sat a Parliament in which a Home Rule Ireland was represented in the House by about 40 Members of Parliament. That never happened. What happened was that Ireland was divided: part, in effect, became wholly self-governing—more self-governing even than Canada and eventually recognised as an independent State and republic—and a small fragment of

  299
  the Liberal Home Rule Bill was fastened upon, or left remaining in—I choose the most neutral term that I can—the Six Counties of Northern Ireland.
  The acceptance by the House during that period of the fractional 13-Members for Northern Ireland—there were only 12 after the abolition of the university seat—in spite of the sometimes irritating anomaly, was the price that the House and the country as a whole paid for forgetting about Northern Ireland for the best part of 50 years. However, that is no precedent for us to pretend that we can deal with the conundrum which lies in the path of the Bill by any conceivable reduction in the number of seats by which Scotland returns Members to the House of Commons.
  The utility of the new clause, against which my hon. Friends and I will be. voting, lies in our reminding ourselves once again at this fairly late stage that there is an inherent incompatibility between Home Rule, devolved—no, transferred—legislative power, power transferred to a directly elected Assembly in a part of this Kingdom, and the maintenance of the parliamentary union of the United Kingdom.
  We have tried to approach this issue from all directions. Almost every question that has arisen has brought us back to the same conclusion. It is no complaint against the new clause that its most useful function is to have done that again.
  Mr. Dalyell: I shall be the first into the Government Lobby to vote against the new clause, and partly for the reason given by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell)—that no alteration in the number of MPs will make any difference to the principle of voting when they literally have no responsibility for the matters on which they vote.
  During the weekend I had an extremely tough, rough and argumentative two-hour meeting at the British Leyland Club at Blackburn, West Lothian. I was confronted by 80 angry men. Some of them shouted at me "We object to the way that you voted." One man, who was bedecked in SNP trinketry and regalia, tried to interrupt me time and again with all sorts of abuse at the way in which I had acted.
  300
  I must tell the Committee and my right hon. Friend the Lord President that when I was shouted at for voting in a certain way on a Bill it was not my activities of last week on the Scotland Bill that were in question. The cause of their fury was that out of loyalty I had supported my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in bringing in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (No. 2) Bill.
  The future angling rights on the Tweed, the Whittader, the Teviot and their tributaries were of more weekend concern to more people in West Lothian than the intransigence of their MP over 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh. That little tale serves to illuminate the flaw in the new clause. It is designed to contain Scottish nationalists—heaven knows what the Committee is about unless it is about containing them—but it will do nothing.
  In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), I can see no other reason for what is now the thirty-fourth day of our activity. It is perhaps significant that the right hon. Member for Down, South had to make his speech after 34 days. After all, the 34 days have been something of a Speaker's Conference in themselves. However, since the diagnosis of my right hon. Friend the Lord President is wrong, Scottish nationalism will gain far more out of our alleged denial of fishing rights on the Tweed than the denial of 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh. There can be umpteen Speaker's Conferences, but they will not dish the SNP as the forces behind it are not mainly about improving the constitution.
  Peter McNee, the secretary of the West Lothian Labour Party, says that his neighbours in Bridgend, who are most active SNP supporters, tell him that they in no way want separation from England or a separate Scottish State. They are appalled at such a notion, and that goes for many SNP supporters. If my colleagues doubt what I am saying, they should listen to Mr. Keith Bovey, who in the Guardian of 30th January is reported by Peter Hetherington as saying:
  "Despite Wednesday's events"—
  that is a reference to Burns night last week—
  "Mr. Keith Bovey, the Nationalist candidate, still insists that devolution is not the main issue

  301
  in Garscadden. With Scottish unemployment at 9·2 per cent., now the highest since the 1930s, and the Garscadden level approaching 20 per cent. in some areas, Mr. Bovey, a Glasgow lawyer, says that constitutional complexities are of little concern to many of the 55,000 voters who are now experiencing unemployment."
  A Speaker's Conference would solve few of the problems that fuel nationalism. I say in parenthesis that it is inconceivable that, given such unemployment, there would not be the most vigorous demands at the Speaker's Conference and in the submissions to it for the Assembly to be given an employment role, a responsibility for employment. That would bring into the Speaker's Conference something more than the question of numbers. I admit that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) may have had to take that approach so as to keep the new clause in order, but any Speaker's Conference that did not concern itself with things other than numbers would be no Speaker's Conference.
  6.0 p.m.
  Who would make up the Speaker's Conference? It would contain the SNP, my hon. but absent Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It would certainly have to contain the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and all the orthodoxies of the political parties; and, God help Mr. Speaker, he would in honour bound have to have me on his Conference be cause I, in common with the others, would cackle from the rooftops and cry "Foul" if I was not on it.
  Mr. John Smith: As my hon. Friend does now.
  Mr. Dalyell: Indeed, as I do at the moment.
  If we are to have a Speaker's Conference, we have to try some kind of consensus but a consensus here is a Will-o'-the-wisp—there is not a census to be had. Had there been an acceptable corn promise, or a formula in which the nationalists and anti-Assembly Members of Parliament could have acquiesced, it would have been found long ago y the hard-working and able Ministers are now on the Front Bench before me and their hard-working and able civil servants who are now in the Box. A Speaker's
  302
  Conference might as usefully spend the time of busy people searching a crock of gold under the rainbow. But it will not dig up any solution since there is no possible solution to be had.
  To pursue the Speaker's Conference theme a little further, item two on the agenda—and, if I were a member of that Conference, the agenda would not nave been dealt with at the first meeting—would presumably be the number of Members of the House representing Scottish constituencies after enactment of this legislation. But it would come face to face with the fact with which I bored the Committee in January at indecent length and which has come to be known in shorthand as the West Lothian question. But there is a rider to this question. It makes no difference in principle whether there are 71, 57, 36 or any other number of Members of Parliament. However many we are, we would still be voting on matters in England for which we had no responsibility in Scotland.
  That situation could not possibly last. It is not an Act of Settlement, and it is the rock on which the previous Bill foundered. Nothing has been done to remove that rock. There is no Speaker's Conference on those terms of reference that could put an effective detonator under the rock. Furthermore, could a Speaker's Conference sensibly consider the number of Members without discussing the role and responsibilities of those Members? For example, were the Assembly to win taxing powers, the desirability of fewer rather than more Scottish Members would be evident. I could add to what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South by saying that when there was a change in the powers of the Assembly, as certainly there would be, there would have to be further discussions on the role of that body and there would have to be further discussions on the number of members.
  Let us suppose that the Assembly were to be given economic powers. Would not that be a material consideration in deciding the number of Members? If there is an Assembly, it is inconceivable that it should not be given economic powers. Can we imagine that Assemblyman Sillars or Assemblyman Mackintosh, having been told that there are 203,000 unemployed in Scotland, would take the view "Oh, well, that has nothing to do

  303
  with us"? Of course, they would not take that attitude—and they would not be allowed to get away with it if they tried to do so.
  There will come into operation what I shall refer to as Gilchrist's law. Sir Andrew Gilchrist is a great contributor to the Scottish Press. That law is that the only way in which devolution can be made to work is by the prior elimination of all features which distinguish it from independence. Therefore, once again we come back to the issue that it is impossible to have a subordinate Parliament in only a part of a unitary State.
  Suppose that it were decided, on the other hand, that devolution to an Assembly of responsibility for framing the criminal law created too many problems. Let us suppose that there were different cases involving extradition between Scotland and England. Let us also suppose—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) present, and she will be interested in this matter—that the undesirability of having one abortion law in England and another abortion law north of Berwick became apparent, and it was decided that the framing of the criminal law should return to Westminster. Would the number of Scottish Members of Parliament be increased to match the responsibilities which they had regained? I would point out to the right hon. Member for Down, South that this matter could work both ways. If responsibility for the criminal law were to return to Westminster, there would have to be more Scottish MPs.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On the subject of the different law, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this was one of the matters that was observed from the time of the Treaty of Union and that in relation to the border there is an extradition treaty? In respect of the criminal family law, we have had separate laws for centuries and we have become accustomed to that situation for centuries. Therefore, if there is any complaint, it is that the House of Commons has always used as an excuse for any failure to keep Scottish laws up to date the fact that it has not the time to undertake that task.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Lady tell the Committee when was the last case of
  304
  extradition on the frontier between Scotland and England?
  Mrs. Ewing: The reason is not that the law does not exist but that, with the excellent co-operation which has existed between two entirely separate systems, it has not been necessary. There has been co-operation, but that does not mean that there is not an international border between Scotland and England.
  Mr. John Smith: Perhaps I could point out that the question of jurisdiction between different legal systems in the United Kingdom is on a basis of domicile, not nationality. Therefore, any question of extradition does not arise.
  Mr. Dalyell: As long as this House of Commons is responsible for framing both systems of law, that is the case, but that situation, which has worked very well hitherto, becomes a different matter when one has two Parliaments each framing and formulating a system of law.
  Mr. Henderson: I suggest that it might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman were to select English domicile so that we would not be able to extradite him to Scotland.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) may not have noticed that I have now assumed the Chair. Perhaps he can tell the Chair what extradition has to do with the new clause.
  Mr. Dalyell: No hon. Member could fail to notice when you take the Chair, Sir Myer. I want to know why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—I am returning to the new clause, Sir Myer—could put his name to such a clause. I suppose the hon. Gentleman imagines in a woolly way that it will help the Tories to get the best of all possible, if illusory, worlds and to give some kind of olive branch to his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns and—dare I say it?—to the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I think that must be the only reason why the hon. Member for Cathcart could possibly have supported the new clause.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and others will have second thoughts before they are recorded as voting for the new clause. How can we possibly expect a Speaker's

  305
  Conference to resolve problems which we ourselves as a House of Commons have found to be irreducible after 34 days of debate?
  In one sense, as I have already said, we have had a Speaker's Conference. What else has 34 days of debate on the Floor of the House been? Nor do I concede that, had there been academic and jurist members of the Conference, the results would have been much more practical. I do not think that hon. Members who have taken part in the argument are in any way inferior to the academics who might have been added to the Speaker's Conference.
  I would favour a Speaker's Conference in two sets of circumstances. The first is if the Liberal Party won a majority of seats in Scotland, in which case the terms of reference of the Speaker's Conference would be very precise—
  "to determine the action necessary for setting up a federal State in the British Isles and report accordingly."
  That would be on the assumption that the Liberal Party had 37 or more Members of Parliament in Scotland.
  It would then be quite legitimate to have a Speaker's Conference with those terms of reference.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: That is quite the most attractive assumption that I have heard the hon. Gentleman make recently.
  Mr. Dalyell: I must do my bit for the Lib-Lab pact.
  The second set of circumstances would be if the SNP won a majority of the seats in Scotland, in which case the terms of reference of the Speaker's Conference would be
  "to determine the action necessary for the ending of the United Kingdom Government and arrangements to be made for 1,001 actions ranging from the establishment of customs and excise arrangements to the break up of Government Departments as between Scotland and England."
  It would be quite legitimate to have a Speaker's Conference with the terms of reference of the break-up of the British State. But to have a Speaker's Conference on any of the ends of either my hon. Friends or myself—irrespective of the view we take on devolution, or, indeed,
  306
  that the Conservative Party purports to take—is complete nonsense.
  The question is this. If we reject the new clause, what should we do? I think that the Government had better get used to the fact that the 40 per cent. figure in a referendum is very likely here to stay. Not only are my hon. Friends and myself who voted for one thing in mid-January not going to be seen to change our minds by mid-February, but many Members who took a different view on the original question just do not think that a decision of the House of Commons should be lightly overturned.
  I say to my hon. Friends—I am glad that the Lord President is here—that really there is no cause for embarrassment in the suggestion that the Bill should now be dropped. We have had 15½ days on the Scotland and Wales Bill and 13½ days on the Scotland Bill, not to mention a Supply Day, mainly on devolution, in 1977, four days on Lord Kilbrandon's report in 1976, and Consolidated Fund debates in 1975. We have had at least 34 Commons days on this topic. We now know more about it than we did in 1974. We have come to realise that we cannot have a workable subordinate Parliament in part, though only part, of a United Kingdom and expect it to work, at least when that part is as big as Scotland.
  I think that there is only one thing that keeps the Bill alive now. It is the misplaced embarrassment of a number of people, both colleagues and friends of mine in the Labour Party in Scotland, and even other parties, and, indeed, of some Ministers, who have many public speeches behind them and who would be embarrassed by dropping it. All I say is that the embarrassment of Ministers is not a reason for continuing with a Bill whose deficiencies are inbuilt—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not considering the question of a Bill. We are considering a new clause to be added to a Bill which is in existence. I ask the hon. Member to restrict himself to the terms of the new clause, which are fairly wide. It concerns the setting up of a Speaker's Conference relating to the appropriate number of Members of the House of Commons representing Scottish constituencies after the enactment of the Bill. It has nothing

  307
  whatever to do with the question of a Bill that the hon. Member is now trying to abolish.
  Mr. Benyon: On a point of order, Sir Myer. This has raised a rather important point, because your predecessor in the Chair gave us to understand that we could range much wider than the terms of the new clause and that we could cover New Clause 14 as well.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Obviously, I did not know that. My predecessor in the Chair did not leave me a note about it, but I doubt whether he would have wanted the debate to be as wide as the hon. Member is trying to indicate. I now see that there is a note before me. I shall read it. It says:
  "A passing reference can be made to New Clause 14, although it was ruled out of order."
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am thankful to hear, Sir Myer, that I am not on New Clause 14. However, I think that in this Committee those of us who reject the new clause have some obligation to say what we think ought to be done. It is for that reason that I come to the position of the Prime Minister. Frankly, I do not think that he has any right to be irked. I shall relate what I have to say to the new clause.
  There is the story of the biblical sower who had to reap what was sowed. Ten years ago, the then Prime Minister and the then Home Secretary, but particularly the Home Secretary, off their own bats, without consulting the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group, and possibly, if the history is right, not even consulting my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), set up the Crowther Committee. If the then Home Secretary had bothered at that time to consult his Labour colleagues, he would, I suspect, have found a very strong feeling not to set up a Royal Commission on the constitution.
  If the Prime Minister is angry with me and others of my colleagues, he might just, a decade ago, have consulted those of us who had had to contest nationalism in the field for over five years by that time. Once a Royal Commission was set up, it raised expectations, however unreal, and created a ratchet effect. Be
  308
  that as it may, I do not expect the Opposition to agree but I think that the Prime Minister's achievement in other fields are now so considerable and that his reputation is such that he can surely afford to admit, with all the grace and charm that he has, that his endorsement of devolution was a mistake.
  Now, Mr. Murton—I beg your pardon, Sir Myer; I was thinking of more lenient times. The reason why I refer to this is that I think that many of the difficulties that we are now in have stemmed directly from the decision to set up the Kilbrandon Commission. The occupants of the Conservative Front Bench, in putting forward this new clause, are getting themselves into exactly the same trap as my right hon. Friends got into in the late 1960s. The then Prime Minister and Home Secretary fell into the trap 10 years ago. By setting up Crowther and Kilbrandon, something was expected from them—as something would be expected from a Speaker's Conference.
  One cannot set up a Speaker's Conference as a diversionary tactic. If hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench do not agree with that, let them learn from what my right hon. Friends did 10 years ago, because so much of this stems from Crowther and Kilbrandon.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: There seems to be a great deal of concentration in the hon. Member's mind on what are the motives behind the new clause. Surely, the difference between what may have happened 10 years ago and now is that the new clause seeks to deal with the consequences that would flow from the enactment of a Bill with which we do not agree. Will the hon. Member accept from me that we believe that he realises, surely, that we are not saying that this will solve the West Lothian question or will deal with a problem which, we agree with him, cannot be solved by this method? It is precisely because of that that we have consistently opposed the Bill.
  However, does not the hon. Member also agree that in the new clause we are saying to the Committee that if this essentially wrong-headed approach to the irresolvable problem is persisted with, then, and then only, the House of Commons and the country will have to face up to the consequences of that, and one

  309
  of the consequences will be the problem of the number of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies? It is in an attempt to compel the House of Commons to recognise that reality that the new clause has been put forward. Will the hon. Member also recognise that it is a perfectly open secret that we would have wished the question of the role as well as the number to be included, but that was out of order?
  Mr. Dalyell: That has clarified the matter somewhat, but I think that the new clause has been put forward for rather different reasons. I think that it has been put forward in a vain and rather silly way to give the Conservative Party in Scotland the best of all possible worlds. [Interruption.]. It may have been a second reason. One suspects that the second reason for its being put forward was that, somehow or other, the vague notion of a Speaker's Conference would help to paper over the cracks between the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Cathcart, and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, and, indeed, because they might get into this field with the right hon. Member for Sidcup.
  I do not understand why otherwise a concept as simple as a Speaker's Conference in these circumstances should have been suggested by the Opposition Front Bench. That is why I shall be the first to oppose the new clause. It may not have been conceived in malice, but it looks very much as if it is a device aimed at settling internal differences within the Conservative Party in Scotland and, secondly, a way of solving the paramount question of bringing back into the fold the right hon. Member for Sidcup. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Down, South, in view of the way he has swung—I may have interpreted this wrongly—assents to the proposition which I put forward that the new clause is the sort of ill-thought-out, fudging device—possibly, I cannot say, dreamed up to get the right hon. Member for Sid-cup into the fold—that lured us into this devolutionary mire in the first place and ranks exactly with Crowther-Kilbrandon and kindles expectations which most right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side know cannot be delivered.
  I think that the Committee should pass on to more pressing matters. I comment
  310
  to my right hon. Friend the Lord President that the many other measures which were announced in the Queen's Speech, and which the Prime Minister told us would be dealt with if there were time, should be proceeded with. If my right hon. Friend is really stuck, I will produce a Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (No. 3) Bill, which will please more people in Scotland than will this poppycock.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: It is disconcerting to have to oppose the new clause on the same side as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The hon. Gentleman has touched on some of the reasons why the new clause was tabled. I agree that it is in part due to the 57 or 16 varieties of Tory viewpoint in Scotland on devolution, but suggest that it is also a method of throwing a spanner in the works.
  I think that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was in some danger in moving the new clause. He went out of his way to explain why the numbers of Scottish seats was justified on a geographical population basis and so on, but he queried at one stage whether the 71 seats were justified. Apart from the outcome of the Bill, one way or another, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be raising the question of Scottish representation in any event. If the Conservative Party has any feelings about over-representation, there is another aspect on representation that should be considered. I refer to Northern Ireland, which is under-represented. I suggest that the Opposition should deal with that matter before concerning themselves with anything else.
  It is amazing that the best the Opposition can bring forward at almost the end of the Committee is this miserable new clause. The declaration of Perth, the Douglas-Home committee, the shuffling, attacking, retreating, trying their toes in the water and so on, have gone by the board. They think that the new clause will work the oracle at the end of the day. The attempts to settle their differences have produced only this mouse, and it is a very "tim'rous beastie". Unlike Burns's mouse, this one has no reason to remain alive.
  The Tory Opposition's concern with the numbers of Scottish Members is bogus, because numbers are largely irrelevant

  311
  if Scottish representatives can institute change only with the approval and acquiescence of English Members. That has happened on many occasions. Six Home Rule Bills were presented in the House just before the turn of the century. Except for the first occasion, five were carried by a majority of Scottish Members. All came to nothing. Between 1907 and 1927 there were 11 Home Rule Bills. In each Division 80 per cent. of Scottish Members supported the principle, but all came to nothing. There were other numerous occasions when majorities of Scottish Members of Parliament thought that a certain course was right for Scotland, vet they were all shot down by the preponderence of English Members.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred to the horror of English Members seeing their legislation defeated by the actions of Scottish Members. It will be a new experience for them. However, it is a matter that has hung over our heads since the union of the Parliaments.
  Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stewart: Not at the moment.
  A Scottish lawyer, David M. Walker, in his book "The Scottish Legal System" said:
  "Scots law is made and unmade, and commonly mangled and ruined, in a legislative assembly in which the Scottish Members are outnumbered by eight to one in a body the great majority of whose Members have no Interest in or need to know or to care about the law or government of Scotland. The people of Scotland are not masters of their own fate in law or government. Their strong desire may be ignored or outvoted in a House of Commons two-thirds empty, and they cannot lawfully resist the most outrageous destruction of their institutions."
  There was no mention of reducing the number of Scottish Members at Westminster in previous Tory Party manifestos. In February and October 1974 the Tories repeated their pledge to establish a Scottish Assembly with powers over the major stages of Scottish legislation. There was no mention of reducing the numbers of Scottish MPs at Westminster. In their British manifesto—the one they had on United Kingdom terms if that word is offensive—they promised the Scottish people that a recurring theme in their programme would be to recognise
  312
  more freedom and control over their own lives and that they would set up a Scottish Assembly. Again, there was no mention of reducing the number of Scottish Members at Westminster.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), one of the signatories to the new clause, in his October 1974 address, stated:
  "We will establish a Scottish Assembly to ensure that decision making is removed from London."
  There is no mention of removing Scottish Members of Parliament from this Assembly. One satisfactory result of that election was that a number of Scottish Tory Members of Parliament were removed from Westminster.
  New Clause 14 would pinpoint the self-denying ordinance that we have had. It has been misconstrued in various ways, regarding purely English legislation. When a real Scottish Government are in operation with genuine and substantial powers, a Speaker's Conference can usefully discuss the object of the clause.
  Till then, it is clear that the new clause has simply evolved from imperialist divide and rule tactics, from confusion in the Tory ranks, from Tory bad faith and broken promises. The clause is devoid of common sense, of relevance and of justice. It should be decisively rejected by the Committee.
  Mr. David Price: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not range as widely as previous speakers. I think that they failed to address themselves to the fact that the Bill will in all probability go on the statute book. I share the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in his general condemnation of the arrangements for the Bill, but I approach this matter on the basis that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament. I comment on the new clause in that context. We shall be confronted with a position, therefore, in which the representation of Scotland in this House will be an issue among the English electorate.
  6.30 p.m.
  I remind the Committee that on a purely statistical basis in the United Kingdom, at pres England is 14 seats short, Scotland has 12 too many, Wales has four too many and Northern Ireland is four short. I say at once that no one

  313
  expects a rigid adherence to statistics, especially taking into account the more far-flung parts of the kingdom. No one can reasonably expect one hon. Member to represent more than the whole of Orkney and Shetland, and so on. However, it is not that which will stick in the gullets of English electors; it is the fact that in the fairly densely populated parts of Scotland there are, on average, fewer electors than there are in most parts of England and Northern Ireland. We hope that the anomaly in Northern Ireland will he dealt with as a result of the Speaker's Conference, but the others cannot be burked. Until now, no one raised this issue, but at the moment the Scots are over-represented.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Given the statistics, will the hon. Gentleman make an issue of this in his General Election address? Will it form part of the Conservative manifesto?
  Mr. Price: I am not making an issue. I am pointing out the facts. If the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) likes to make an issue of it, he can. I am merely pointing out that the English electors are under-represented in this House and that we could probably live with that if it were not for the consequences of the Bill. The effects of the Bill have not yet been seen However, one has only to go through the items listed in Schedule 10 to see the big difference that this legislation will make
  I need not develop any further the consistent argument of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the anomalous position which hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will occupy in this House and, conversely, those hon. Members representing the other three portions of the Kingdom. This is recognised by the Scottish National Party, and it has its own solution to it in New Clause 14. However, my own view follows very much the arguments of the right hon. Member for Down, South. This in-and-out type of Scottish Member will not be satisfactory, although there may appear to be a superficial attraction. All Members in this House must be equal, and we must fulfil equal duties. It is quite unsatisfactory to try to divide up the responsibilities and to say "This is a problem which only English Members can deal with" or
  314
  "This is one for the whole Imperial Parliament to deal with".
  The right hon. Member for Down, South put forward the four possibilities open to us. I want first to adumbrate his argument about Mr. Gladstone's proposal. As he pointed out, in 1886, on the first Irish Home Rule Bill, Mr. Gladstone proposed that there should be no representation in the Imperial Parliament. In proposing the First Reading of that Bill he said:
  "… if Ireland is to have a domestic Legislature, Irish Peers and Irish Representatives cannot come here to control English and Scotch affairs … There cannot be a domestic Legislature in Ireland, dealing with Irish affairs, and Irish Peers and Irish Representatives sitting in Parliament at Westminster to take part in English and Scotch affairs."
  That is quite clear. But let it be noted that Mr. Gladstone's proposals in his first Irish Home Rule Bill went very much further than is proposed in the present Bill, and that takes us back to the dilemma that the right hon. Member for Down, South put before the Committee so forcefully.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is drawing a useful analogy. However, he will recall that Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1886 gave greater powers to Ireland and that it was on that ground that Parnell agreed.
  Mr. Price: I said that. I recognise that there is an important difference, and I made that very point.
  We are now in an even more difficult dilemma. As the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out, even though greater powers were to be given to the Irish people and the Irish Legislature under the 1886 Bill, than are proposed for Scotland in the present Bill, under general discussion, and certainly under discussion in Parliament, it was rejected.
  We are left with the dilemma, and there is really only one way of dealing with it, which is the federal solution. There is no other way. But we are not having the federal solution. We are then left with the problem of Scotland's being over-represented.
  What should be the representation? I agree with the fourth possibility advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South, which was to reduce representation from Scotland in this House. The right hon. Gentleman also pointed out that in

  315
  Asquith's 1912 Bill there was a proposal to reduce considerably the Irish representation in this House. I believe that we have to apply the same formula to Scotland today.
  It may be argued that, if that is so, why do not we come forward with precise proposals as an amendment to the Bill. I do not do that for the very good reason that this is a matter which should be discussed in a Speaker's Conference, accepting the principle of reduced representation. If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, I believe that there must be reduced Scottish representations in this House. That is my personal view as an English Member.
  The correct way of determining what that number should be is through a Speaker's Conference. The reason why a Speaker's Conference is a better way of proceeding than writing it into the Bill, which has been suggested as a possible means, is that there would be the feeling, if it came from Ministers, that they were loading it in their favour and, if it came from the Opposition, that the Opposition were loading it in theirs. I think that a Speaker's Conference is the fairest way of handling it.
  If at present Scotland had a representation statistically equivalent to that of England, it might be reasonable to say "Leave it as it is", but the fact that Scotland is currently statistically overrepresented, taken in conjunction with all the matters under Schedule 10 that will be devolved upon the Scottish legislature, makes that over-representation indefensible.
  It may be that the Committee will decide not to pass New Clause 1, but the problem will not go away. In company with the hon. Member for West Lothian and the right hon. Member for Down, South, I hope that this Bill will not go on the statute book. However, having reached this stage, we must act on the assumption that it will. It is in those terms that I shall support New Clause 1. recognising all its imperfections and illogicalities. As the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out, it is not possible to box a circle. But at least we can live with whatever is that curious amalgam of a box and a circle—I forget the geometric term for it. It is inelegant
  316
  but it is not illogical, taking into account the existing over-representation of Scotland. Those of us who come from parts of the kingdom such as Hampshire, which are under-represented, feel that it will take a lot of explaining to our constituents if Scotland goes on being over-represented and has this extensive amount of legislative devolution as well.
  Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that over-representation from Scotland in the House had never been challenged and that in fact it had been accepted without question. It may be that there were minor arguments, but I think that within reason the right hon. Gentleman was right.
  The explanation is obvious. As there has not been a separate Assembly in Scotland no one has objected to hon. Members representing Scottish seats. I say that in preference to the phrase "Scottish Members". Many hon. Members representing Scottish seats are not necessarily Scots. Some of them happen to be English, just as there are many Scots who represent English seats and many Welsh who also represent English seats. Because there was no Assembly there was not the challenge.
  I contrast that with the situation that existed in the House when Stormont was in existence. I recall many hon. Members on the Back Benches, certainly on this side, trying time and again to raise issues relating to Northern Ireland and being told quite bluntly "That has nothing to do with you. That is a question for Northern Ireland. It has its own Parliament and its own Prime Minister, and therefore you cannot discuss the matter". I remember the many attempts made by hon. Members to get on to the Order Paper matters relating to Northern Ireland, but being unable to do so.
  There were, however, occasions on which right hon. and hon. Members from Ulster voted, sometimes in opposition to hon. Members on this side, on issues relating to England. Steel was a good example. Immediately that happened the cry was "What right have they to vote on issues affecting us when we cannot vote on matters affecting their part of the United Kingdom?" I always regarded the situation as strange and anomalous.
  Let me go back even further. Prior to the union between Ireland and this

  317
  country, there was for a short time Grattan's Parliament. It did not last for long, but it was obvious that it was not possible for that Parliament—or some equivalent of it—to be in existence and have union as well.
  Once there was the division in 1920, about which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke, Southern Ireland either had to develop into a totally independent State or, rather like Stormont, come into constant conflict with this place, go out of existence, or merge with our House here. That is the logic of the situation, and SNP Members understand it. They are aware of the situation, and they are happy that it should be so. That is why they are more than happy that we should debate the Bill.
  I warn the House of what happened in the past and what is bound to happen in the future if the Assembly comes into being. What will the 71 Members do?
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, will forgive me for quoting a speech that he made in August 1974. It was reported in The Scotsman and arose out of a speech he made at a special conference of the Labour Party in Scotland when the national executive, in my opinion wrongly, insisted that devolution should be part of the Labour Party manifesto.
  I hope that if my hon. Friend was incorrectly reported he will tell me. He is reported as having claimed that
  "members of the party who were pressing for devolution through a Scottish Government without the loss of the office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster were being dishonest. A priority for the party was to retain the Secretary of State and the 71 MPs, but he expressed doubts about how this could be achieved if there were a Scottish Government."
  My hon. Friend is not the first Member to change his mind. I have changed my mind on a number of occasions, but I have always attempted—perhaps not always successfully—to explain the reasons for my change of view. I think that if someone changes his political position on an issue he has a duty and a responsibility to explain his reasons and say why he has arrived at a conclusion different from that to which he came earlier.
  318
  6.45 p.m.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for quoting that statement, but this is a complicated matter, and this is precisely the rock upon which the whole Bill can founder. Even if it gets through the House of Commons in the form that it probably will in the end there will be difficulties. If there are 71 Members or whatever number is decided upon, and it does not matter whether they are SNP, Labour, Liberal, Conservative or anything else—once the Assembly is established and those Members are here voting on matters that will affect England and Wales and not Scotland there is bound to be immediate resentment, just as there was in the past over Northern Ireland. But things will be much worse and much more difficult on this occasion. because we have always been afraid of Ireland. Everybody has tried to forget about Ireland and regard it as a nuisance and a difficulty, but that will not be the position with Scotland. The antagonism and the hostility will be considerable.
  The only reason why I shall not support the new clause is that I do not want to give even the impression of undermining the concept of the unity of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) is right in talking about a dilemma. We can make no criticism of him on that score. He is right, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has done, constantly, to remind the Committee and the country of this dilemma. If we accede to the new clause we shall be saying, in effect, that we accept, or are beginning to accept, the principle that there is bound to be a break up of the United Kingdom, and I do not accept that. I do not believe it, and I do not want to believe it.
  I think that we shall get into a hell of a mess once the Assembly is set up and Members are elected to it, but I still hope that the people of Scotland will be sufficiently aware of the facts not to accept the idea of an Assembly. They will have an opportunity to express that view when they vote on this question. Incidentally, I think that it would be a good idea to have two questions, if not three, to put before the Scottish people. As I argued in The Times, the questions

  319
  should be whether there should be independence, whether people want devolution, or whether they want the status quo. They should have the right to vote for any one of those choices.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has so far kept within the subject matter of the new clause, but he is now getting on to the questions that should be asked in the referendum. That has nothing to do with New Clauses 1 and 14.
  Mr. Heffer: I apologise for going slightly wide, but I felt that I should make a passing reference to the matter.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Sir Meyer. Is it not relevant to mention the matter in passing, bearing in mind the problem that we have been discussing, the problem that will face the House in terms of what Scottish Members will do, and the crisis that may unfold if there is not a general will that the union should be preserved? The referendum, which will allow that will to be expressed, seems to me to have at least some relevance to this debate.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) correctly stated the position in his earlier remarks, but what should be asked in the referendum has nothing to do with this debate, and I cannot see how it can be in order. We are now dealing with what steps should be taken in the event of an Assembly being established.
  Mr. Heffer: I cannot support the amendment, because I feel that one would be conceding part of the principle. What the hon. Member for Eastleigh said was only germane because he claimed that the Government wanted the 71 Members to impose Socialism on this country. I only wish the 71 Members could impose Socialism by the democratic vote.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall refer directly to the new clause. The Liberal view throughout has been that there should be a common United Kingdom general electoral quota. I accept the figures used by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and that the disparity between 53,000 for Scotland, 66,000 for England and 86,000 for Northern Ireland cannot be defended.
  320
  It has nothing to do with the urban versus rural problem. My constituency in Scotland is the largest in the United Kingdom. It has twice the electorate of some Glasgow constituencies. The problem has nothing to do with devolution. That has already been touched upon by many hon. Members. It is a matter which deserves rectification in its own right.
  The new clause suggests that the question of the number of Members representing Scotland is directly relevant to devolution. The new clause states that a Speaker's Conference should consider
  "the appropriate number of Members of the House representing Scottish constituencies after the enactment of this Act".
  The suggestion is that it is the enactment of the Act which makes Scottish representation unjust. That is not a correct basis on which to approach the matter. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he says that the same argument applies to Scotland as applied to Northern Ireland.
  What, then, of the concept of a Speaker's Conference? The Liberal Party adheres to the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) when he was intervening in a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He asked:
  "Can my hon. Friend think of one proposal made by any Speaker's Conference which has not been to the interest of whichever has been majority party of the day?"
  My hon. Friend's response was:
  "My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. Speaker's Conferences reflect, as they must do, the balance of opinion of the House at the time. One of the things the Conference will reflect is the present representation and the fact that the number of Scottish Members who may consider themselves entitled to be on it may be larger than those we may ultimately see in the House. If there is no majority in the House for fair representation in the various parts of the United Kingdom, then we shall not get it. The British public ought to be able to see the way these things work in practice."—[Official Report, 1st February 1977 Vol. 925, c. 430.]
  The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was talking twaddle when he suggested that when Members joined a Speaker's Conference they threw off their party clothes and became totally objective citizens seeking the ultimate truths of democracy.

  321
  I do not accept that a Speaker's Conference would accelerate a solution to this problem.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was right to castigate the Conservative Party for its attitude. The Conservatives have refused to say whether they believe in a reduction in Scottish representation. In spite of what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire says. I wonder whether he has asked his Scottish colleagues whether they favour a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: No, we do not.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) speaks for himself, as always. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), speaking on the direct elections Bill, said that he wanted representation for Scotland to be increased. One would believe that he would be unlikely to accept this proposition. As the hon. Member for West Lothian and the right hon. Member for Down, South have said, it would make no difference to the "in and out"' conundrum, which we now call the West Lothian question. To put it to a Speaker's Conference is an inappropriate means of trying to solve the problem.
  Devolution per se does not produce a case for a reduction in representation. At various times, the Minister of State has said that the Scottish Members who remain in the House of Commons will have responsibilities for finance, taxation, the economy, energy and so on. These are important and fundamental issues. I must say that, speaking as a Scottish Member—or, to pacify the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), as a Member representing a Scottish seat—I would not favour a reduction in Scottish representation while these matters were still being determined within the House of Commons. I accept the argument that representation should be reduced on a straightforward population basis.
  Nevertheless, we cannot dodge the fact that the Bill creates a considerable problem in regard to the conduct of exclusively English matters by the House. New Clause 14 is directed to that problem whereas new Clause 1 is not.
  322
  I accept that the problem of what will happen to purely English legislation after the Bill is passed is serious and difficult. I do not retract from anything that I said on Second Reading, one phrase of which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire quoted. The Liberals see the solution in federal United Kingdom terms, but this is not a federal Bill. I shall be frank. I cannot answer the West Lothian question.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the hon. Member extend his frankness to telling the Committee why he is supporting a Bill which he and the leader of his party have said repeatedly is not a federal Bill? He and his party have a strong commitment to federalism, and yet they still support the Bill.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Johnston: I am sure that with your concern for order, Sir Myer, you would not permit me to go again over ground over which I have strode many times before.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am quite prepared to allow the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) to shelter behind the Chair.
  Mr. Johnston: I am not sheltering behind the Chair. I was saying that I could not answer the West Lothian question.
  On Second Reading I made some suggestions in terms of New Clause 14, the fourth option of the right hon. Member for Down, South the "in-and-out" question. I know all the objections which are advanced against this, and some of them are considerable. I suspect that in some respects we have not yet gone into this question to the extent that we shall, and it may be that some sort of solution will emerge. But I do not deny that there are serious and difficult problems. I hope that the anomalous situation which will undoubtedly exist will develop a realisation that a federal solution is the only one which will allow for the balanced decentralisation of power in the United Kingdom—
  Mr. Raison: Then why is the hon. Member voting for this Bill?
  Mr. Johnston:—and which would not create differentiation of the quality of representation in the House of Commons.

  323
  The reason why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends intend to vote for the Bill, and why we have said all along that we intend to do that even though the Bill does not provide everything we want, is that we believe it will eventually develop into a more rational structure for the United Kingdom. We believe that the political pressure in Scotland deserves recognition by the House of Commons.
  We have faced this political fact, and, therefore, an anomalous situation will arise. All I can say about it, and it is no use hon. Members chiding me and saying that this is not a good reason—no one else has produced one that is better—is that it will tax very heavily the political ingenuity and skill of—dare I say it?—the British, and I think that we shall find a way out of it.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: Speaking as a mere Sassenach and as one who has not participated at every stage in this Bill, I am prompted now to do so having considered New Clause 1. Unlike some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), I want to see this Bill passed into law. I believe that it should be passed for a number of reasons, not the least of them being that in 1974 I gave a commitment, as I believe the whole of the Labour Party gave a commitment, to introduce a Bill of this sort. It could be argued that the details were not spelled out at that time, but it was clear then, and it is clear now, that the purpose of that Bill was to devolve power to the Scottish people.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the hon. Member explain his philosophy about a manifesto commitment? If a commitment turns out to be wholly impracticable, does he think that he is absolved from it?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not here to discuss what was in manifestos or why anyone is supporting the Bill. We are discussing New Clause 1.
  Mr. Thorne: Of course I shall be guided by you, Sir Myer, but let me say that I believe that as far as possible parties that make political commitments should carry them out.
  324
  Devolution of power to the Scottish people will possibly be debated at great length in Scotland long after this Bill has passed into law. Clearly, there are various interpretations of just how far the Bill provides that devolution of power to the Scottish people that many of its advocates have in mind.
  The question that arises on New Clause 1 is, if I understand it, one of representation in the House of Commons of the Scottish people. Having listened on various occasions to the statements by the SNP, I realise that they are for separatism—for taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances it seems logical that they can have no interest in representation in this House. Clearly, that sort of representation would not arise if Scotland was a separate State.
  I believe, however, that the majority of the Scottish people do not favour the sort of separatism that is envisaged by the SNP. I hope that will be decided in the referendum. However, that in no way detracts from the fact that they are for a devolution of power from Whitehall, and from this House on certain matters to enable them to get more significantly involved in the decision making that affects their daily lives.
  The point of the new clause seems to me to be based upon the recognition of the fact that whereas at present 71 Scottish Members represent about 5 million of the population, when the Assembly is set up we shall need to consider the appropriate number of seats for Scotland in this House in the light of a shift or change in the functions of the Scottish Assembly.
  There has been a case, in a considerable number of areas, for a complete reappraisal of representation in this House throughout the whole of the United Kingdom on the basis of the shift in the population and other changes that have taken place in recent years. From time to time the Boundary Commissions have produced reports which only tinker with the existing arrangements. Both the major parties, and possibly the Liberals, too, have looked at the problem and consciously walked away from it, feeling that any major reappraisal or restructuring of the system could have radical effects on their respective memberships of this House.

  325
  When we get involved in even a small Boundary Commission report we soon see how strong is feeling among the major parties on the question of change. They ask themselves whether it will give them a better or worse prospect in a future election. That seems to be the governing factor.
  It is in the light of that that the House has failed to take a conscious decision to make that reappraisal. Against that background there are bodies which advocate New Clause 1 and who see justification for treating Scotland as a separate entity for consideration of the question of representation.
  The argument put by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) provided us with no justification for treating Scotland as a separate issue unless we accept the argument of the SNP that Scotland should become a separate State.
  The new clause does nothing to assist us with the problem of how to define areas of decision-making in the House after the Scottish Assembly has been established when English and Scottish Members are debating important economic and other matters. I take the view that at this stage there is no solution of that problem.
  New Clause 14, which has at least one Labour Member as a signatory, does not offer us a solution. In my view, the only approach to the question is to have a major reshuffle. As that is not being entertained, and for the reasons that I have given, I shall not support New Clause 1 in the Lobby.
  Mr. Stokes: The debate again underlines the fundamental flaw in the Bill. Once again the dangers in it of the break up of the United Kingdom are self-evident. Scotland is over-represented in the Chamber, but should we, because of the new Assembly, change the balance of the composition of the House of Commons?
  The Government do not wish to discuss the matter at all. They have a closed mind on it. Clearly, they do not wish to have any diminution of the number of Scottish Members here. Whether that attitude will commend itself to the rest of the United Kingdom remains to be seen.
  Ever since the Bill was first considered in Committee nearly 14 Sittings ago there has been the problem of the 71 Scottish
  326
  Members in the House of Commons. Like Banquo's ghost, the problem does not go away. The Government pretend that there is no problem, but I must say, in justice and equity to the English constituencies and, indeed, to all the non-Scottish constituencies, that there is a very serious problem here.
  Gradually, as the debates take place and are more reported now than they were a few weeks ago, the public at large are realising that a great injustice will be done if the 71 Scottish Members are allowed to remain here to speak and vote on English, Welsh and Northern Irish affairs, whereas Members from those countries will not be allowed to speak and vote on matters that affect Scotland.
  The Scottish National Party is clearly uncomfortable about this dilemma. Hence its proposed clause limiting the right of Scottish Members to speak and vote on non-Scottish subjects.
  Once again we see what a constitutional mess the Bill is leading the Committee into, and the inherent problems and contradictions to which it will lead, and to which there is no satisfactory answer. We know now that the demand for the Bill is minimal in the country and smaller each time the Committee meets. The clause highlights some of the injustices of the Bill.
  The fact remains that the failure to reduce the number of Scottish Members here is bound to cause intense resentment in other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not think that England, which is by far the largest nation in the United Kingdom, will sit down to he governed by the rump of Scottish Members here.
  No one so far today has asked himself what the unfortunate 71 Scottish Members will find to do in the House of Commons. shorn of their contacts with the root problems of Scotland. Who, for instance, will go them for their constituencies in Scotland when there will be Members of the new Assembly only too eager and willing to take over as many of their responsibilities as they can?
  Those of us who fear the introduction of the new elected Assembly in Europe consider that we shall have the same dangers here, that power with regard to Scotland will pass from this place to the new Assembly there.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman asked the rhetorical question "Who will go to the Westminster MPs?" I shall answer him. Those who will go will be those who will go to tell them that they should be extracting more money from the English Treasury in order to allow the Assembly to do its job.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I so often do. I think that money will be the heart of this problem and the cause of confusion, difficulty and antagonism from the first day onwards.
  However, I believe that the remaining 71 Scottish Members here, whether they remain at that number or even if their number is reduced, will inevitably, as time goes on, lose some standing in the House in the eyes of their other colleagues who do not come from Scotland, whilst their standing in Scotland will be gradually usurped by the new Assembly Members. What a difficult role those Scottish Members will have in this place! I believe that they have a thoroughly miserable future under the Bill.
  Lastly, I come to the most difficult problem of all. I understand why the new clause was tabled. It was to enable this most important debate—in many ways one of the most important debates yet to be held on the Bill—to take place. The grave difficulties, which the Government are all the time trying to ignore or brush under the carpet must be brought into the air and reported in every corner of the United Kingdom. The rest of the United Kingdom will not sit down under the Government's blanket of silence.
  I hope that, after his defeats of last Wednesday, the Minister will be more conciliatory today than he has been so far, but the real remedy will not be to pass the clause, though I have no particular objection to it. I believe that our only real remedy is to denounce the Bill and throw it out on Third Reading.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) that we should regard the clause as simply a peg for discussing the issue. I would not vote for it, because I would not give a Speaker's Conference any function at all, because it is not a Committee of the
  328
  House. It is a private Committee, and has nothing to do with these important matters. It is high time the House took control of Speakers' Conferences, so that their composition was determined by the House, as with a Select Committee, and not left to the shenanigans which go on otherwise.
  But the occasion here is for a discussion of the issue, which is very important. Over the years that the issue has been discussed there has been a resolute refusal by many people to face it. One admires the Englishman's capacity for staring facts straight in the face and not seeing them, but this one is so central to the issue that it must be faced.
  On this subject there is no criticism to be directed at the SNP. Its position is entirely logical. It wants to have no representation in the House of Commons, and there is, therefore, no dilemma for it.
  One of the sad things about these debates is that constantly we hear people speaking as Scots representatives or English representatives. We hear references to the conflict of interest, which we never heard before, even though the provision of funds north of the border from the entirety of the United Kingdom is greater than it is south of the border, and even though the representation of Scotland has, since the Union, been excessive in relation to the population. As has been said, there have been no complaints, or few significant complaints, about that.
  But one terrible result of this sad saga of devolution is to bring out this little nationalism among Members in the House, with Members speaking not as British people but as Englishmen or Scotsmen.
  Mr. Buchan: I would like to emphasise my hon. Friend's point by saying that he might like to look at Saturday's Daily Record in which an editorial described his amendment as having been brought in by a Cockney.
  Mr. Cunningham: In my constituency, in which there are a few Cockneys left, I am not sure whether that will gain me votes or lose them.
  Another characteristic of the British people is to feel that there is always a solution to every problem, if only there can be good will. That has been said about this problem time and again in the

  329
  House. People are not prepared to face the possibility of problems to which there is no solution, however much good will and however much time is spent on them.
  I like to put it this way: however much effort one puts into it, one cannot find the square root of a minus number. I am told by mathematicians that there is a method whereby one pretends that there is a square root of a minus number, and that one can achieve results in that way, but the fact is that there is no square root of a minus number, and there is no solution to this problem of the position of the 71 Members.
  When one puts that to people who are a little reluctant to accept it, their usual response is to say that the House, with its infinite capacity for adaptation, can of course find a solution by adopting a convention of one sort or another. What is suggested is that, whether by rule or by a convention, the 71 Members should not vote on matters that are certified by the Chair, or whatever, to be matters of entirely non-Scottish concern or exclusively English concern.
  That simply is not a solution, for this reason: what happens after a General Election in which the party affiliation of the English majority is different from the party affiliation of the British majority? if we are to have a convention whereby Scottish Members do not vote on English matters, we could—taking the most likely situation—have Conservative legislation for England on education but, with the Conservative majority for England made into a Labour majority by an excessive number of Labour Members from Scotland and Wales, that legislation being administered by a Labour Government.
  Therefore, by this convention, which comes as a side wind of this process, we should have found ourselves with a constitution in which we had an Executive and a Legislature of different political persuasions. That is the situation in many countries, notably in the United States, but it is not something that one can introduce into the United Kingdom as a side wind from these proposals. We have not begun to face this problem.
  Two days ago I happened to be speaking about this matter to a senior and highly respected Member who holds firm views in favour of devolution. When
  330
  I put the question to him, it was clear from his response that, while he acknowledged the West Lothian problem and felt that a convention would be necessary to deal with it, he had not faced up to what happened in the post-election situation that I have just described.
  The fact that many Members of the House have not fully faced up to that difficulty is accompanied by the fact that, as far as I can discover, hardly anyone north of the border has faced up to it. One of the terrifying political facts that we must face is that north of the border—I have personally encountered this very much in the past few days—there is the feeling that it is up to Scotland to have devolution, if the Scots people want it. They resent the fact that there might be English representatives saying "No. You cannot have it, because there are consequences for England." The fact that there are consequences for England of a totally unbearable character is not appreciated north of the border.
  It may be said that the knowledge of this whole subject, the desire for devolution, and so on, and the campaign for devolution, was much further advanced in Scotland before the English woke up to it. I think that we can be charged with that. But the constitutional consequences were not appreciated in Scotland when the campaign was raging. Just as the House has educated itself by the process of debate into recognising the enormity and insolubility of the problem, I am afraid that the people of Scotland will have to realise that there is no solution to it, and that therefore what they are asking for is not a self-contained thing relating only to the area north of the border but something that affects the entirety of the United Kingdom and the viability of their place within it.
  I have said before that the people of Scotland are entitled to independence when they want it, and that we south of the border are not entitled to say "No" to them. But that does not apply to devolution, for exactly the reasons I have given.
  I would ask Conservative Members, particularly those who favour devolution, what their attitude will be after the first General Election when there is a Tory majority of the English Members and a Labour majority of the United Kingdom

  331
  Members. If they say "We shall have to stand it, because it is the price for the continuation of the Union", I say that other Conservatives will come forward who will say "We are not prepared to stand it". Those are the dynamics of politics. If they do not say so, the National Front will certainly say so.
  The dynamics of politics are such that 45 million Englishmen will not put up with that. They cannot be expected to put up with it. That is why, inevitably, the Assembly's existence will induce not only a campaign from north of the border but a campaign from south of the border to go on to independence.
  Mr. John Smith: As I understand my hon. Friend's argument, it is that even if there were an overwhelming opinion in Scotland in favour of devolution it should not be carried through, because of the constitutional difficulties that he mentioned. Do I take it, therefore, that whatever the result of the referendum—even if 60 per cent. of those entitled to vote voted "Yes"—when the matter came before the House my hon. Friend would not vote for the measure to be implemented?
  Mr. Cunningham: I have absolutely no doubt that if that kind of result came out of the referendum Scotland would have its devolution, because the official parties have decided that and it will happen. My hon. Friend asked me what would be my attitude to devolution. I do not know why he needs to ask. It has been no secret throughout our debates. I voted against the Second Reading on both occasions and against the guillotine on both occasions. I have voted against every aspect, but that does not invalidate the proposal put last week, which is the matter that my hon. Friend is trying to get at—the question whether the measure should go ahead on particular percentages.
  Mr. John Smith: The question I put to my hon. Friend, which I hope is not unfair, as he has greatly interested himself in the result of the referendum and how the referendum should be conducted, is whether my hon. Friend is saying that if on any test he chooses, the people of Scotland voted "Yes" to devolution, he would disregard that vote when the mat-
  332
  ter came back to the House, because of the principles involved, and vote that devolution be not implemented, irrespective of the people's will.
  Mr. Cunningham: It is an unreal question, because if Scotland wants devolution, it will happen. That is what remains to be decided.
  Mr. John Smith: How would my hon. Friend vote?
  Mr. Cunningham: It is high time the Scottish people were not misled into thinking that devolution would not lead to independence.
  Mr. Henderson: That has not answered the question.
  Mr. Cunningham: I want to persuade the people of Scotland that devolution leads straight to independence. I have said that it they want independence, that is their entitlement. What I do not want them to do is to be led up the garden path to independence when the door is marked "Devolution." That is what the Government and the SNP are doing. My views on devolution are clear.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: My hon. Friend has spoken of the Scottish people being led up the garden path in a referendum. One of the major difficulties in a referendum is germane to the subject tonight, namely, that the Scottish people are being invited to vote "Yes" to the proposition that they can have devolution without weakening representation in the House, whereas it is plain to anybody who has followed our debates that that is leading them up the garden path, because the corollary of devolution will be a change in representation in the House.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Cunningham: I quite understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State wishes to address himself to the aspect of the subject which he thinks will most help his argument. On the matter on which we are at the moment, the Front Bench has said that there is no problem. It has in effect, said to themselves "If there is a problem, we do not want to see it for the time being." The Englishman's capacity for self-deception—and the Scots have caught it a little—is absolutely limitless. We are pushing this one aside until afterwards.

  333
  It is high time that the Scottish people recognised that devolution—particularly because of the problem of the 71 Scottish Members and what is to happen after a General Election—cannot possibly do anything other than lead on to independence. If that is recognised, the Scottish people will not wish to embark upon that course until they are genuinely prepared to accept independence for its own sake.
  Mr. Buchan: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his position? Once he and I and the House have accepted the idea of a referendum, albeit a consultative one, we are saying that we expect it to have some kind of consequence upon ourselves and that we must pay regard to it. He is not, surely, seriously saying that in that situation—especially in the light of the figures devised by himself—he will oppose devolution when the matter is next dealt with by this House? I believe that the acceptance of a referendum has certain consequences for us, one of which is that we must either totally accept or be strongly affected by the result of it. I hope that he will reconsider his position.
  Mr. Cunningham: It is very flattering to feel that I have the future of devolution in my hands. That has not been my impression. The Scottish people have the decision on devolution in their hands. The question is, with respect, entirely irrelevant to the new clause. I can understand my hon. Friend the Minister of State niggling me about it. I understand his sensitivity, given the events of last week. The Scottish people know that if there is a conclusive result to the referendum they will get devolution. The important question to discuss is what that will mean.
  The vast majority of Scotsmen, whether pro-devolution or anti-devolution, think that they can have devolution without its leading on to independence and raising all these other issues. The more we discuss this matter, the more they will realise that it is either independence or it is an improvement on the status quo and that the middle ground is a mirage, which will, after the event, be seen not to exist.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I have been, together with some of my colleagues, rather
  334
  interested in the exchange that has been taking place between the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and his hon. Friend the Minister of State. Frankly, with respect to the Minister, I do not think that the question he put was necessarily a relevant one in the particular circumstance.
  The referendum, in the form in which it is built into the Bill, is of a consultative nature, and I do not regard it as binding. The fact is that we shall then return to the matter in the House of Commons. Surely at that stage, if an hon. Member has consistently opposed the setting up of an Assembly, he could be expected still to be of the same view. Indeed, I should be surprised if any consistent opponent of the Bill were at that stage to change his view.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) referred to whether those voting in the referendum would be clear as to the question on which they were voting. It is in this respect that I welcome the debate on the new clause, as put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). I believe that it is important that, when people come to vote on the referendum, they should know what they are voting on and be aware of the consequences which may flow as a result of an Assembly being set up in Scotland. In that context the new clause is relevant.
  I admired much of the logic of the approach of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The one flaw in his speech was that he did not put forward any alternative method to deal with what is a very real political situation in Scotland at the present time. He mentioned that a debate such as this gives rise to a clash between Scotland and England in the House of Commons, but that is nothing new. It has certainly provided a focus, but it is nothing new. There was a clash of interests in the early 1950s, when the House debated the report of the Balfour Commission and discussed the allocation of resources per head of population north and south of the border. In that sense, we are debating nothing new tonight.
  Mr. Dalyell: If it is a real political situation, why was it that last weekend I was roasted on matters concerning the Tweed fishing rights and not about my

  335
  activities on devolution last week in the House?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not think that the whole question of devolution is a live issue in Scotland, his head is even more in the sand than I thought it was. I totally respect his point of view in opposing the Bill and in seeking to prevent any change in the constitutional position concerning Scotland. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) will agree that it is an important issue in Scotland.
  Mr. Sproat rose—
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall give way to my hon. Friend presently.
  There are, of course, other issues in Scotland of a day-to-day nature, but it is flying in the face of what is happening in Scotland to suggest that people are not concerned or worked up about devolution.
  Mr. Sproat: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an issue, but I do not think that it is a major issue among most people in Scotland. If, for example, the Daily Record and the Scotsman, and possibly the BBC, were to shut up for 12 months, the whole issue would fade away.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not so sure that that would happen.
  I turn specifically now to the new clause, with which I had intended to deal, but I was interested in the interchanges which took place a little earlier. I want to deal with the new clause entirely on its merits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) did. I think that is the right way in which to do it. If we are to have an Assembly, as the Bill provides, what consequences should flow from it?
  I am still trying to work out what sort of Machiavellian device the hon. Member for West Lothian thinks that his Front Bench has in order to bring about unity in relation to devolution. But I am really concerned with the basic question, which is begged by the amendment—in other words, the question of representation in the United Kingdom House of Commons.
  336
  I certainly accept the logic of the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that an "in and out" solution is not possible. After a General Election one could not possibly support a Government on that basis, because they would never be sure where their support was. Therefore it is probably right to deal with and discuss, as the new clause does, the question of over-representation in the House of Commons, once the Scottish Assembly is established.
  We must be very careful in making comparisons of this nature, because if one takes the question in relation to representation in urban areas it may well be that in Scotland we are over-represented. However, it is important to compare like with like. The fact that there is a greater preponderance of scattered and remote communities in Scotland must be taken into account. There is no point in having merely a simple mathematical exercise.
  I have thought a great deal about the central point of the new clause. As a supporter of devolution, I am prepared to concede that the question of representation must be looked at. I have two reservations in addition to the one I have already mentioned about comparing like with like.
  If representation is being considered, it must be acknowledged that the United Kingdom Parliament will still retain many functions relating to Scotland, even after the Assembly is established. In that respect, Scotland is entitled to the same representation as the rest of the United Kingdom. It may be an anomaly thrown up by the Bill, but I accept that. I would like to see the whole question of devolution approached differently, but if we are to have this Bill a reduction in representation cannot be taken to the point of giving Scotland less representation than the rest of the United Kingdom. This cannot be done because of the functions that are being maintained by the United Kingdom Parliament.
  The second reservation is even more fundamental. It relates to the question of finance and money. The new Assembly will be operating on a block grant without any revenue-raising powers of its own. In these circumstances, and in so far as the Assembly is strictly controlled by the United Kingdom Parliament on the fundamental central matter of finance, it is

  337
  most important that representation of Scotland in the House of Commons is not less than that of other areas of the United Kingdom.
  In principle, I do not believe that it is wrong to reduce the present relatively favoured position of Scotland on representation. This should be debated when the referendum comes, because a reduction in representation could be consequent upon the passage of the Bill. If there has to be a reduction, I hope that it will be carried out fairly and in line with the reservations I have mentioned.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: I think that the fundamental flaw in the arguments of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is implicit in the new clause itself. The new clause refers quite precisely to numbers. What is called West Lothian question goes a great deal deeper than saying that the problem may be reflected by reducing the numbers. The new clause does not meet the problem we are facing in any way. Unless we reduce the numbers to half a dozen or so so that they can be borne, we will not arrive at any solution and the crucial questions affecting Scotland's representation in the House of Commons will still remain.
  Taking that position, the numbers argument grows. There can be no numbers argument that will deal with our basic dilemma.
  Mr. Pym: I fully appreciate the point that the hon. Member makes, but he must appreciate that the technical difficulties were considerable in deciding what new clause we could put down. It is very likely that this will be the first and only time that we will have an opportunity to discuss the central question of numbers and the relationship with the realm. The hon. Member should bear in mind that without the new clause we might never have debated this important issue at all.
  Mr. Buchan: I am glad the right hon. Member has underlined that point. I take it that he will not push the new clause and will withdraw it. What he is really saying is that this is an inadequate clause and was put down in this way only because of the rules of order.
  338
  That apart, the new clause does not deal with the West Lothian question. Its central flaw is the central flaw of the whole Bill, and it is one which we have to discuss in toto. It is also one on which we need a totally principled argument from the Front Bench as opposed to a technical argument.
  Like one or two hon. Members who have spoken, I do not see a solution to the West Lothian question. The reduction in numbers solution cannot operate unless the numbers are reduced to six or so. The "in and out" Members solution is no alternative, and it would alter the whole character of the House. There is no answer to the problem there. It is not that people would jump in and jump out at the bidding of the Whips. It is the problem of which Executive, which Government.
  There is only one answer. The political will, which will prevent the series of political crises which will arise from time to time from spilling over into a constitutional crisis, will have to be brought to bear to make the situation work. That is not really an answer to the problem; it is simply an acknowledgment that unless we establish that sort of framework we shall not find an answer.
  Mr. Raison: I know that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is keen on a referendum, but I cannot see how a referendum among the Scottish electorate will solve this problem, which affects the English as well.
  Mr. Buchan: The problem we are facing is deeper than the difficulties we have here. The reaction to the difficulties, unless the will is there to make it work, will lead to the kind of situation which will—not may—crack the United Kingdom.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not true that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) told us last February—just a year ago—of the "appalling consequences" that would follow if the guillotine motion was not carried then? He was absolutely confident about that. But the appalling consequences did not follow, and my hon. Friend very generously was the first to admit that he had been wrong. Is it not possible that he could be wrong again?
  Mr. Buchan: Of course I could be wrong. I am simply telling the Committee what I believe, and it is quite possible that it could prove to be wrong. The Daily Record devoted three pages to the collapse last time. Certainly, I and many others were wrong about the guillotine. The difference now is that we shall be writing in and establishing a permanent situation in which polarisation and conflict will be taking place. That is why I find it difficult to see how it can work without tolerance on both sides of the border to let it work in the short term until we find a modus vivendi that will enable it to work in the longer term.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I have long suspected that my hon. Friend's main problem was that he is too honest for the profession to which he has been called. I do not necessarily wish him to answer me now, but will he reflect on what he said about the steps that we are taking leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom unless there is a "No" vote in the referendum? Does this not indicate the consequences of his actions if the Bill goes through?
  Mr. Buchan: If there is a "No" vote, at least one part of the argument will be settled for the time being. I believe that because of the failure to understand the nature of the problem, as shown in the discussions in which I took part yesterday and the fact that we have not expanded the referendum in the way that is necessary, the likelihood of a crack-up is increased.
  I have argued that without the general will being established this may happen. Now the possibility is increased. I am not predicting doom. I am saying only that the balance of danger is increased. We have come slap into the middle of this matter, and I had not wanted to do that. I wanted to stress the failure of the new clause to deal with the problem that we are facing.
  The arguments put forward for a reduction in numbers have recognised that we accept over-representation in Scotland at the present time because of the acute geographical problems—the Highland areas, remoteness and so on. By the same token, if there is a reduction in numbers it will come from the industrialised central belt of Scotland, which, by a strange coincidence, is the area from
  340
  which most Labour Members are returned.
  We have to reject the new clause because it does not deal with the problem. We have to discuss the problem throughout the referendum campaign, if not before. The Government must come up with the sort of solutions that can be put before the Scottish people in the referendum. I urge them to do that tonight. Let the Minister deal not only with the new clause but with the whole central dilemma of the West Lothian question, which has not yet been answered.
  The real danger is that the normal political crises which blow up from time to time can, when there is polarisation, crack into constitutional crises, and if these increase because there are flaws in the constitution it makes a break-up more likely. This is the problem that must be answered tonight. We must have the details of how the Government see this working.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is making a deeply serious and reflective speech. Would be care to say something about the lack of understanding that he found yesterday in relation to the quite proper questions that he has asked? This is a matter that bothers some of us.
  Mr. Buchan: Perhaps I am saying that we all tend to say that those who disagree with us have not understood the problem. We disagreed yesterday, and that fact was reported in the Press. In 1968 the students in Paris had a slogan—"Imagination au pouvoir". It seems to me that there has been a failure of imagination to project our minds into the situation that will exist when the Bill is in operation. Perhaps it is that, above all, which I am seeking.
  Let us pick up the other flaws in the argument. Is there any reason for us to assume that the Scots will act as a block? They will not. They will act as political groupings. That does not make the situation better, but it makes our perception of it more accurate. It could reflect the United Kingdom majority and the English majority in different ways.
  Can we try to understand the consequences of some of our debates in Scotland? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has said that, if the

  341
  Daily Record and the Scotsman would only shut up for a year, the people of Scotland would not believe that we had a problem about devolution. But we have retained a national identity and consciousness for 270 years. The problem is that Scots people are now being continually taught that the equation of consciousness of nationhood must be the concept of statehood.
  On Saturday, the Daily Record carried an editorial with the headline "A vote against Scotland" as though my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is as Scottish and as British as I am, could be accused of trying to attack Scotland when he was genuinely trying to reflect the interests of Scotland as well as those of the United Kingdom. That was seen as an attack on Scotland, and the nationalist Bench enhances that view in every way. The racialism that has come from that Bench frightens me, and racialism is unconsciously inherent in that editorial.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was about to finish some minutes ago. He should get back to the matter under discussion.
  Mr. Buchan: It was a point brought out in relation to the argument of the role of Scottish Members in the House of Commons. When my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, with his Scottish accent, is described as a Cockney to prove, in effect, a racialist point, while the editor and the managing editor of the Daily Record are both English, we are moving on curious ground.
  I hope that the Government will give an answer to the central dilemma and that the new clause will be withdrawn.
  Mr. Benyon: After your rulings, which I respect and understand, Sir Myer, I must tread delicately, but I regret that it is not open to us to consider the "in and out" syndrome.
  It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to knock down the four coconuts with such clear logic, but that is not the point. I am as opposed to devolution and to the Bill as anyone, but we have to con-
  342
  sider what will happen if the Bill becomes law.
  What am I to say to my constituents about the role of hon. Members who are left here? I begin to wonder whether hon. Members have grasped the situation that we are facing. It is said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad, and perhaps we now have the opportunity to realise how mad we are and what we shall be laying out for the people of this country in future.
  There could be no greater recipe for anger and resentment than a majority of one party in England and an overall majority of another party in the United Kingdom under these arrangements. They would clash on every devolved issue.
  8.0 p.m.
  Without any desire to be party political, I must point out that according to my figures, which were checked this afternoon, if we remove the Scottish Members of all parties from the calculations the Labour Party has a majority of two over the Conservative Party in England and Wales. Of course, if we remove the Welsh Members the position is reversed considerably. It is not too much to expect that the pending by-elections will quite quickly alter that balance. What will happen in the General Election is anybody's speculation. However, to allow a situation to develop in which, for instance, there is a Conservative majority in England and an overall Socialist majority in the United Kingdom is an absolute passport to anger and resentment.
  For example, let us take two subjects in the schedule of devolved matters that are of considerable political controversy—namely, the education system and housing finance. It is to be believed that, if the United Kingdom Government were producing legislation which was against the desire and the interest of the English majority, we would not find that tolerant, lazy and happy breed of English person making life extremely difficult for his Member of Parliament? Of course that would happen. That is a recipe for failure.
  I have made a number of speeches on this subject recently in what might be described as darkest Buckinghamshire. I have emphasised only two of the points that we have been discussing. First, I have

  343
  emphasised that administrative and legislative power is being devolved and that there is no money to go with it. Secondly, I have emphasised that Scottish Members at Westminster will continue to exercise their present powers. It is clear that the English have not woken up to what is happening. They do not know what is going on. They are surprised when mention is made of it. They ask "What can we do about this? How have we been led up the garden path for so long?"
  If the Bill is to become law, we must consider the terms of New Clause 14. I understand why the role of Scottish Members of Parliament has not been put in New Clause 1. It is not the numbers that worry me, however, and that is why I cannot vote for the clause. I am concerned about what Scottish Members will do if the Bill is enacted.
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) have been unfair to the principle of New Clause 14. Under it, the only legislation that will be proposed, with the exception of Private Members' Bills, will come from the United Kingdom Government. They will not propose legislation on a devolved subject that will not stand any chance of being passed by the English Members here. I think that the argument advanced by my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman is unfair to that process.
  I cannot but recognise all the problems that have been so ably put before the Committee, but surely the only possible solution as the Bill is drafted, and as it is likely to go into law, is to ensure that there is the possibility of voting on devolved subjects only by those Members who sit for English constituencies.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have tabled the clause, as it has given the Committee the opportunity to debate the fundamental issue that is before it.
  I say at the beginning that any proposal that would lead to a reduction of Scottish representation in the House of Commons as a direct consequence of the devolution proposals would be one of the
  344
  profoundest mistakes that the House of Commons could make. I am well aware that as a Scottish Member I could be accused of making my own contribution to the job creation programme in putting forward that view. However, there are powerful arguments that a reduction of Scottish representation, although it might appear superficially to be a reasonable proposal, would be damaging to the unity of the United Kingdom. It is an argument that would be welcomed by the nationalist Members of the Committee.
  There are basically three reasons that have been put forward for the Scottish representation that have been put forward for the Scottish representation in the House of Commons being reduced if the devolution proposals are implemented. First, it is argued that it is intolerable—as it clearly is—that Scottish Members and Welsh Members should continue to vote on purely domestic English issues when the rights of the English Members to vote on Scottish matters have been removed. Many hon. Members have conceded that the simple resolution of that difficulty—namely, reducing the numbers—would not solve the problem but might make some contribution towards doing, so.
  That is a serious mistake. It suggests to the public that the number of Scottish Members of the House of Commons is a factor that may be used to deal with what is a fundamental defect. Clearly there is a situation in which, on purely domestic issues, it does not matter whether there are 71, 56 or 10 Scottish Members if they are able to vote on matters that do not concern their constituents when English Members have lost the corresponding right. That is an improper and undesirable suggestion in terms of purely Scottish domestic issues, but the corollary applies that on matters that affect the whole of the United Kingdom determination will continue to be by the House of Commons alone. If there is a case, without devolution, for 71 Scottish Members being involved in such issues as energy, defence, foreign affairs, industry and social security, that claim can be made with equal force notwithstanding the devolution proposals.
  If there is a case for 71 Scottish Members at present, I do not believe that the

  345
  removal of certain powers from the House of Commons to an Assembly would remove the claim in respect of the remaining matters that would be dealt with in this Chamber.
  It is argued that if this measure is implemented there will be little for Scottish Members to do apart from interfering in English issues or taking part in debates on foreign affairs and defence. I do not believe that those who make that claim have gone in any detail into the issues and matters that would remain the sole responsibility of the Chamber.
  I have tried to calculate what the consequences would be if the Bill became an Act. if we consider the legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons from the beginning of 1974, we find that the results are revealing. Since the beginning of 1974 267 Acts have been passed, of which 200 have applied either to Scotland alone or to Scotland as part of the United Kingdom as a whole. If, since the beginning of 1974, an Assembly in Edinburgh had existed with exactly the powers proposed by the Government, of the 200 Acts that have applied to Scotland alone, or as part of the United Kingdom, only 47 would have been dealt with by the Assembly and would not have been the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. In other words, a total of 153 Acts have in some way, and perfectly reasonably been the responsibility of Scottish Members as well as other hon. Members and would have been retained as the sole responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament.
  When we consider devolution, let us not argue that somehow the vast proportion of matters that now concern Scottish Members will be dealt with in Edinburgh. Whatever we think of devolution, the Bill that is now passing through the House of Commons is not especially radical in terms of transferring the vast majority of issues of Scottish political interest to a directly elected Assembly in Edinburgh. There will be no danger of Scottish Members having too much time on their hands if the Bill is implemented, and being tempted to interfere with English issues or spend their time discussing them.
  It is not only in respect of legislation that Scottish Members will have more than a full-time occupation if the
  346
  Bill is implemented. In Select Committees lies one of the major functions of Back Benchers on both sides of the House of Commons. I have gone through the list of the Select Committees now sitting, and as far as I am aware there is not one whose remit does not include Scotland, or will cease to include Scotland once the Bill is implemented, if it is implemented.
  Certain of the matters with which Select Committees deal may be restricted. For example, the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Expenditure and Select Committees that deal with financial matters will not be able to probe into the details of the way in which the Scottish Office spends the money that is allocated to it, but there is not one Select Committee on which it is improper or undesirable that Scottish Members should sit even if the Bill were to be implemented.
  Equally, if we examine other matters that come before the House it is often implied, but never specifically said, that Scottish Members are concerned only with the the activities of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this House, and perhaps the activities of the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence. They somehow imply that if the Bill were to be implemented and the remit of the Scottish Office were to be drastically reduced, it would reduce the matters in which Scottish Members could legitimately take an interest. If that argument is examined it cannot he justified.
  For example if we look at Schedule 10 and all the matters which are devolved, we still find that Scottish Members of Parliament, even after devolution, will have as much interest as their English colleagues in the work, not simply of the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Overseas Development, but of the Treasury, which is the most important Department in the United Kingdom Government. The Treasury is bound to remain the sole Department concerned with fiscal matters, because this House will remain the sole taxing legislature in the United Kingdom. Obviously Scottish Members will continue to take as much interest as their English colleagues in the work of the Treasury.

  347
  But this argument applies not only to the Treasury. Let us consider the activities of the Department of Industry. There are minor responsibilities in the Scottish Development Agency following devolution to a Scottish Assembly. The vast proportion of the work undertaken by the Department of Industry, however, will remain a United Kingdom responsibility. Among the matters that would be left to a Scottish Secretary of State are certain industrial responsibilities. In respect of industry virtually no devolved matters will go to Scotland, and Scottish Members and their English colleagues in this House will still have an equal interest in the work of that Department.
  Let me deal with the Department of Employment, to which the same considerations apply. None of that Department's responsibilities will cease to be the responsibility of this House. In other words, whether we are concerned with employment or industrial relations matters, they will remain the sole responsibility of this House and will be of common interest to hon. Members from all over the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman were a member of the Assembly, would he be content that Treasury and industrial functions should continue to be the responsibility of this House? How long does he believe that such matters, including the subject of unemployment, would remain at Westminster?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has a delightful habit of producing red herrings. I am arguing that if this Bill is implemented, Scottish Members will still be part of this legislature.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests that this point would be valid if in 10 years' time the scope of the Bill were extended, and suggests also that there might be a different argument to consider. But I am concerned with the question whether the direct consequences of this legislation will lead to a reduction in Scottish representation. That is not the case with the Department of Industry and the Department of Employment.
  If we consider the social security and pensions aspect—a major matter of interest to the ordinary citizen—we see that the Assembly will have no responsibility or interest in those matters.
  348
  Equally, it will have little involvement in the present work of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. Furthermore, it will have no involvement in or responsibility for the Department of Transport. Yet again, the present responsibilities in Scotland in regard to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries could well remain the sole responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. Therefore, that argument is not a sufficient or convincing reason to reduce Scottish representation.
  Another argument that is put forward is that whatever might be the case against a drastic reduction in Scottish representation, it is unthinkable and undesirable that the present overloading of Scotland with 71 Members—considerably more than its population alone justifies—should continue to be in existence once a Scottish Assembly is implemented. Let me make it clear that I do not believe there is anything sacrosanct about the figure of 71. There may be grounds for a Boundary Commission recommendation that certain parts of Scotland are over-represented. There is a good case in my own city of Edinburgh for saying that we could make do with six rather than seven Members of Parliament. The argument on these lines in respect of Glasgow is even more overwhelming because of the grossly deflated size of the electorate in many Glasgow constituencies. However, these cases must be examined on their merits and the Boundary Commission will examine each city, rural area or constituency and see whether there are grounds for change. Therefore, to suggest in that context that there is an overall case for reducing Scottish representation is misguided.
  8.15 p.m.
  We know that the figure of 71 Members was not arbitrarily reached. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, the unsettled nature of the population in many parts of Scotland and the vast area that comprises many constituencies make it impracticable to consider linking two or three existing constituencies. Who would want to link the Western Isles to form a new constituency if the Scottish representation were reduced? Should the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Girmond) take on Caithness and Sutherland as well, in a Scottish consti-

  349
  tuency that will be reduced as a result of this legislation?
  We do not need to examine this matter for any length of time to realise the practical difficulties with which the Boundary Commission will be faced if it were required, as a result of this legislation or any other change, to reduce Scottish representation by any significant number. It is clear that in such a case these problems would be very great indeed.
  I do not believe there is anything basically unsound or unconstitutional in Scotland's having significantly more representation than its population alone would justify. For many years in the United Kingdom we have argued that the rural areas should have a slight weighting in their favour, because it is recognised that rural areas have problems which are not found in urban areas. In that respect the strictly democratic approach has been modified to meet the problem.
  We must also bear in mind the fact that when we speak of the United Kingdom we are talking not simply of 56 million individuals but of four countries which make up the United Kingdom. There are many example in other parts of the world in which several countries have linked to form a union of component parts, the population of some of which constitute only a small part of the total. They have been given extra representation to give them greater weight in the counsels of the legislatures concerned. We all know that in the United States there are minute states such as Rhode Island and Nevada, but they have equal representation in the United States, along with California and New York.
  Nobody is suggesting that in this House Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should have representation equal to England's, but I do not believe there is any fundamental English interest that is impeded, thwarted or seriously affected by the fact that out of the total legislature of 635 Members, only 519 Members represent English constituencies. The fact that there are a dozen more Scottish Members than Scotland's population would justify is not a conclusive argument.
  For this reason I believe that Scottish representation at its present level can be
  350
  justified and that it should continue irrespective of the implementation of the Bill.
  The argument whether the figures are reduced does not deal with the basic problem on which a number of hon. Members have commented. I refer to the inequity and unfairness flowing from the fact that Scottish Members will be able to deal with and vote upon English domestic issues. The greatest condemnation of the Government in this respect is that not only have they not provided for this problem; but they have refused persistently to recognise it as a problem at all. That is a great failing, and I hope that the Minister of State will be able to rectify it in his reply.
  I believe that if the conundrum posed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is to be resolved, it can be done in a number of ways. There is the option to drop the devolution proposal altogether, but I, in common with the Minister, would be sorry if that were to happen. There is a powerful argument for constitutional reform, but I accept the equally powerful argument put forward by some that the present proposals are unworkable and cannot last.
  If, therefore, the "in and out" solution is not the answer, there are only two other alternatives that exist short of dropping devolution. The first alternative—I would not be too upset if it were to happen—is to move to a federal system, with devolution throughout the United Kingdom, retaining for this legislature the sole responsibility on matters that affect the whole of the United Kingdom. The second is that the Government should reconsider those proposals in which I personally have never ceased to believe, namely, the proposals put forward in the committee chaired by Lord Home of the Hirsel.
  Those proposals implied giving a legislature in Edinburgh partial responsibility for Scottish legislation, but nevertheless they left to the House of Commons the ultimate power—the Third Reading, as it were—on all legislation, therefore justifying the continuing responsibility of all Members of the United Kingdom legislature speaking and voting on United Kingdom issues, whether in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  351
  I realise that that solution does not commend itself to many hon. Members. I certainly do not expect it to be given much weight by those who are opposed to devolution or those on the nationalist Benches. However, if Ministers are now prepared to recognise that this is a problem—the conundrum, the West Lothian question—and is a fundamental issue, and if nevertheless they are determined to continue with some form of significant constitutional reform, they must accept that the logical consequence is either the Lord Home proposals or a move to a federal system. It is either less than they are proposing or more than they are proposing. What they cannot do and are not entitled to do is simply to ignore the issue and hope that it will go away over a period of years.
  I want to make two final points. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire did not say what the proposals of the Conservative Party would be in regard to any Speaker's Conference that might be established, because it would be unfortunate if at this moment the only positive proposals coming from the Opposition Benches concerning constitutional change were for a reduction in Scottish representation. If that were proposed as part of a package, it would be a different matter. However, to have that put forward as an isolated set of proposals would be a pity.
  Finally, I believe that if there were to be a significant reduction in Scottish representation, the only hon. Members who would actually be pleased, whatever they might say in public, would be SNP Members, because it is in their interests that this Chamber should cease, so far as possible, to be a United Kingdom Parliament.
  It is, of course, the case that if Scottish representation were reduced in the way in which Northern Ireland representation was reduced after the establishment of Stormont, it would be very easy to argue, north of the border, that the Assembly in Edinburgh was the only significant legislature for the Scottish people and that the legislature at Westminster was a rump Parliament so far as Scotland was concerned, where Scottish representation was so minuscule, irrelevant and insignificant that the only
  352
  sensible course of action would be gradually to extend the powers of the Edinburgh Assembly.
  Those who believe in the Union, if they also believe in devolution, must accept that unless they are contemplating Lord Home-type proposals for a federated United Kingdom, the present arrangement will, quite rightly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, lead to enormous and legitimate resentment on the part of the 46 million people who live in England. This is a problem that may be put off for the next few weeks or the next few months, but it is one that will have to be resolved in the next few years. It would be a pity if the Government—of whichever party—ultimately had to act under duress, when at present they could still act on the basis of sound and reasonable constitutional proposals.
  Sir John Gilmour: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) moved the new clause, he said that he had no wish to alter the number of Members of Parliament in Scotland. However, a good many of my hon. Friends have supported the new clause very much on the basis that they see the proposal as a means of reducing the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland.
  I have always been in favour of reducing the membership of the House of Commons. It seems to me quite extraordinary that, Britain having taken a much bigger step in devolution by joining the EEC and signing away many of the things that were formerly the prerogative of the House of Commons, which is shown by what is happening and by the argument about whether we can devalue our green pound, no one has said that we should reduce the membership of the House of Commons because we have joined the EEC.
  I am sure that there is a reason for reducing the membership of this place on a pro rata basis, but I think that my hon. Friends who feel that Scotland is already over-represented are entirely wrong. I agree very much with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. Pentlands (Mr Rifkind). I can find almost no constituency in Scotland which could possibly he amalgamated, other than that of Banff. That

  353
  is almost the only one that I can find that could possibly be amalgamated with a neighbouring constituency.
  Mr. Henderson: What about East Fife?
  Sir J. Gilmour: I have a good many more constituents than the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who represents a constituency that is almost in the heart of the City of London. He is able to see his constituents every day. I have looked up how many voters there are in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I find that I have more constituents in East Fife than she has in Finchley. There is no basic argument for the reduction of the number of Members of Parliament in Scotland.
  Mr. Henderson: What about Glasgow?
  Sir J. Gilmour: It is perfectly true that there may be a need to reduce the number of Members of Parliament who sit for the city of Glasgow—that has already been done—until such time as that city's inner heart has been rebuilt and it demands more Members. We have already reduced Glasgow from 15 to 13 Members by creating other seats outside that city. I speak only from memory, but I think that outside Edinburgh, which my hon. Friend the Member for Pent-lands mentioned, there is the constituency of Midlothian, which is probably considerably larger than any of the constituencies in the city. There may be grounds for redistributing seats inside Scotland, but there is absolutely no valid argument for saying that Scotland is overrepresented. I regret the fact that some of my hon. Friends try to advance that argument.
  As a practical application to the Bill, what do we do? Would we do any good to the cause of keeping a United Kingdom if we started off by putting forward the idea that we should reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament so that the voting, to be done in this Chamber in order to put money into an Assembly in Scotland would be decided by a higher number of English Members than it is at present? That is a recipe for absolute madness.
  I cannot support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the new clause. I hope
  354
  very much that ultimately the Bill will not become an Act and, therefore, that that will be the right solution. I deprecate the idea that Scotland is overrepresented, because that is not so. I do not think that we would be advancing the cause of the United Kingdom if we were to approve the new clause.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I naturally share the affection and attraction that has been demonstrated by the hon. Members for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) for preserving the present number who represent Scotland in this place. Indeed, I think that I could go further than the hon. Member for Pentlands and say that I could not contemplate with the equanimity that he does a reduction in the number of seats in Edinburgh from seven to six—because I am very conscious, as he is, of which of the seven would go if that happened.
  However, I accept much of what the hon. Member for Pentlands said and that there will be a lot to be done by Scottish Members who come here. We shall not simply spend our afternoons upstairs answering our correspondence on local authority matters and come down to the Chamber to take part in Divisions on matters about which we are ignorant. There will be many matters with which we can busy ourselves and with which we can involve ourselves in this place.
  However, if the case that is now being advanced is that we shall be in some kind of federal legislature and that, therefore, we should preserve the present representation, that will stand out in rather obvious contrast to all other federal legislatures where it is an accepted tenet that, if one is to have an upper House of a federal Parliament, that federal Parliament normally has larger constituencies than would obtain in a lower House.
  If we restrict Scottish Members to issues which would normally be federal in character, we must consider the logic that applies in other federal systems—that they would have larger constituencies than otherwise. With Scottish Members having fewer interests and functions than English Members, the question would arise: should they get away with smaller electorates as well? I find that a difficult proposition to maintain.

  355
  The hon. Member for Pentlands recognised that the real nub of the matter was not how we filled in our day here from the time we come in after breakfast until we leave after the 10 o'clock vote, but what would happen not with the 153 Bills in which we must have an interest but with the 67 Bills in which we have no constituents affected and no geographic interest yet we retain, under the present proposals, the right to vote.
  8.30 p.m.
  I suggest that 67 Bills in slightly less than four years is an impressive figure, even when it is taken out of a total of 267. We are talking of 20 Bills per annum. Some of the Bills included in that figure—for example, the Education Act 1976 or the Act which abolished tied agricultural cottages—affected only England and Wales, but they were carried through the House of Commons by Scottish votes. Would that position be tolerated after devolution? I do not believe for a moment that it would.
  I do not propose to weary the Committee unduly with my views on this matter, because I have referred to it at length in the past, particularly on Second Reading. But there is no need to speculate in future on issues and legislation that might be proposed and might prove difficult to get through on that basis. We have had concrete examples in the last three or four years of what would happen after devolution if the devolution proposals were to be carried through.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Pentlands that it would be illogical to try to solve the problem by reducing the number of Members coming from Scotland or, indeed, from Wales. The only reason why we think of that automatically as a possible solution is that it is what we did in Ulster. However, the solution was tolerated in Ulster only because Northern Ireland ended up with a dozen seats in this place. However much we reduce Scottish representation, we shall never reduce it to such a minimal proportion. No one in this Chamber would suggest that we could possibly reduce Scottish representation from 71 Members to 12. The lowest figure that I have yet heard is 36, a halving of the present representation, but even at 36 it would not be abnormal for those Members still to hold the balance in the House
  356
  of Commons. However much we reduce Scottish representation, we should still have to face the possibility that those 36 Members, if the figure were to be 36 would hold the balance of power.
  Mr. John Smith: I ask my hon. Friend to reflect further on that matter. The important point is not that Scottish Members would hold the balance. People do not come to the House of Commons as Scottish or English Members so much as members of the parties they represent.
  Mr. Cook: I am sorry if I do not carry my hon. Friend with me in this argument. I was referring to the situation to which he referred—namely, that the political balance among the 36 Members from Scotland could overturn the political balance which comes to the House of Commons from England and Wales. That has occurred in the past and it could recur.
  Mr. John Smith: I am not seeking to argue with my hon. Friend, but I ask him to consider this matter. The 12 Ulster Members were predominantly of one party and supported one play in the House of Commons. There would have to be as big a disparity as that between Conservative and Labour representation from Scotland to have the same effect as Ulster Members.
  Mr. Cook: At the moment, two out of the 12 Ulster Members do not normally sit on the Opposition Benches. One of them does not normally sit anywhere in particular in this Chamber, but certainly two do not sit on the Opposition Benches. Two out of 12 Members leaves 10, making a balance of eight. It does not require much imagination to envisage 36 Members from Scotland, assuming the figure were as low as that, achieving a balance of eight in one direction or the other.
  We cannot rely on the example of Ulster representation as an indication of the stability, tradition and tolerance with which the House of Commons has treated that matter. If my hon. Friend considers occasions when that balance of 10 was material, he will find that it was resented by Members who occupied his position at the Dispatch Box. In the period between 1964 and 1966, there is no shortage of examples of supokesmen at the Dispatch Box complaining about Ulster

  357
  Unionists voting on United Kingdom mainland affairs which had no effect on their constituents. The moment the same situation arose in the case of Scotland—and it is more likely to arise in Scotland—we should have some reflections from whichever hon. Member at the Dispatch Box was disadvantaged by the effect of it.
  I have explained that I am not necessarily convinced that reducing the numbers would be the appropriate way to treat this anomaly. If it is wrong for 71 hon. Members to vote on English education, it would be wrong for one hon. Member for Scotland to vote on it. But it is clear from our debates over the past three or four years that the only solution which has won any support in the House at all is precisely that of cutting the numbers, and it is plain to me that, if the devolution proposals go through, eventually the numbers from Scotland will be cut.
  I return to the point which I made in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). The referendum question is being put to the Scottish people on a false prospectus. It is being put on the basis that Scottish representation at Westminster will not be affected. However, it is plain that eventually Scottish representation at Westminster will be affected.
  I take up the argument of the hon. Member for Pentlands. He said that he would not necessarily object to a cut in representation as part of a total package but that he objected to it in isolation. He was right to say that. However, the reverse of that coin also obtains. If we put forward a package of devolution, we have also to put forward the other side of the coin, which will be reduced influence for Scotland in the House of Commons.
  Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman said that it would be wrong for Scottish hon. Members to vote on English education. However, since we are working on a single Treasury and since there is only a limited amount of money, if an English-only Assembly voted a lot more money for English education, there would undoubtedly be less money for Scotland. To my mind, the Scots have just as much right to vote on education in England as
  358
  English Members have to vote money to the Assembly for Scottish education.
  Mr. Cook: I think that it would be very unwise after devolution for Scottish hon. Members to press hard about the money being spent on English education or on English housing. They would only focus greater obloquy on the sums of money spent on Scottish education and housing which this same House of Commons would have to vote every year. Whatever hon. Members do in the House after devolution, I wager that they will not draw attention to the sums of money going to Scottish education. They would be wise to keep quiet about that.
  Following through the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, it would be equally logical for an English hon. Member to say that he wished to influence the amount going to Scottish education. By the hon. Gentleman's own principle, that will in turn reduce the amount available for spending on English education or on any form of English service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that one of the tragedies of the debate on this issue was that here we were again discussing the matter in a dichotomy between Scotland and England. Never before would we have discussed the relative sums being divided between Scottish education and English education. We might have debated whether there was enough going to education, whether some could have come out of defence or whether more could be raised from taxation. But to perceive a conflict of interest between the amount spent on English education and the amount spent on Scottish education is a new dimension in our debates and one which, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I find deeply disturbing.
  I return to the main burden of my speech. We have heard discussion in this debate of the alternative solutions which would involve not cutting numbers but trying to conduct some in and out formula. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has recognised the illogicality that that would create. The real problem is not that of defining which function would be in and which function would be out, on which Bills the Scots could vote and on which they could not. The real problem is that, because their

  359
  participation in one vote or the other could change the political balance, there must be a separate administration for those functions in respect of which the Scottish Members are "out" Members.
  In other words, the real problem is not how to define the functions but, once again, the anomaly of creating a unique and distinct tier of government in Scotland which does not obtain in England. From that flows the difficulty, as does the question of taxation and the problem of what reserve powers one has. As long as we seek to set up a unique and distinct tier of government within a unitary State for only part of that unitary State, we shall be left with that anomaly and find it difficult to solve.
  I am impressed by the fact that in the hour and a half that I have sat listening to this debate no speaker has sought to defend the present proposals. Some hon. Members have sought to defend the present level of representations for Scotland, but each of them has recognised that there will be a problem at Westminster that still has to be solved.
  Mr. Dalyell: No speaker since 4 o'clock has defended the present proposals.
  Mr. Cook: I suspected as much, but I did not wish to hazard the guess. Nobody since 4 o'clock has defended the present proposals.
  I was particularly impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I think that those who heard it will agree that it marked an advance or certainly a shift, from the previous position that he has put forward. I hold my hon. Friend in great affection. I think I can say that I am one of the closest to him in the House of Commons, but it will not do to say "I cannot see any solution to the West Lothian question".
  We cannot say that there is no solution to this problem and at the same time say that, nevertheless, we shall go ahead with these proposals and seek to get them endorsed in a referendum. If we have reached the position where we can see these proposals creating problems and we are then obliged to say that there is no solution to them, it is time that we reconsidered the proposals.
  Mr. Buchan: I always argued in relation—
  The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has concluded his speech.
  Mr. Henderson: It is almost five hours since I had the pleasure of saying how much we admired the patience and calm with which you, Mr. Murton, tackled the difficult job of selecting amendments.
  There is, however, one member of the Committee who has had a greater burden to carry than you have, and that is the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), because he has had to persist with 13 days of debate on devolution without defining his party's policy on the issue, and that is an extreme burden which no right hon. or hon. Member should be expected to carry.
  The right hon. Gentleman's solution to this issue is similar to his solution to the whole question of devolution, and that is to refer it to some unnamed, unspecified conference, which, somehow or other, will gather together information from far and wide, pick up every academic treatise on the subject, and present us with a nice package answer which, curiously enough, all of us have overlooked for so long, and that will satisfy the situation.
  I do not think that it is good enough for the Conservative Party to come forward with this kind of new clause without putting its money on the table. Are Conservative Members saying that Scottish representation should be reduced? If so, by how much? We have heard cries of pain from Scottish Conservative Members, and that is natural enough. I think it is a fair expression of view on their behalf that this should not happen, but we have heard hints and suggestions from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and others in this Committee that Scottish representation ought to be reduced.
  The Conservative Party has been less than honest in this matter. If it had genuinely held that view it should have responded to the challenge issued by the Minister of State and said "In the circumstances, for these reasons, we think it fair, right and just that Scottish membership should be reduced from, let us

  361
  say, 71 to 57, 63, 36 or whatever the figure might be".
  8.45 p.m.
  The Tory Party is not entitled to bring forward this type of new clause without giving us a clear indication where it stands on the issue. Having heard the debate I take it that the Conservatives will withdraw the new clause and not vote upon it. Very few serious arguments have been made in favour of a Speaker's Conference to examine Scottish representation.
  If the level of Scottish representation in the House of Commons is wrong, it is wrong irrespective of whether we have the Bill. It is wrong, whether or not there is an Assembly. Hon. Members should take that into consideration.
  As other hon. Members have said, a Scottish representation will be required in the House of Commons after the Assembly comes into being because major matters will still remain the responsibility of the House of Commons. These will include matters concerning the Treasury, the Department of Trade, the Department of Industry, the Department of Energy, and so on. All this affects Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) went into that aspect skilfully and with great effect.
  The implication in the new clause is that because the Scots are to have an Assembly they should be taught a lesson by cutting down their representation in the House of Commons. That attitude has been revealed in several speeches. Some hon. Members say that because the Scots have an Assembly there will be ill feeling in England and that the English will want to know why the number of Scottish Members has not been reduced. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) took that attitude.
  Certain Members of the House of Commons are trying to have their cake and eat it, because, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others have so eloquently said, they will agree to devolution so long as the House of Commons remains exactly the same and there is no change in procedures or practices.
  362
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) expressed some opposition to that view, but that is the nub of the matter. The House of Commons cannot remain the same. The solution to the West Lothian question is by way of the East Aberdeenshire answer in New Clause 14—by the establishment of an English Assembly. Under this provision Mr. Speaker would certify which matters were exclusively of English concern and in which Scots Members could not participate.
  What of the Executive in the Assembly? The Executive is already there to deal with those matters in which English Ministers have no competence. Many of the functions of the Department of the Environment, such as English local government, rates, housing and drainage, do not affect Scotland at present. There is already an embryo Executive. The Department of Education and Science exercises few functions in relation to Scotland, for instance. We have seen the transference of the major function of responsibility for Scottish universities, but the major responsibility for education in Scotland is exercised by the Minister in the Scottish Office who is responsible for education in Scotland. We are seeking to add to it an English Assembly.
  Mr. George Cunningham: If the majority of the English Members are Conservative and the majority of the British Members are Labour, will there be a Conservative Education Minister and a Labour Foreign Secretary? Will they be in the same Cabinet, or will there be completely separate Executives for Britain and England? That would be, to say the least, a considerable change in our constitutional arrangements, which has not been faced up to in any part of the kingdom, north or south of the border.
  Mr. Henderson: We are getting to the crux of the matter. The purpose of giving powers to a Scottish or Welsh Assembly is so that the people of those countries shall determine for themselves what decisions should be taken in those defined and particular fields. Had the Government approached this in a proper constitutional manner they would have provided for an English Assembly at the same time, so that the people of England

  363
  would have the right to decide these matters for themselves within their own context.
  We are faced with a hybrid situation in which, if the House of Commons is shorn of its Scottish Members to become an English Assembly on occasions, the question arises, who forms the Executive? The Executive will be formed from the House of Commons as a whole, as at present, but if, for example, there were a Labour Government for the whole of the United Kingdom and a Conservative majority in England, it would mean that the Labour Government, coming to what effectively would be an English Assembly would not be able to put through the policies they wished because they would not have the confidence of the majority of the people for those policies. There is the problem. Hon. Members laugh, but that is what devolution is about. It is that each nation in this Kingdom should have the right to decide certain affairs for itself.
  Mr. Brittan: I can quite see that a United Kingdom Government would not be able to decide on the policy that it wished to recommend in England, but who would decide on the policy for England in that case? Who would take on the administration? Nothing that the hon. Member has said, in any part of his "East Aberdeenshire answer", gives us any idea what would be the English Executive in that situation.
  Mr. Henderson: In that case the Government for the United Kingdom would be unable to command a majority in England and they would find it impossible to get their legislation through in respect of England unless they could persuade members of other parties to support them.
  Mr. Raison: I am fascinated by this argument. The hon. Member is saying that it would be possible to have an Executive that was responsible to two different Assemblies—the English Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament. Will he apply the same possibility to Scotland? There has been some argument about this. One might come up with the idea that one could have a single Executive in Scotland answerable to a Scottish Assembly and to the United
  364
  Kingdom Parliament. That was one of the ideas put forward by some in the Conservative Party. I was unaware that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) was sympathetic to it.
  Mr. Henderson: I am relieved to hear that the Conservative Party is putting forward some idea. I am sure that the hon. Member is seeking to be constructive. This is one of the consequences that the Government must face. If they are not prepared to legislate for an English Assembly which is directly elected they have to make do with whatever makeshift arrangements can be cobbled up within this House.
  If the Government are not prepared to look at the matter in the round and say that since Scotland and Wales have Assemblies England should logically have one, and that there should be certain arrangements for United Kingdom matters in addition to that, they must face these makeshift arrangements, which would be only proper and right, for the benefit of the people of England.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Right from the beginning of this business of devolution English representatives have been told that it had nothing to do with them and that they should stay out of it. They have been told that Scotland is entitled to the arrangements and the consequences that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) is now describing on their say-so. Will the hon. Gentleman give considerable publicity to what he has said in the last five minutes, because it proves that, though independence may be only about Scotland, the devolution arrangements are definitely about England, and leave England with the possibility as he has just said, of cobbling up some makeshift arrangements? Will he make sure that the people of Scotland understand that and see why some of us think that it is not a desirable arrangement?
  Mr. Henderson: I wonder where the hon. Member has been all this time. I thought that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I had made it quite clear from the beginning that we regarded the Bill as a very inadequate measure to deal with the problems. We have made no secret of it. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), with the air of a

  365
  Sherlock Holmes, said today "These people are really after independence. Watch them. They want independence." I congratulate the hon. Member on his discovery. Had he asked the SNP we should have told him long before.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore repudiate the statement by the SNP candidate for Glasgow, Garscadden, that he would be fighting the by-election on every issue except independence, because independence is only an abstraction?
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: He never said that at all.
  Mr. Henderson: I think that that statement must have appeared in one of the newspapers about which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) takes such offence. I have no doubt that the campaign for Glasgow, Garscadden, will be fought on the same basis as those in Aberdeenshire, East, Western Isles and all the other seats that we have won—the basis that the only way to solve Scotland's problems is by getting control by independence.
  Because the Government have not seen fit to introduce proper arrangements for the transaction of English business, an alternative must be considered. It is no good picking holes in the various solutions and saying "You cannot have devolution because it does not work" or "You cannot have that because that does not work." The people of Scotland will say "Look, it is up to you people in England to sort out for yourselves what you want. Why are you trying to stop us having our own Government and Parliament, simply because you have not sorted it out yourselves?" We have been arguing about it since the Treaty of Union.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He has been generous in giving way during his speech, which has been largely made by other people. He is advocating a proper federal system, which I approve of, but one cannot graft New Clause 14 on to the Bill. The various functions of the different parts of the federal system would need to be defined in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is to advocate New Clause 14 he will have to redraft the whole Bill.
  Mr. Henderson: I am always grateful for any support from the right hon. Gentleman. I would say that the new clause would mean not a proper federal system but a quite improper federal system, because of the way in which the Bill is drafted. Rather than saying "The following powers are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and everything else goes to the Assembly", the Government have said, in a Bill so large and complex that it creaks at the seams. "These are the powers you are getting, and not a stroke of the pen more." The Bill has its weaknesses on these grounds.
  I take the comments made by hon. Members for English constituencies about the sense of unfairness that may be felt by their constituents as a result of this proposal. It was for that reason, to be helpful, that I drafted New Clause 14 and placed it before the Committee. It has the support of four parties in the House. I believe that although the clause may not be called and voted on tonight, the issue that it raises and its implications will be with us for a very long time. The Committee must realise that the position cannot remain the same when devolution has come and the pressure for change is there.
  The hon. Member for Pentlands read out a list of Bills which would still be appropriate here and those appropriate for the Assembly, but we are in a dynamic situation. What happens on Day 1 of the Bill's coming into effect will be very different from what happens even on Day 30, because the pressure for a greater transfer of power to the people of Scotland will soon become irresistible.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Henderson: Hon. Members clearly thought that I had finished. I have never been to a greyhound track, but I can now guess what it looks like.
  I hope that the Conservatives will ask leave to withdraw their rather foolish clause. It has enabled us to have an extremely good debate, but if it is withdrawn we can move on to more important matters.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: On our thirteenth Committee day we still have as many unanswered questions as there were before we started our consideration of

  367
  the Bill. It is high time that the Minister of State tried to clear up some of the problems posed, particularly over Scottish membership of the House of Commons.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) was only drawing red herrings over the proceedings, because he knows perfectly well that New Clause 14 is not a starter on any greyhound track. Anyone reading it would think "Here is the basis for a federal solution", which is not before us.
  I share the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) that the number of 71 Members is not sacrosanct. It can be altered by the Boundary Commission, and as matters stand it probably should be altered in the central parts of Edinburgh and Glasgow.
  I have grave doubts, however, that we should accept a clause which sets up a Speaker's Conference purely to look at membership of the House. I entirely supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) last year when he suggested a Speaker's Conference to look at the whole issue of devolution, in an endeavour to achieve central acceptance by all parties in the House and move forward constructively. But that did not come to pass, and I believe that now to propose a Speaker's Conference purely on membership gives by implication a strong indication that would be to reduce the number rather than to maintain it or—even less likely—to increase it.
  Therefore, on the first count, as a Scottish Member, I cannot support the clause, because I do not wish to see the representation here reduced. The matter was admirably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands, who showed in great detail the significant amount of work still remaining for Scottish Members at Westminster.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East brought out an important point about the size of constituencies. We appreciate that the new Assemblymen and women will have a part to play in a constituency in the work that we are presently doing. Scotland is similar to Northern Ireland in that it has very large constituencies in both numbers and area, although
  368
  the numbers are not as great as in Northern Ireland. There will be matters of grave concern to those who represent the rural areas of Scotland in the House.
  The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) rightly said that he had the largest constituency and that if there were a formula that could relate size to population he would still have the largest, because he also has a very large electorate. My constituency would not be far behind, because it comprises 1,075 sq. miles and has a population of 90,000. It would come very high in the league of large constituencies and constituencies with large populations. It would be asking a very great deal of the dozen or so constituencies with huge areas to propose linking them with other constituencies. It would certainly be asking a great deal of the hon. Members concerned. From the practical point of view, I do not think it is possible to reduce many Scottish constituencies in size by linking them together and seeking to make them more concentrated.
  The most important issue is that of the practicalities which would follow a Speaker's Conference which was set up to endeavour to reduce the number of Scottish constituencies. In general, it would tend to link together the large constituencies, most of which have a comparatively small population.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: With respect, I do not think there is a suggestion that any kind of redrawing would affect constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency or mine, or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Three or four seats in Glasgow have electorates of under 40,000, and at least one Edinburgh constituency is of that sort of size. There is room for change in the urban areas. No one is suggesting that Scotland is vastly over-represented, but it is overrepresented to a degree. Hon. Members will recall that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) gave the constituency figures as 53,000 for Scotland and 66,000 for England.
  Mr. Monro: No one has more experience than the hon. Gentleman of the subject we are discussing. The Royal Commission looked at it in some detail. But I think that most of the figures that are bandied about tend to put the possible

  369
  Scottish representation at under 60. That would mean that we should lose certainly 10 to 15 seats, and that would be far too many.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Seven seats.
  Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman says seven, but I tend to think of the figures as being in the 50s rather than the 60s. I feel that there would be a risk, bearing in mind the political implications and the reluctance to give up seats. Some of the rural seats would be in danger if there were to be a reduction in Scottish representation. In some of these constituencies important issues of fishing and agriculture arise, on which the advice of hon. Members is often of great importance.
  I shall need a lot of persuasion before wishing to see the new clause passsed, bearing in mind the likelihood of the detrimental effects to which I have drawn attention. The real issue has been dodged night in and night out for a very long time, and on this matter I shall wait to see which of the two Front Benches is able to persuade me the most.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: From the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), it is apparent that there is considerable reluctance on either side of the Committee to make any major reduction in Scottish representation. When the chips are down, it probably would not be in the practical interests of any party in the House of Commons to make a major move in that direction.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) to consider whether that political fact of life does not also represent a perfectly reasonable constitutional logic, not just at present but in relation to the processes which will be working in British politics in the next 10 or 20 years. He said that no hon. Member in the debate had so far supported the position of the Government as put forward in the Bill. As he very well knows, there is a simple parliamentary reason for that in that Back Benchers who support Government policy very often leave it to Ministers to make the case adequately for them. Since my hon. Friend has made the point, I am only too happy to support the case that the Government are arguing here.
  370
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) does his constituency a grave injustice by describing it as "darkest Buckinghamshire". It is possible that there will be whipped up in the shires of England a certain antagonism about the possibility that a Tory Government, emerging from purely English Members, might turn into a Labour Government because of the balance of Members in Scotland and Wales. But that situation has always existed, and it is not affected by any marginal or even by any substantial reduction of Scottish Members in the House. I do not think that this argument of the shires carries much weight.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind), in a well-argued speech, pointed out that the great majority of matters before the House concerned Scottish Members every bit as much as English Members. Economic, industrial, energy, labour, social security, trade and defence matters are of concern to all hon. Members. It would not be a bad idea if some of us who represent Scottish seats took perhaps a greater interest in wider United Kingdom matters rather than in purely parochial issues. I exempt from that charge my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central, who has an exceptional interest in defence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).
  The argument about what is called the West Lothian question is in the last resort a matter for the English and the Welsh. I accept that they would choose to argue out that constitutional issue in this Parliament. I disagree with the kind of development as seen by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), who suggests that there should be an English Assembly and, perhaps, a federal constitution as a step towards the general break-up of the United Kingdom. I do not think it would work like that.
  Far and away the greatest constitutional pressure brought to bear on this place by the Scottish Assembly will be not by the balance of Members but by the way it conducts its own business. It will be a modern Parliament, and it will not be hung about with antiquated procedures and frustrating rules which beset Back Benchers in the House of Commons

  371
  In the procedures that we have given to the Scottish Assembly, and the procedures that the Assembly will adopt for itself, there is an opportunity to operate a modern Parliament. As experience has shown in the European Parliament, when this opportunity exists a happier balance can be produced than that which we have here. We have to proceed by piecemeal reform. We can never manage what we want. It is a frustrating business, and it takes a long time, but with the experience of the Scottish Assembly and the European Parliament we will be assisted, not frustrated, in the business of developing our own procedures.
  On the question of the balance between urban and rural constituencies, the reason why we had a smaller number of voters in rural constituencies in the past was not only the communications problem. This has changed greatly by almost universal car ownership. Communications problems in large counties are nothing like as great as they were in the past.
  There was also the lag in response of constituency boundaries to the movement of population. In the past we had counties with certain populations. As the population moved out into the towns and declined in the counties, broadly similar boundaries were retained. Now the population is moving out of the inner cities into the suburbs and the countryside, and we are left with smaller urban constituencies like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central.
  There is a powerful argument of social justice here. Inner urban areas with smaller electorates deserve a greater weight in the House. If one balances the attention given to the rural areas with that given to the inner cities, I have not a shadow of doubt that one would find that the urban areas have been neglected in this place and that they deserve sustained representation.
  9.15 p.m.
  I would not be confident that if there were a revision of boundaries in Scotland it would necessarily result in a net reduction of the number of urban seats. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) says that my claim is ridiculous, but his constituency has benefited almost more than any other from the movement of population. Its problems are different from those of
  372
  Islington, and I would guess that Islington's problems are greater.
  Mr. Raison: Surely the real point is whether it should be within the power of the Boundary Commission to make important political decisions of that sort. I should be surprised if the Commission said suddenly that it was weighting its decisions in favour of inner city areas.
  Dr. Bray: I agree. It would not be for the Commission to do that, but it could be for the House of Commons to give such an instruction to the Commission in the light of the balance of representation needed in this place to cope with the problems of the nation.
  The matter with which we are dealing is not the representation of Scotland in the United Kingdom. It is the question of devolution to the Scottish Assembly and Executive in Scotland. Representation in this place has been introduced as a balancing quid pro quo to the shift in political forces. But that leaves out the fact that the setting up of the Assembly is itself a response to political forces and to the wish of people, certainly in Scotland and, I suggest, more generally, to have a greater say in the decision-making on matters that affect them alone.
  If we confuse the political pressures at work and say that we shall have to throw into the current political package a change in the representation at Westminster, we shall be going against the constitutional logic of the situation. It is better to limit the number of constitutional changes made in any one package. Certainly we have to make it big enough to be acceptable to the House, but we must also take into account the wider considerations of the changing character of the social and political problems with which the House will have to deal.
  Mr. Sproat: The Committee has two reasons to be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for tabling the new clause.
  The first is that it has brought home the peculiar fact that in the referendum campaign three parties will be supporting the Bill—the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the SNP. We have heard from the SNP that it will support the Bill only because it will lead to independence. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has told us that the Liberal Party

  373
  does not believe in the Bill, but will support it because it will lead to federalism. Labour Members who campaign for the Bill will find peculiar bedfellows in Scotland.
  The flaws and fissures in the case being presented for a "Yes" vote in the referendum will be brought out by the extraordinary disparity between the desire of the SNP for total separation to be brought about by the Bill and the Government's attempts to persuade us that they are bringing the Bill forward for precisely opposite reasons. This has been brought out in a clear and relatively succinct way during the debate.
  The second reason for the Committee to be grateful to my right hon. Friend is that once again, perhaps in its sharpest form, we have been brought up against the insoluble problem that lies at the heart of the Bill. Either we keep the same number of Members of Parliament for Scotland in the House of Commons after devolution, which would be unfair to England, because there might be a British majority based merely on the Scottish Members of Parliament, who would be deciding the effect of legislation in England whereas English Members would have no right to decide such matters in Scotland, or we keep the same number of MPs, which is still unfair to England. On the other hand, if we reduce the number of MPs for Scotland and reduce the Scottish voice on such matters as taxation, North Sea oil, defence and foreign affairs, that is unfair to Scotland.
  The single most important Department is probably the Treasury. If we reduce the Scottish ability to influence the Treasury, that will be unfair to Scotland. There is no way in which the issue can be reconciled. If we keep the same number of MPs, it is unfair to England. If we reduce the number of Scottish MPs, it is unfair to Scotland.
  I hope that for the first time in the 34 days that we have been debating this subject the Minister of State will address himself to that issue and try to give us an answer. Let him not pretend that because he cannot give an answer there is no question. The question of what, in justice, should be the number of MPs from Scotland in the House of Commons, will be
  374
  one of the key issues in the referendum debate.
  I emphasise that once again we face not only this insoluble problem but another inevitable consequence of the Bill, namely, resentment between Scotland and England. We have argued many times how resentment in Scotland will be whipped up by SNP Members. Indeed, raison d'etre in political life is to whip up that resentment. We have resentment in Scotland directed against England, but if the number of Scottish MPs in this place remains the same we shall have resentment in England directed against Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said that fairly and rightly, although I did not agree with the tentative conclusions that he drew. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has made it clear that there will be a two-way resentment between Scotland and England. In that way a wedge will be driven between the two. That is something that springs at us from every new clause or amendment that we consider.
  A number of hon. Members have proposed the "in and out" solution. It is not necessary to try to demolish that solution at any length. Surely it is a totally ludicrous proposition that in this place we should have a British Government depending, for example, on Scottish Labour Members for their majority, they being responsible, for example, for taxation, North Sea oil and immigration, and an English Conservative majority being responsible not for taxation but for spending about 80 per cent. of that taxation in England, being responsible for 80 per cent. of the education of the United Kingdom and 80 per cent. of law and order.
  There is no way in which we can have a sort of political musical chairs, with, say, a Labour Government Front Bench presiding on United Kingdom matters, and then the House suddenly discussing matters affecting England—80 per cent. of the United Kingdom—and having Tories sitting on the Government Front Bench. The whole thing is preposterous, yet that is the solution advanced by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). That is the "in and

  375
  out" solution. I hope that we shall hear no more of that grotesque proposal in this House of Commons.
  The fact that it is grotesque is an example that wherever we turn in the Bill we find only grotesque answers and suggestions. In that respect the Bill is flawed. On the Government Front Bench is the Lord President, the man who is always telling us—in most cases rightly—that the House of Commons can always find answers to any problem. As he is present, will he tell us the answer to the West Lothian question? I give the right hon. Gentleman a full opportunity to answer that point. Obviously, he does not wish to do so.
  I see that the Minister of State has now returned to the Committee. I thought that he had left our proceedings, and I was addressing my remarks to the Lord President of the Council. No doubt the Minister of State will try to answer my question when he replies to the debate.
  In a country such as the United Kingdom, which is one country, we need one Parliament. We cannot have a subsidiary Parliament in a unitary system.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Four countries.
  Mr. Sproat: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the United Kingdom being four countries, and if he had his way no doubt that would be the case. But at this moment we are one British country with one British Parliament. One can have independence if one is stupid enough. I suppose it is an intellectual or logically tenable argument, but what is not logical or tenable is to have a subdivision of a unitary system with a devolved Parliament in Scotland and a Parliament at Westminster catering for many matters.
  It has been said that Scotland is overrepresented. I do not agree with that argument. I would argue strongly against any reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. I do so not simply because I am a Scottish Member but because logic dictates the present situation.
  There are a number of reasons why we have a certain number of Members of Parliament representing certain areas. The first requirement relates to population, the second to geographical size, and the third to the character of the area. It is often pointed out that if one takes the
  376
  population of Scotland and its total number of Members of Parliament and compares that exercise with the situation in England and the total number of its Members of Parliament, Scotland comes out on top. But that argument fails to recognise the fact that we are talking not just about the relationship between population and electorate but about the relationship between population and the character and size of the constituency. All those factors must be considered.
  The formula of population, geographical size and character does not apply only to Scotland. Comparable English constituencies are treated in much the same way. I have obtained some figures from the Library relating to half a dozen constituencies. They may be said to be unrepresentative, but I do not believe they are, because they happen to be the first comparable constituencies that came into my mind.
  Let me compare the county of Cornwall with Tayside, which is an interesting comparison up to a point. The population of Cornwall is 407,000; the population of Tayside is 400,000. Cornwall is represented by five hon. Members, Tayside by four. In other words, the ratio of Members to population in Cornwall is 1:82,000 and in Tayside it is 1:101,000. Tayside, in addition to be slightly worse off in representation, also has an extra 1 million acres. Therefore, Tayside compares slightly unfavourably with Cornwall, although the population of the two areas are roughly the same.
  Let us take as another example the area of Cumbria compared with the Grampian area in Scotland. Cumbria has a population of 475,000 and is represented by seven Members of Parliament, whereas the Grampian Region has a population of 453,000 but is represented by only five Members. In that exercise Cumbria, for purposes of representation, is slightly better off with a ratio of 1:68,000 whereas the figure for the Grampian Region is 1:75,000. I also have the figures for the areas of Norfolk and The Border. The figure for Norfolk comes out at approximately at 1:95,000, whereas the figure for The Border is 1: 99,000.
  I suggest that Scotland is not treated differently because of any essential "Scottishness". It is not being said "Because of the identity of Scotland, you

  377
  will be given more Members of Parliament". The formula applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, it is illusory to say that Scotland has more seats in relation to population than does England.
  There are places—Glasgow, for instance—where there is an under-population. I seem to remember that the Newcastle constituency of the now noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, was tiny. I am not complaining about that. These matters can be sorted out at the next Boundary Commission review. All that I am doing is making the point that the same principle applies to Scotland as applies to England. Therefore, to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament because, somehow, my hon. Friends who represent English seats feel that Scotland is getting an unfair advantage, is not an argument based on the facts.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Budgen: After devolution.
  Mr. Sproat: That is true, but a number of my hon. Friends have said that it applies before devolution as well. I have also argued that after devolution the voice of the Scottish Office on matters such as taxation, foreign affairs, oil and so on should not be reduced. However, there is a real dilemma here. As I have explained, it is unfair to Scotland or to England once one starts devolving, but that dilemma can be very easily solved. The solution is to retain one Parliament for one country, so that there is no problem about resolving the dilemma.
  Mr. Raison: On a purely factual point, and not particularly a debating point, is it not a matter of history that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament is laid down by Act of Parliament and that the Scottish seats are not allocated on exactly the same basis as those for Members of Parliament in England?
  Mr. Sproat: Yes, that is in the Act of Union. That matter has been touched upon. I cannot quote the exact words. However, if one applies commonsense principles to what should dictate the area represented by a Member of Parliament, one finds that England and Scotland are treated very much the same in comparable areas.
  378
  I thought that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was slightly uncharitable about the new clause. I shall not seek to refute what he said in detail, except to say that for someone who is as much opposed to devolution as he is, I find no difficulty whatever in supporting the new clause.
  The hon. Member mentioned the Crowther-Hunt Commission, the Kilbrandon Commission, and so on. I agree that they excited expectations which we are now being asked to fulfil. That was a mistake. But the proposals in the new clause are not for a Speaker's Conference parallel to a Royal Commission which could excite expectations that it would not fulfil. Those expectations would have already been written into the law of the land by the passing of the Bill as an Act. Therefore, having a Speaker's Conference after these proposals have become an Act is quite different from a Royal Commission set up to help to brush aside the SNP or to solve difficulties in Scotland.
  Mr. Dalyell: Like it or not, something will come out of a Speaker's Conference, otherwise it would be simply a device to be used. People would hope that something would come out of it.
  Mr. Sproat: I do not agree.
  My final point is that I detest the Bill. If passed, it will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is my present belief. However, when we are legislating in this place we cannot say "I disagree with this and will have nothing more to do with it." One seeks to put into a Bill what safeguards one can. Therefore, tiny safeguard as it is, having a Speaker's Conference to consider the number of Scottish Members of Parliament here after devolution would be a fall-back. I hope that I have made that clear to hon. Members who think that Scottish representation is unfair. At present, Scottish representation is roughly fair. Therefore, as some kind of small but definite fall-back for those who detest and will fight against the Bill all the way, I shall support the new clause.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: I should like to begin on something that is not central to my argument. Over the many years, on and off—and in and out—that I have

  379
  been a Member of the House of Commons, I have never heard from the Opposition Benches the argument that it is unfair that in this Chamber there should be Ulster Members who should be deciding on English, Scottish and Welsh business. I heard it some years ago from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), but I have not heard it from the Opposition Benches. The most extreme argument that has occasionally surfaced today—that we cannot have a Scottish Assembly and at the same time Scottish representation on all matters in the House of Commons—is illogical if we accept that it has been proper for more than half a century to have representation from Northern Ireland.
  When Mr. Murton was in the Chair at the beginning of today's proceedings, Sir Myer, we began, not surprisingly, with a series of points of order. That has become standard form. If I wish for one thing for the Scottish Assembly, it is that it may avoid our errors. At least today I may claim that I lost my virtue, or even my virginity, because, in all the years that I have been a Member, I have not raised a point of order, though I have sometimes been driven to reply to one. However, I did raise a point of order today. I think now that I got it wrong. I suggested that, if we were to debate New Clause 1, perhaps Mr. Murton's ruling that we could not debate New Clause 14 was wrong. Having heard the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I am convinced that my argument should have been that if we could not debate New Clause 14, New Clause 1 was out of order too.
  I say that for the simple reason that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire concerned himself almost entirely not with the government of Scotland, with which the Long Title of the Bill is concerned, but with the government of England and Wales and of the United Kingdom as a whole. Indeed, he was concerned not even with the good government of England and Wales but with a more conservative government of England and Wales.
  The whole burden of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was: how can we reduce representation from Scotland in
  380
  the House of Commons to make it more likely that we have a Conservative majority in this place? That is a summation of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but those of us who listened to him were in no doubt as to his meaning.
  I became a little depressed that we should consider high constitutional matters on the basis of such a low level of argument. Indeed, when the right hon. Gentleman said "It is imperative that we refer this question to a Speaker's Conference, but I cannot reveal to the Committee what argument or evidence I would put to that Speaker's Conference" and simultaneously implied that the only purpose was to secure a reduction in Scottish representation, I was well nigh at the point of despair.
  Fortunately, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was followed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who analysed the problem with that clarity of which only he is capable—provided that he stays off certain dangerous topics. Today he was at his best. I cannot but agree with him.
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman referred to remarks that I made earlier. Does he agree that, for example, evidence submitted by various parties and others to the Speaker's Conference presently sitting regarding Northern Ireland representation is not public? It is not within the knowledge of the Committee. Therefore, why should it be within the knowledge of the Committee for Scotland?
  Mr. Fowler: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I was asking him not to publish his evidence but to expound the argument behind his evidence. If he does not know that yet believes that the matter should be submitted to a Speaker's Conference, he is in a most remarkable position. If he does not know the central theme of his evidence, he should not be troubling the Committee for a whole day with a new clause on this theme. The right hon. Member for Down, South made clear—I make no bones about repeating part of his argument—what was wrong with some of the arguments adduced by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.

  381
  If we take a theme which has recurred throughout this debate—namely, that Scotland is in any event over-represented, all we can say—and I quote here part of the argument of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire—is that we accept the standard argument that for rural constituencies with sparse populations, constituencies where movement is for geographical reasons difficult and constituencies which are very remote from the House, where access to the House is difficult, we have to have a higher representation for a smaller electorate. That phenomenon is much more common in Scotland as a proportion of the total of Scotland than it is in England, although I know about the overrepresentation of certain Central Glasgow seats and one Central Edinburgh seat.
  To that I say only, picking up the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), that once upon a time when I was responsible for devolution I worked with the then right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, now Lord Glenamara. One day, he said to me "Why are you always so busy with your constituency correspondence? I deal with mine in no time at all". I replied "It so happens that my constituency has an electorate which is four and a half times that of yours". We get these disparities in England too.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend tell another story about Lord Glenamara? How is it that he was so adamant that he was right about devolution during the six months when he had responsibility for it in the House of Commons, yet when he became Chairman of the North of England Development Council he said "We must watch devolution like a hawk"?
  Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) must answer his own question. It is not my task to regale the Committee with stories about Lord Glenamara, though I know that he is held in great affection in all parts of the Chamber.
  I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider my own county of Salop. The electorate in my constituency is at least one-third greater than that in any other
  382
  constituency in the county. In one constituency which returns an hon. Member to the Opposition Benches, the electorate is scarcely more than half that in my own constituency. However, I do not complain, because my constituency happens to be geographically the smallest constituency in Salop. We have to balance these factors. If we balance them between Scotland and England, give or take one or two, the representation of Scotland is about right.
  We then proceed to the other major argument which has been advanced today—that, if Scotland has devolution, it is imperative that the representation of Scotland in the House should be cut.
  This is where the right hon. Member for Down, South analysed the problem very clearly. There are a variety of solutions to the problem. However, in my mind the one which is least acceptable is the notion that we simply cut representation. It rests upon no principle. There is no possible means of determining what is the fraction of otherwise proper representation which would be appropriate.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that in his view numbers should be related to roles. But it is clear that after devolution the role of a Scottish Member in the House of Commons will be exactly the same as that of an English Member as the new clause stands, at least taken in conjunction with the rest of the Bill. The Scottish Member is here to perform exactly the same role, with the right to speak on exactly the same matters and to vote on exactly the same matters. There is no lesser work load for that hon. Member. Therefore, it would be quite unfair, as the amendment suggests, to ensure that he represented on average a much larger constituency. It can be said that his constituency duties—those matters of which we take little account formally in the House—will be so much the less by virtue of the Scottish Assembly. I have some doubt about that. There are many matters that are reserved and not devolved. Not least of these are social security matters, and we know how large a part they play in a Member's postbag and surgery. One of my hon. Friends suggests income tax as another subject with which we have to deal, and he is right.

  383
  9.45 p.m.
  It might be said that housing will not be a Member's responsibility, and that is right. It is not at the moment either, but everyone in this Chamber knows how many housing cases are brought to us, whether or not this subject is our responsibility. I doubt whether the Member's constituency role in that sense will be very much reduced, and I am certain that his constituency role in the social, formal sense will not be reduced at all.
  The Member might have a couple of standing reserves, as it were, in the shape of Scottish Assembly Members when he cannot open the women's institute bazaar, but I doubt whether it will be the case that he will not receive the same number of invitations. I do not see the case for saying that his role will be significantly different and that, therefore, the numbers should be reduced.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that, on the basis of the service creating the demand, the fact that the service was there would make it possible for the Member of Parliament to have more work to do rather than less because there is a whole involvement of other people in the service that is being made?
  Mr. Fowler: I regret that my hon. Friend might be right, because the experience of us all is that when we reform local government, for example, and seek to make it more efficient, far from reducing the work load on a Member of Parliament it increases it, partly because people do not understand it and partly because they insist on using the Member of Parliament as a quasi court of last appeal. There seems little that we can do about that.
  Mr. Ken Weetch: Before my hon. Friend leaves this matter, will he clarify one issue? It has been argued in the Committee that Northern Ireland has consistently been under-represented and that the reason for that is that in the past it had certain devolved powers. Should it not follow, therefore, in principle, that if Scotland is to have certain devolved powers, automatically, in principle that must lead to the same conclusion?
  Mr. Fowler: That would not follow, in my view at least, because I make no bones about saying that the 1921 settle-
  384
  ment for Northern Ireland was irrational. Here I follow the right hon. Member for Down, South, who spelt out the history of that proposal.
  I see no rhyme or reason in the notion that, if there is a devolved Assembly, representation in the House should be reduced. I hope that the Northern Ireland anomaly will be rectified before too long, whatever the character of the representation that we then receive from Northern Ireland, because I do not want to follow the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire down a covert political road.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South was also right in suggesting that the new clause made sense, but only in the context of the new clause that we cannot debate because it has been ruled out of order. Were it the case that, in accordance with the unmentionable New Clause 14, we were to reduce the role of Scottish Members in the House by saying that we should have an "in and out" system, that there would be certain matters upon which they could speak and vote and certain matters upon which they could not speak or vote, it would make sense to say that because their work load had been reduced there should be less representation per number of electors in Scotland than in England. But only in that context would it make sense.
  That is precisely the parallel provision that we cannot sensibly advance, for reasons which have been spelt out, not least by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. It makes no sense to say that we shall have "in and out" Members. That proposal was explicitly rejected by the Kilbrandon Commission. It was rightly rejected by the Kilbrandon Commission. That was partly because of the difficulty of ruling upon what should be purely English and Welsh matters upon which Scottish Members could not vote.
  There is a great difficulty. Inevitably, English and Welsh matters will have some spin-off effect on Scottish matters—most conspicuously when concerned with finance. Further, one cannot have sitting in the same House an English and Welsh Government with a majority and a separate and different United Kingdom Government, also with a majority. That makes no sense. If the Government are to be a United Kingdom Government,

  385
  one cannot tolerate a situation in which they might be subject to regular defeat on English and Welsh matters.
  Since the war, there have been only two Parliaments in which there was a United Kingdom Labour Government which was also the majority Government for England and Wales. On one of those occasions it was a tight squeeze. In 1966 there was in England a majority of one, or something of that order. That sort of situation would create repeatedly an unstable Government of the United Kingdom which would be subject to regular defeat in the House of Commons on English and Welsh matters. That is inconceivable.
  We must reject the "in and out" system. We must reject the new clause because it makes no sense except upon the basis of an "in and out" system.
  Mr. Henderson: I am interested in what the hon. Member has to say. He said that there would be instability in the United Kingdom Parliament, but we are at present in a position of instability because the Government cannot command obedient support from their own supporters.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: That is because the hon. Member was hiding in the Lobby.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) should hold his weesht. The corollary would be that if the Government had no majority from their own supporters—from English Members—they would have to seek support from other parties to get their legislation through.
  Mr. Fowler: I wonder what those other English parties would be. We are excluding the minority parties in the Chamber, with the sole exception of the Liberal Party. We are familiar with having to seek some measure of support from the Liberal Party—but not an extreme measure of support, as we saw recently on the agriculture issue. Surely the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) is not suggesting that where the combined votes of Labour and Liberal Parties from English seats are lower than those of the Conservative Party and yet there is a majority of Labour Members alone in Great Britain,
  386
  there would be any way of running this Parliament effectively, because there would not. We cannot commit ourselves to a solution which has so much constitutional instability built into it.
  What else can we do? The logical answer might be to say that there should be no representation for Scotland in the House of Commons. That would be monstrous because of the reserved functions and the right of Scottish Members to discuss finance, not least the allocation of finance to Scotland. Alternatively, we could decide that we should keep representation as it is. I do not mean that there should be parity with the English because, as I argued earlier, there is no reason for changing to parity.
  Let us assume that on an analysis of debates over the past five years one finds that only one-third were relevant to reserved matters. The other two-thirds would be on those matters which are to be devolved to the Assembly. I could see every reason for saying that we should have one-third of Members from Scotland if I were the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. That would have an element of logic in it. I know perfectly well that he is not going to say that, because he is terrified of the political consequences of saying that in Scotland. The timidity he showed today when he was debating this issue, in coming clean on the true meaning of his proposals, demonstrated just how fearful the Conservative Party is of its future prospects in Scotland. So I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not say that. But what other logical principle will he adduce? Parity is not a logical justification, and he adduced no proportion that is satisfactory. So we come back to maintaining the present representation.
  It is well known in the House of Commons that I do not regard the Bill as a satisfactory permanent solution. I regard neither this Bill or the Wales Bill, nor even this Bill, the Wales Bill and some future solution to the problems of Northern Ireland all taken together, as a satisfactory final solution. I believe—I think, together with the right hon. Member for Down, South—that either there is no devolution or it is necessary to look at the problem in the long run on a United Kingdom scale. I do not believe that one has to legislate for the whole of the United Kingdom simultaneously.

  387
  Knowing the procedure of the House, I would say that to legislate for the whole of the United Kingdom simultaneously would be quite impossible. We cannot get one constitutional measure through in a Session without acute difficulty, let alone a plethora of such measures.
  I hope that my right hon. Friends will begin to consider, not least on the basis of this and many other debates on the Bill, what are the long-term consequences. I hope that they will also begin to look at the possibility of devising a system of devolution for the English regions which will make possible a long-term, stable constitutional settlement.
  I share the view of some hon. Members on the Opposition side that this settlement by itself will not be stable in the long term. Equally, I believe that it would be singularly unwise to change the representation of Scotland in advance of devolution until we have begun to work out what the long-term settlement might be.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) wants to know what to do to be logical and sensible about this Bill, I advise him to vote against it on Third Reading. That is about the only thing that it is fit for.
  I had not intended to intervene in the debate, and I do so only because I find that I am unable to support New Clause 1, for much the same reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) intends to support it. I do not think that that shows an inherent contradiction between our respective points of view, or even that this is a particularly silly new clause; it merely shows that the clause is an attempt to do the impossible for this Bill—that is, to make more sense of it.
  New Clause 14, which was to have been an alternative solution—the "in and out" solution—is unhappily out of order, but we are able to refer to it. The two new clauses propose the two classic solutions to the problem, the "in and out" solution and the solution by way of alteration of representation. Both are unsatisfactory, and both make nonsense of Parliament as we know it.
  It is especially true that both new clauses are unsatisfactory if the referendum, should it be required, is confined to
  388
  Scotland alone. It seems a long time since I first raised as a point of order or a point of debate the fact that the Scotland and Wales Bill and, later, the Scotland Bill, were both wrongly entitled. They are not concerned with the government of Scotland alone. They affect the Government of the entire United Kingdom.
  The dilemma in which the Committee finds itself—the fact that New Clause 14 is not in order, the fact that New Clause 1 is not satisfactory—arises because both clauses would be relevant only to a Bill that was called something like "The United Kingdom Constitutional Changes Bill". They are not suitable to a Bill that purports to be concerned entirely with the government of Scotland.
  10.0 p.m.
  I have no desire to see fewer Scottish MPs in the House. I do not think that it would make much difference one way or the other to the problems and difficulties that devolution and a separate Scottish elected Assembly would bring. Nor do I think that a Speaker's Conference, which would be dealing entirely with the membership of the House of Commons, would have any more agreement in it than we would find if we sought to insert into the Bill provisions altering the membership of this House because of the Scottish Assembly.
  As has been made clear in the debate, it is possible intellectually to go for a federal system for the government of the United Kingdom. If the separate parts of a federation are the nations that now go to make up the United Kingdom, the system is likely to be so unbalanced in size as to be unworkable. It is theoretically possible to go for a regional system of federal government in which England is broken up into regions for the purposes of parliamentary democracy. That is what the Liberal Party wants. That is why it will be campaigning in due course in favour of the Bill.
  It is perfectly reasonable for Scotland to wish to be a separate country. It is crazy, in my view, for Scotland as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom, but it is at least logical and reasonable to say that the only respectable reason for confining a referendum to Scotland would be if the question were "Do you want to be a separate country or not?" Any

  389
  other question that may be put in a referendum is one that affects England and Wales as much as it affects Scotland. For that referendum the electorate should be the whole of the United Kingdom. But, as I have said, it is a respectable if unreasonable objective to wish to separate Scotland into a different nation with a different Government, a frontier, and all the rest of it. That is what the Scottish nationalists want. That is why they are campaigning for the Bill. If there is a referendum, that will be the basis on which they will seek support in Scotland.
  The Government are in a different position. They do not want a federal system. They do not want separation. Yet they will be campaigning, with the odd bedfellows that they have chosen, in favour of the elected Assembly. I am sorry to say that I do not think that the new clause, admirable attempt thought it may be to improve the ghastly muddle that has been inflicted on the United Kingdom by the Government's desire to appease the Scottish nationalist vote, will be much helped by the new clause. Therefore, I feel that I cannot support it.
  But the clause has provided one further occasion for the Committee to demonstrate what is likely to happen should the Bill receive its Third Reading and be agreed by the people of Scotland—that we take a large step down the road to separation. I hope that the Committee and the House will prevent that, for I do not believe that we shall be forgiven by Scotland or any other nation within the United Kingdom if we allow it to go ahead.
  Mr. Raison: I have a good deal of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has just said, although on balance I come to a different conclusion on the clause.
  When the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) was speaking, it suddenly struck me that this was a uniquely long debate, because the Government had mustered no fewer than two supporters. I do not believe that we have ever known that during the course of these devolution debates. When the hon. Gentleman came to his peroration, he, too, revealed that he did not think the Bill was any good. He thought it the best way
  390
  of passing the time of day until we moved on to something else.
  That left the Government with the support of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray). Alas, he is not here, but I wish to say of his speech that it rather terrified me that he should put forward the doctrine that we should take as a positive principle for the allocation of seats the notion that many special factors should be taken into consideration.
  The hon. Gentleman said specifically that we should have over-representation—if I may so describe it—of the inner cities. I entirely accept that the inner cities have great problems that need political and parliamentary action, but if we established that doctrine we should be opening the way to an appalling amount of gerrymandering, and that would not be tolerable.
  When the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy" came out, the hon. Member for The Wrekin was the Minister concerned with devolution. That he altogether agreed with that White Paper I rather doubt, in the light of what we heard today. I remind him that it said:
  "Irrespective of any later plans for England or Northern Ireland, devolution must never be seen as conferring unfair advantages on Scotland and Wales."
  That is, in summary, what this debate has been about.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: I should make it clear that I was 101 per cent. in favour of that White Paper. The implication of my closing remarks was simply that I am rather less approbatory of the very wet White Paper on devolution to England which appeared subsequently and for which, I am happy to say, I was in no way responsible.
  Mr. Raison: The one thing on which I would offer wholehearted congratulations to the Lord President—almost the only good thing he has done—is his recognition that there is no desire in England for regional devolution and his shelving of the whole matter.
  The Bill is unquestionably seen as conferring unfair advantages on Scotland and Wales. I know that there is much argument whether its financial provisions confer advantages on England and Wales or on Scotland. We do not know how the block grant system will work. There

  391
  is a plausible case for saying that the financial provisions will confer disadvantages on Scotland and that it may tend to have a smaller per capita amount of United Kingdom revenue than under the present arrangements.
  We cannot be sure about that, but we know beyond any shadow of doubt that in terms of representation in the House this scheme undoubtedly produces unfair advantages for Scotland. At this stage there is no need for me to labour the point. It is evident that the West Lothian argument is of overwhelming force. Whatever anybody says, it cannot be wished away. Even if one advances theoretical arguments for saying that it does not confer unfair advantages—which I do not think one can—there is no doubt that many people will regard it as conferring unfair advantages on Scotland. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) who illustrated this in the course of a speech which, unfortunately, I missed.
  Let us consider the point, which has come up time and time again, of what would happen if we had a Labour Government in Westminster which was there because of the support of Scottish Labour Members but with Conservative Members holding the majority of English seats. That is tolerable at present, and we accept it, but it would never be accepted if it were to happen after the Scotland Bill passed into law.
  What sort of reaction would there be if we had a Government which abolished independent education, which abolished parental choice in schools, which ended private medicine, which banned the sale of council houses, which municipalised rented housing, which abolished two-tier local government, which further tipped the rate support grant towards the cities, which nationalised agricultural land, and so on. What would be the reaction if all those things were done in England by a Government who were in power only because of the large number of Scottish Labour Members? It would, of course, be regarded as completely and utterly intolerable. I do not think that anyone who has listened to these debates over the last weeks and months could doubt that for one moment.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said in
  392
  opening the debate, we have no desire on the Conservative side to abolish the present Scottish numerical so-called overrepresentation. I certainly have absolutely no desire to change the present position. I believe that there are perfectly good reasons why there should be more Scottish Members per head of population than there are English Members per head of population. As long as the present dispensation prevails, I accept that. But, if the Scotland Bill goes through, I think that the question is bound to be looked at again, and that is the essential point of the debate that we are having today.
  There are, as we know, a number of different problems embedded in this. One answer is to look at the powers of Scottish Members of Parliament under the new dispensation. But, as my right hon. Friend explained very carefully at the beginning of the debate, this does not seem to be possible within the scope of the present Bill. He has therefore come to the conclusion—this is the point at which I part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham—that it is right to say that the question of the size of representation should be referred to a Speaker's Conference.
  It does not, of course, fully meet the West Lothian point, and no one has tried during the course of the debate to pretend that it does, because we know that the West Lothian argument is about powers rather than about numbers. But I think we can say that by referring this matter to a Speaker's Conference, with the implication, obviously, that there should be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members if the Scotland Bill were to go through, there might be some kind of amelioration—I put it no higher than that—in the present scheme.
  Mr. Henderson: I hope that I am not misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman, but is he not aware that the construction which could be placed on his remarks in Scotland is "If you have devolution, we shall punish you by cutting the number of Members in Westminster"?
  Mr. Raison: I am quite aware that the hon. Gentleman would place that construction upon my remarks, but it is not what I am saying, and he knows it perfectly well.
  Dr. Bray: It is not only Scottish National Party Members who would press

  393
  the hon. Gentleman on that point. Hon. Members on this side would also wish to do so. What does he mean by "amelioration", which was the word he used?
  Mr. Raison: Another word might be mitigation There is a problem, as I and others have tried to show. If a Labour Government were to be formed because of the number of Scottish Labour Members, this would have an aggravating effect in any event. If the number of Scottish Labour Members available to help establish a new Labour Government were smaller, there would be some reduction in the problem. I put it no higher than that.
  The fundamental problem is about Members of Parliament, and the fundamental truth that has come through in the debate, as in every debate that we have had, is that, although from time to
  394
  time the Government manage to cobble together a majority for the Bill, the number of hon. Members on either side who in their hearts believe in the Bill is very small indeed.
  We have had today from the Scottish National Party, quite honestly and openly, the fact that it thinks that this is a lousy Bill but that it is a stepping stone towards what it wants.
  We have heard people like the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who, by and large is a passionate devolutionist, say that he does not think that the Bill is any good. We have heard the hon. Member for The Wrekin say that he does not believe in the Bill. The only person who really believes in it is the marvellous boy on the burning deck—the Minister of State. I congratulate him on his tenacity, but I would point out that he has not got the House of Commons behind him.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Budgen: New Clause 1 has few friends. It has been attacked by many hon. Members as being too vague. Many have said that the Tory Party Front Bench once again is being too vague. But for once I support the concept of vagueness. I believe that an attitude of vagueness is a necessary part of not knowing what opinion in England will be in the event of the devolution Bill being passed.
  I suspect that few of us who considered the question of devolution two or three years ago had clearly thought out what has been called the West Lothian question. There may be other hon. Members who have not yet closely considered this question. How are we to anticipate the reaction of the English people to the West Lothian question when they finally come to grasp and consider it? After all, it has taken some 34 days of discussion for many of us to understand the complexities, the difficulties and the irreconcilable paradoxes inherent in any devolution proposal.
  Some people argue that the English and Scottish people have been prepared to put up with the West Lothian problem since 1920 in connection with the Irish settlement. I see the Minister of State nodding. I wish to distinguish between the English and Scottish attitude to Northern Ireland representation and that which may occur as the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland begin to appreciate what has happened in Scotland.
  First, it must be made clear that the devolution settlement, if that is what it was called, imposed upon Ireland was one which the Unionists in Northern Ireland accepted with the greatest reluctance. It was not a case of grabbing by the Scottish National Party from a craven and frightened Labour Administration. It was a case of a settlement being almost forced upon the people of Northern Ireland.
  Also, the number of Members of Parliament in respect of whom the anomaly operated was much smaller in the case of Northern Ireland. There is a world of difference between an anomalous position relating to 12 right hon. and hon. Mem-
  396
  bers and an anomalous position relating to 71 right hon. and hon. Members.
  There is a world of difference also between the conduct of right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland, having Stormont in Northern Ireland and coming to Westminster, and the conduct of the SNP Members when they come to the House of Commons. On the one hand, Northern Ireland Members wish above all to emphasise their equality with other Members of the House. They wish to emphasise the sameness and the unity between Northern Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the whole objective of SNP representatives is to emphasise their differences and their separation. It would be hardly surprising if some English people did not wish to accept them on their own valuation.
  The attitude of SNP Members combines an arrogant self-confidence, built upon their belief that the new-found wealth of Scottish oil will give them the power that they crave if they become independent, with a slightly more humble attitude to public expenditure. They are not satisfied with saying that they are wealthy. They want more of the United Kingdom wealth as well. They are not satisfied with having 25 per cent. more public expenditure per head of population. They will want even more.
  There is an essential difference in the constitutional settlement which is proposed here and in the character of the political parties which causes us properly to try to reach a distinction between the attitude that English people may adopt towards the 71 hon. Members from Scotland.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that there have been only two Scottish budgets, one as a result of 2 million people signing the covenant and one following the Hamilton by-election in 1969. which proved that the people of Scotland paid for what they got.
  If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied to reflect that we always get more than our share of one-tenth of unemployment benefits and one-tenth of housing subsidies, he might also reflect on the sort of government that has emanated from this House in recent decades.
  Mr. Budgen: I reflect that none of my constituents has ever spoken to me about the fact that public expenditure is devoted at a higher level to Scotland than to, for example, Wolverhampton or the Midlands, but they will begin to talk to me about that if the Bill is passed.
  It is precisely because we live in the United Kingdom that no responsible politician wishes to try to persuade constituents that there are differences between the amounts of public expenditure in one part of the realm and another.
  However, the arrogant and nasty behaviour of the SNP, which is so much to be distinguished from the attitude of the representatives of Northern Ireland, will, I am unhappy to say, give rise to a different attitude throughout England.
  The Opposition Front Bench is right to be vague, because this issue has not been properly canvassed among the people of England. We do not know what their attitude will be after the devolution settlement. We wish to deal with the matter on the basis of being generous to our colleagues in Scotland.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Patronising.
  Mr. Douglas Crawford: The people of England have no say in this matter. It is up to the people of Scotland and not to the House of Commons or the people in England.
  Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the people of England may have no say if Scotland goes independent, but as long as we have this unstable devolution settlement, the people of England have a say, notwithstanding the fact that many have not yet woken up to what the devolution settlement proposes.
  It is precisely because the people of England are yet asleep that the Opposition Front Bench is right to keep the matter vague. We hope that it will be possible to treat the people of Scotland with the generosity with which they have always been treated and that it will be possible to maintain the situation in which, notwithstanding the devolution settlement, they are over-represented, but we do not know what the position will be and the Tory Party is right to keep its options open.
  Mr. Brittan: During the debate there has been a certain amount of questioning of the motivation of the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). There has also been a certain amount of misconstruction.
  At the outset I reiterate what my right hon. Friend said—namely, that the clause is not proposed because there is the slightest wish on the part of the Conservative Party to reduce the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland. As we have made clear throughout the debate, we would much prefer to retain the status quo in which the number of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies is proportionately higher than the number of Members of Parliament representing English constituencies. That is our preferred solution. That is our preferred answer to the issue of Scottish representation. However, it may not be a tenable answer if the Bill is enacted.
  It was apparent from the moment that the shape of the Bill become clear that it had implications for the number and role of Scottish Members of Parliament after devolution. We thought it right and essential that those implications should be brought out and debated on the Floor of the House of Commons. It is for that reason that we have proposed the clause.
  The only possible way of debating the implications of the number and role of Members of Parliament from Scotland if the Bill is passed was by means of the clause. We should have preferred to make an explicit reference to the role of Members of Parliament from Scotland after devolution legislation had been passed, but for reasons of order that was not possible. The Chair has been kind enough to allow the debate to take place through the back door, as it were, as if we were debating the role of Members of Parliament from Scotland as well as their numbers after a devolution settlement.
  I believe that proposing the clause for the purpose of debating those issues is sufficient justification in itself. We are not merely debating them at large. This is not merely a peg on which to hang a debate on the numbers of Members of Parliament from Scotland and the role that they should play after devolution. We

  399
  go further than that, and I make no apology for our doing so.
  We are saying that the Bill in its present form raises not only the questions to which reference has been made but that if it is enacted, which we fervently oppose, certain consequences must flow. For example, there are problems related to the number of Members of Parliament for Scotland and their role. These problems have to be faced. They are not faced in the Bill, and there must be an alternative forum so that they may be faced.
  We have put forward a Speaker's Conference as the forum in which these matters may be considered, but there is nothing magical about a Speaker's Conference. It has certain advantages in that it is the most flexible approach. It does not commit the House of Commons to a certain solution to the problems. Whatever the conference recommended, there would be need for legislation afterwards. However, it provides a means of seeking solutions to questions for which we do not have answers.
  If those on the Liberal Benches are to criticise us for not having answers to those question, there is a simple response to be made. Why should we have answers to question that are not of our making. If the policy that we favoured were maintained—that is, not going ahead with devolution on this basis—there would be no need for answers to the questions.
  However, in face of all the arguments, the Government have insisted on persisting with an unstable and unviable solution by means of legislative devolution within a unitary State. In that way they have posed the problems, but they have not provided the answers. Because they have posed the problems and not provided the answers, the best we can do is to expose the problems and at least provide some forum, mechanism, or means by which the present Government or future Governments will have to face up to finding a solution. I do not believe that a solution will be readily found, and I do not think the Government are entitled to support for this legislation merely by taking the view "We have no answer to these problems at all".
  10.30 p.m.
  Whatever is the precise effect of this legislation, it is clear that the position of
  400
  Scottish Members of Parliament will be different if this Bill becomes law. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) has pointed out that many matters will be left to them to debate and to be involved in, and that is right. But one cannot say that there will be no change in their position at all. We believe that there should be a Speaker's Conference, not because we want to reduce the number of Members from Scotland, but because we believe that if this hybrid, illogical and unstable solution is persisted in the House will be driven to a Speaker's Conference and might as well recognise it now. If the effect of that recognition is to persuade right hon. and hon. Members to throw out the whole Bill, this debate will have served a salutary purpose.
  Apart from other considerations, there is the question of the role of Members of Parliament to be considered. The West Lothian question has not been answered. What is the Minister's answer to that question? If there is no answer, let him withdraw the Bill. This is not a peripheral question; it is central to the nature and form of devolution proposed by the Government.
  The analogy of Northern Ireland is not the right one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said. There is a possibility, indeed a probability, that if this solution goes through as the Government would have it, Scottish Members will be determining English education and English housing matters. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said in opening the debate, the first time that that happens this House will find it to be an unacceptable solution and an equally unacceptable position. The moment that that happens the unsuitability of this proposal will be exposed. No answer has been given to that question.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) sought to give an answer to the question by suggesting an "in and out" solution. That argument was exposed in a most interesting interchange. What was envisaged was that there would be a United Kingdom Government who did not have a majority for English legislation. But the hon. Gentlemen thought that that did not matter and felt that that Government

  401
  would not have to get through its legislation and would have to make compromises. But the problem is related not only to legislation. There must be a policy on education and housing and a clear Executive recommendation to the House of Commons and an ability by the Executive to get its recommendation through.
  Mr. Henderson: I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen would not wish to misrepresent my position. I was arguing that the position would be analogous to the situation in the House at present in which the Government do not have a majority in their own party to pass certain legislation and must rely on persuading members of other parties to vote for it if they wish to get it through Parliament.
  Mr. Brittan: That is not an analogous situation. There might be a situation in which there was no question of the Government having a majority but where they had a majority against them so that there was no basis for a coherent policy at all. That is the difference.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
  Mr. Brittan: The truth of the matter is that so far no answer has been presented to the West Lothian question.
  Mr. Fairbairn rose—
  Mr. Brittan: Let me say this in conclusion to the Minister of State who will shortly be replying.
  Mr. Fairbairn rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Brittan: If on the thirteenth day of the Committee stage the Minister of State is able to give answers to questions that he has not answered for 13 days, we shall withdraw the new clause, but if he is not able to answer those questions we shall ask our right hon. and hon. Friends to press the new clause to a Division.
  Mr. John Smith: I do not know why the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was so anxious not to answer a question from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), who tried throughout the hon. Member's speech to catch his eye. If the hon. and
  402
  learned Gentleman wishes to ask the question of me, I shall be very glad to answer it.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I shall wait until the Minister has made a complete fool of himself and then take up his invitation.
  Mr. Smith: I cannot promise to oblige the hon. and learned Gentleman, or even to try to do so, but he has tried to intervene so persistently that I offer my condolences. I give an absolute assurance that if he seeks to intervene during my speech, I shall be glad to give way.
  The new clause was moved by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). He told us first—and his speech was amplified in this regard by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby—that he did not think that there was a case for reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in the present pre-devolution situation. Throughout the debate some of his hon. Friends have disagreed with that. But we seem now to have it crystal clear that the Conservative Party does not see any case for a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament on the present basis—that is, before devolution is carried through.
  I must confess that I was not always entirely clear about that, but I am clear about it now because it has been put forward so clearly—even though the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) differed from that view, perhaps.
  Mr. Raison: No, I did not.
  Mr. Smith: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member does not put that forward. This concept has made great progress during the debate.
  The second point—this is where we come to the nub of the new clause—is what would be the situation regarding Scottish representation after devolution? Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), in a very interesting speech, said that they thought that there was not a case for any reduction. Other hon. Members—more from English constituencies than from Scottish constituencies represented by the Conservative Party—tended to argue that there was a case for reducing the number of Members of the

  403
  United Kingdom Parliament coming from Scottish constituencies.
  Members of the Conservative Front Bench say that they do not know whether there is a case for reducing the number after devolution and that they do not know what the policy should be, so we need, in the words of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, an alternative forum. That alternative forum is the Speaker's Conference, into which the Conservatives will go without any idea of what they want to suggest and from which they wish to emerge with an agreed policy for all concerned. It is rather like the constitutional conference idea of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire which he puts forward whenever he is asked for his policy on devolution, because we have two varieties offered at present.
  One is non-legislative, non-Executive devolution, on the Douglas-Home lines, as put forward by the hon. Member for Pentlands. I do not think that it amounts to very much by way of devolution, but I can understand the argument for that. The other is that there ought to be a constitutional conference in which all other parties get together to provide a policy for the Conservative Party. I do not know whether that is the most constructive way to go about it.
  Before developing the argument fully, and because I may forget to do so, I want to refer to a question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in regard to a quotation in a speech of mine at a conference on the Labour Party in Scotland when we as a party were discussing the various alternatives to devolution. Frankly, I have changed my mind from the proposition that I advanced then. I shall give the reasons. Perhaps my hon. Friend will understand them more clearly than Opposition Members.
  First, on the question of 71 Members of Parliament, it is essential that they be retained post-devolution, for two reasons above all. First, this Parliament will remain the only sovereign Parliament. It will have the override powers as well as the inherent power to legislate. It can change the devolution Act itself. Second, the devolution scheme does not contain tax-raising powers, and the conferring of money on the Scottish Assembly remains
  404
  a matter for Westminster. I have come to the view that it is right that it should remain a matter for Westminster. But when these two matters—sovereignty and taxation—are reserved at Westminster, I believe that it is right that there should be 71 Members of Parliament.
  The role of the Secretary of State post-devolution will be different from his present role. As is known, he is an omnibus Minister with responsibility for a wide range of functions. We propose to retain the Secretary of State, but he will have a more limited role than he has now. He will be concerned with economic matters, agriculture and other matters, such as the police, but not with education, housing, health and some of his present major concerns.
  I have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to have a Secretary of State responsible for the decentralised, not devolved, functions that remain. That view was strengthened by the Government's decision to transfer some responsibility for regional development policy from the Department of Industry to the Secretary of State.
  From time to time we all change our minds over different aspects. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I know that to be true. My hon. Friend was right to ask for an explanation. I hope that he finds my explanation, with which he may not agree, at least logical in its development.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I trust that this is a suitable moment at which to take up the generous offer that the Minister made to me to intervene. The fact is that Scotland will have to face a number of brutal realities. Devolution is not just an extra present. People must understand that if they want devolution they will have to forgo the powers that come from here, the number of Members who will go from this place and the tax and other benefits that go to individuals in the United Kingdom. It is utterly dishonest to pretend that the Minister has changed his mind. He must explain to the people of Scotland, if devolution is the roundabout that they choose, the disadvantages that they must accept to obtain the pretended advantages that those on the Scottish National Party Bench and those on the Government Benches imagine they will gain by devolution.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a number of issues in that intervention. One was that there had to be some reduction in Westminster representation as the price of devolution. I think that he is the one Scottish Conservative Member today who has made that suggestion. I think that his hon. Friends are not only wiser in argument but more prudent in being reticent in the way that they have put forward the matter. However, he is stating clearly that there should be a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster.
  The only way that we can properly deal with the value of inserting New Clause 1 in the Bill is not to take it on the basis on which it was put forward by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, who suggested that he did not have a view on the numbers or the role of Scottish Members, but, as one Conservative Member said, to take it as implicit in setting up a Speaker's Conference that there would be a suggestion for a reduction in numbers. It is unlikely that a Speaker's Conference would recommend an increase. I suppose that conceivably it might recommend the status quo.
  The status quo—71 Members—does not arise from the Boundary Commission's recommendation. It arose because Parliament guaranteed 71 Members for Scotland and the Boundary Commission had to work out the division of constituencies in Scotland on that basis. In order to make sense of the argument, we must approach it on the basis that there is an implication of a reduction. Albeit those on the Conservative Front Bench cannot bring themselves to say that, I think that is at the back of their minds, and certainly it is at the back of other hon. Members' minds. I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), with whom I often disagree, agrees with me on that proposition.
  10.45 p.m.
  What is the case for a reduction? The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire dipped his sights slightly when he implied that the number of Labour Members from Scotland was a way of imposing Socialism. We should try to argue out this matter and look at it apart from questions of party political considerations. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman meant it seriously. But the important
  406
  matter to bear in mind is that the Parliament of the United Kingdom remains the sovereign Parliament, and the people of Scotland are as entitled to be represented fully in that Parliament as people in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  If there is to be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members in the United Kingdom, it should be done on the basis that Scotland is over-represented, whether or not we have devolution. But if it is done as a consequence of devolution it implies that, because this Parliament does not have day-to-day legislative responsibility for housing, education health and the other matters which are to be devolved, there is less of a case for representation in matters of trade, the economy, the taxation system, industrial relations, employment and the like. I cannot see that it is right to say that, because the range of responsibilities for which the United Kingdom Parliament remains responsible in Scotland is reduced, there should be a reduction in the number of people being represented there when such fundamental and weighty matters at the heart of a political system remain with the United Kingdom Parliament.
  I must stress the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. Post-devolution we shall have devolved not sovereignty but powers which will be subject to the continuing sovereignty of Parliament. This Parliament can override decisions of the Scottish Assembly using the constitutional devices which are in the Bill. In those circumstances it seems right that full representation should come to the United Kingdom Parliament from every part of the Kingdom.
  The so-called West Lothian question has been asked. It implies that there should be a logical symmetry post-devolution and that every Member of the House of Commons should be responsible for the same things. It is objected that, post-devolution, English Members, because they are Members of the House of Commons, will not be able to vote on Scottish education, housing, health, and so on. It is worth noting that the net result of devolution is that what is lost is that English Members will not be able to vote on Scottish education, housing, health and the like. I do not know how many of them will wish to have a great

  407
  influence over them, but that is the net effect.
  I do not think that logical symmetry, which is what this argument is about, is necessary. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and other hon. Members—though I doubt whether the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby is one of them—argue that, because we cannot have a Parliament in which every hon. Member has the same responsibilities, we can make no change at all. They say, therefore, that devolution is impossible and that we can never have in any circumstances and with any range of powers any legislative devolution because each Member of the House of Commons should have equal responsibilities.
  I do not share that view. It seems to be a despairing conclusion that we can never make a constitutional change which involves legislative devolution and giving law-making powers to a body other than the House of Commons simply because of our adherence to what I describe as logical symmetry.
  What I find interesting about the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South is that he is saying by implication that there can never be a devolved scheme for Northern Ireland which involves legislative devolution. I do not know whether his colleagues agree with him. I should be slightly surprised if that was the unanimous view of the United Ulster Unionist Members in this Parliament. This House devolved powers to the Stormont Parliament of Northern Ireland for 50 years. It is sometimes argued, and it is argued by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that the de minimis rule applies to this situation, but let me remind the Committee of the position.
  There were 12 Northern Ireland Members—sometimes 13—and they were consistently from one party. They voted consistently that way in the House. Scottish Members do not arrive in this House as particularly Scottish Members. They arrive as Labour, Liberal and SNP Members. What the hon. Member for Aylesbury was driving at was the situation where the party balance in the United Kingdom might be affected by Scottish Members.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: The Minister seemed to be saying that there
  408
  was nothing wrong in having in the House of Commons Members whose responsibilities were slightly different one from the other. The other day the Lord President of the Council said that it would be wrong if some Members who were on Select Committees had certain information which made them slightly different from other Members. Is not there a contrast between what the Minister is saying and what the Lord President of the Council said?
  Mr. Smith: I did not hear what the Lord President said, so I am not in a position to compare the two statements. I do not think that there is very much connection between a Select Committee and the serious matter that we are debating—not that Select Committees are not serious. Nor do I think that it helps the discussion to draw false parallels or analogies that will not bear close examination.
  Mr. George Cunningham: If this proposal goes ahead, the Scottish electorate will be able to get a Scottish education policy, a Scottish housing policy, and so on, by electing a majority of its persuasion to the Scottish Assembly. Does my hon. Friend accept that that is something that will not be open to the English electorate, and that the average excess from Scotland and Wales, minus the Northern Ireland reverse direction trend, in the last four elections has been between 27 and 45 Members? Does he think that that will be borne by the English electorate in perpetuity?
  Mr. Smith: It is very difficult for me to answer questions on the future political situation in perpetuity; I should not be bold enough to answer on that basis. I find it difficult to predict what will happen in the foreseeable future. However, if, for the purpose of this argument the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a genuine demand in Scotland for devolution—he disputes that, but I think there is—and if that demand is such that it is consistent with the unity of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of Parliament, he says that the demand must not be met. He says that there must never be legislative devolution to Scotland because of the need to adhere to the logical symmetry of the present structure of the House of Commons. I think that it is such a conservative, hopeless attitude

  409
  to say that we can never make constitutional changes that it does not bear close examination.
  It is a good debating point to say that everything will not be the same after devolution. I hope not. Devolution will make considerable differences to the constitution of this country. One of the changes is that responsibility for certain Scottish affairs will be transferred to the Assembly, although some important matters that affect Scotland will be retained in the United Kingdom Parliament.
  We have made a careful division, as best we can, of the responsibilities between the Assembly and this Parliament, and we have come to the conclusion that the wisest and fairest course is to keep the full Scottish representation at the House of Commons. That is also the wisest course from the point of view of maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom, which ought to be as much the concern of Conservative Members as it genuinely is mine.
  Mr. Rifkind: In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) the Minister said that it would be wrong for the Government not to respond to the genuine wish of the majority of the Scottish people for devolution. How will he respond to what might be the genuine wishes of the majority of English people who will resent the idea of Scottish and possibly Welsh Members voting on purely English domestic legislation?
  Mr. Smith: I do not know whether English people will resent that. Apart from anything else, it is a mistake to talk of Scottish Members voting on things. There are not Scottish and English Members of the House. We are all Members of it, and the whole House votes on certain matters.
  I am told that there might be resentment. The background to the argument is that the Tory Party might continue to do badly in Scottish elections. I shall be fair and take into account the Conservatives' prediction. In 1955 is Scotland there were 35 Labour Members, 35 Tory Members and one Liberal Member. The Tory Party believes that it will be the first party in Scotland to get a majority of votes, but the catastropic decline of the Tories to 16 Members is the biggest de-
  410
  cline for any party in the United Kingdom.
  Why did that happen and why might it continue? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is optimistic. He frequently tells us that the Tory Party is doing particularly well in Scotland. He says that it is on the up. Indeed, he says that it may well win the majority of seats at the next General Election. He has forecast some startling gains. In that situation there is likely to be parity between the parties and therefore no English resentment. The Tory Party must choose between the optimistic view and the pessimistic view. We must try to make the United Kingdom and its constitution work.
  I reject the "in and out" system because it is not practical politics in terms of parliamentary responsibility and administration.
  I do not accept what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and others say. They say that we can never have devolution—not that we cannot have this Bill, but that in no circumstances can we have devolution. They argue that it would be different if there were a federal solution because that would mean that all parts of the United Kingdom would have to express a wish for a federal system. But one part of the United Kingdom does demand devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) says that Parliament will listen when the demand for Assemblies comes from the regions of England. Our judgment is that this will not happen.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) argues that because the regions of England do not want to move to a devolved system, as does Scotland, Scotland should not have a change. He says that this must be done at one time. If one part of the United Kingdom wants a change, it is foolish to say that it cannot have it until everywhere else falls into line. My hon. Friend is constitutionally conservative. For a man who is so radical about the procedures of the House of Commons, he has an in-built conservatism in his attitude.
  Very few people have spoken in favour of the new clause. Very few have

  411
  found merit in it. I do not know why the Conservative Party was foolish enough to pick this topic.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her hon. Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order Mr. Murton. I definitely sought to raise a point of order before the Deputy Chief Whip rose to his feet to move the closure, and I am afraid to say—
  The Chairman: Order. The closure can be moved at any time.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I rose on a point of order before the Deputy Chief Whip stood up.
  Why was not my point of order, which was as loud as the one I am now making, and was therefore perfectly audible to the Chair, ignored in favour of the machinations of the Government Front Bench?
  The Chairman: Order. I can tell the Lady that the Chair can accept a closure at any time.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Is it not correct that, although the Chair can accept a closure at any time, if a point of order is made prior to a motion of that kind the Chair must give precedence to the point of order?
  The Chairman: The Chair does not give precedence in such circumstances.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I did not hear your reply to my point of order. Is it not the case that when hon. Members make points of order the Chair has the courtesy at least to hear them and to give a reply?
  The Chairman: The closure takes precedence over anything else that might be happening in the Committee.
  The Committee having divided: Ayes. 220, Noes 272.

  Division No. 89]

  AYES

  [11.00 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Alison, Michael

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Arnold, Tom

  Clegg, Walter

  Gorst, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Cockroft, John

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cope, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Baker, Kenneth

  Costain, A. P.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Banks, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Grylls, Michael

  Bell, Ronald

  Crouch, David

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hannam, John

  Biffen, John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Durant, Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Blaker, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hastings, Stephen

  Body, Richard

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Hicks, Robert

  Brittan, Leon

  Farr, John

  Higgins, Terence L

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Holland, Philip

  Brooke, Peter

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Hordern, Peter

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Forman, Nigel

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Buck, Antony

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Budgen, Nick

  Fox, Marcus

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fry, Peter

  Hurd, Douglas

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

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

  Channon, Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Jopling, Michael

  Churchill W. S.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Neave, Airey

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Nelson, Anthony

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Neubert, Michael

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Newton, Tony

  Spence, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Normanton, Tom

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Nott, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Knox, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sproat, Iain

  Lamont, Norman

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Stainton, Keith

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Stanley, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Percival, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stokes, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Lloyd, Ian

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Loveridge, John

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Luce, Richard

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Raison, Timothy

  Tebbit, Norman

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rathbone, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Madel, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Trotter, Neville

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Marten, Neil

  Rhodes, James R.

  Viggers, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wakeham, John

  Mather, Carol

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Maude, Angus

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wall, Patrick

  Mawby, Ray

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Walters, Dennis

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wells, John

  Mills, Peter

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Moate, Roger

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Scott, Nicholas

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Younger, Hon George

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Shepherd, Colin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. John MacGregor and

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Silvester, Fred

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

  Mudd, David

  Sims, Roger

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Freud, Clement

  Allaun, Frank

  Concannon, Rt Hon John

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  George, Bruce

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cowans, Harry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ashton, Joe

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Ginsburg, David

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Golding, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gould, Bryan

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Cryer, Bob

  Graham, Ted

  Bean, R. E.

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Beith, A. J.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Hardy, Peter

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Harper, Joseph

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Deakins, Eric

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Boardman, H.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dempsey, James

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bradley, Tom

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hooley, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Horam, John

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Buchan, Norman

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  English, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Huckfield, Les

  Campbell, Ian

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Cant, R. B.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carter, Ray

  Flannery, Martin

  Hunter, Adam

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Cartwright, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Ford, Ben

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Forrester, John

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Janner, Greville

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Coleman, Donald

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  John, Brynmor

  Molloy, William

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Molyneaux, James

  Snape, Peter

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Moonman, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Moyle, Roland

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Judd, Frank

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Stoddart, David

  Kerr, Russell

  Newens, Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Kilfedder, James

  Noble, Mike

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Oakes, Gordon

  Surmmerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lambie, David

  Ogden, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

  Lamborn, Harry

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Lamond, James

  Orbach, Maurice

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lee, John

  Ovenden, John

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Padley, Walter

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pardoe, John

  Tierney, Sydney

  Lipton, Marcus

  Park, George

  Tinn, James

  Litterick, Tom

  Parker, John

  Tomlinson, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Parry, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Luard, Evan

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Pendry, Tom

  Varley. Rt Hon Eric G.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Penhaligon, David

  Wainwright. Edwin (Dearne V)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Perry, Ernest

  Walker. Harold (Doncaster)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  McCusker, H.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Ward, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Radice, Giles

  Watkins, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Watkinson, John

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Weetch, Ken

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Weitzman, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Whitlock, William

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Madden, Max

  Rooker, J. W.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Magee, Bryar.

  Roper, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Rose, Paul B.

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Wilson William (Coventry SE)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Meacher, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woodall, Alec

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Sever, John

  Wool, Robert

  Mendelson, John

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mitchell, Austin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Mr. James Hamilton

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16 th November].
  Committee report Progress: to sit again tomorrow.

  OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  Motion made.
  That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1975 shall have effect from 1st January 1978 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution:—
  'That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
  £550 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1·10 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election.
  416
  provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £165,000.—[Mr. Shape.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDY
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Mike Noble: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the question of the temporary employment subsidy with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, but once again it is a cause for regret on the part of my hon. Friends and myself that we come here to debate a crisis in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. I hasten to add that this

  417
  time it is a crisis caused not by cheap imports but by a proposal from the European Economic Community that the temporary employment subsidy scheme, which has done so much to aid these and other industries, should be at least changed, if not terminated.
  I wish to confine my remarks to three points. First, I want to say a few words about the nature and coverage of the temporary employment subsidy. Then I want to look at the position posed by the EEC. Finally, I want to make one or two recommendations or suggestions as to the way in which we might approach this problem.
  We all know what the temporary employment subsidy was introduced as a means of preserving jobs—many of them, incidentally. in modern plants, particularly in the textile industry—in industries which were facing an excessive but short-term fall in demand, and often facing cutthroat competition from low-cost imports. Frequently we would term that unfair competition.
  The first advantages of the subsidy is that it has been relatively cheap to operate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said on 22nd November that overall it was a cheap scheme to operate in that the saving in unemployment benefit was considerable. A further advantage is that it has been easy to administer. There is no question but that this scheme is easily understood by employers and trade unions. As it is a scheme needing the co-operation of both, it has had great advantages in that respect. Many companies and trade union officials in my constituency have said that the administration of the scheme has not involved a great bureaucratic machine.
  The total saving of jobs from this scheme must be approaching 400,000. In the circumstances of a world recession, and particularly in the difficult circumstances of the textile, clothing and footwear industries, the scheme has been invaluable. It has been very beneficial on a regional basis in the North-West.
  It appears from figures released by the Department of Employment on 30th September last that 160,000 jobs in the textile, clothing and footwear industries were being supported out of a total of 325,000
  418
  jobs. Eighty-six thousand of those jobs are in the North-West.
  The withdrawal of the subsidy would create massive dislocation of an economic, industrial and social nature. It should be borne in mind that many of the communities in which the textile, clothing and footwear industries are concentrated can offer very little alternative employment. The problems of structural decline that we in the North-West face mean that the textile, clothing and footwear industries particularly have borne the brunt of the recession. This subsidy has enabled them to see their way through.
  For that reason, my hon. Friends and I question the EEC's attitude. That attitude has been adequately summed up by Commissioner Vouel, who complained about the scheme. He said that
  "this is seriously distorting competition."
  He went on to say, as regards ending the scheme:
  "I accept that this may lead to some more unemployment but this is a problem which should be dealt with by social measures."
  Many of my hon. Friends and I campaigned in the referendum against such an attitude. I do not recall the promarketeers arguing that that would not occur. However, I recall a big banner appearing in my constituency which said "If you vote 'Yes' there will be jobs for the boys'." It appears that those jobs are now being snatched away by the Commission itself.
  Commissioner Vouel went on to say:
  "How can you afford to continue paying out subsidies to keep people in jobs where they are no longer needed'?"
  I am not aware that the world is overdressed or over-shod. Countless millions are in need of clothing and footwear. Yet the world economy cannot come to grips with the problem. If the TES is not continued, there is a grave danger that the capacity to produce these goods in Britain will again be further reduced.
  Commissioner Vouel then said that paying subsidies to keep people in jobs where they are not needed is
  "surely…taking a gamble that there will be economic recovery."
  We were told at the time of the referendum campaign that if we remained in the Common Market it would assist us to achieve that recovery and would ensure

  419
  that economies would prosper and expand. Remarks of the kind that Commissioner Vouel has made are not helpful to us.
  In reply to a supplementary question by me on 19th January the Prime Minister put the matter in perspective. He pointed out that
  "as the Treaty of Rome was drawn up at a time when the world was expecting the market economy to dominate and growth to continue, it only goes to show, in my view, one of the weaknesses of having written constitutions of this sort, becaue the conditions are now entirely different."
  Of course they are different. We as Socialists and Social Democrats on the Government Benches are in business to deal with this problem of competition when it drives workers to the wall unnecessarily. As a Socialist, I have always been in business to distort competition in circumstances where it leads to unemployment. The temporary employment subsidy has been a valuable weapon in preventing this kind of competition driving us to the wall.
  Without the TES unemployment would be on a massive scale. It would be concentrated regionally and it would be worse in those sectors of the economy which structurally faced the fiercest competition from overseas. The opposition of Members on the Government Benches to the demands of the European Community that the TES should either be altered or phased out is absolute and total. From discussions that I have had today with representatives of trade unions and employers in the industries that I have mentioned I can tell the House that we have their full support.
  We can be heartened by a further point made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19th January, when he said:
  " At the moment. 186,000 jobs are being supported by the temporary employment subsidy…this must be pointed out to anybody who would ask the British Government—nobody has yet done so and I assume that nobody will, because if he does he will get a pretty serious rebuff—to put 186,000 people on the dole."—[Official Report, 19th January 1978: Vol. 942, c. 658.]
  I hope that that promise will be carried out. We can compare that promise with the attitude of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. In this connection I think of the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Leeds,
  420
  North-East (Sir K. Joseph), when he called for the total withdrawal of the TES.
  Mr. Max Madden: Where is he?
  Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend asks "Where is he?" One may ask "Where are the Tories?" What is their concern for the people of the North-West? They are not concerned at all, as is shown by their absence. We recall that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to withdraw the subsidy entirely. I also recall the speech by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) yesterday—a speech full of waffling ambiguities, when he would not come out clearly and tell us what was the Conservative attitude.
  Why is the European Community proposal unacceptable? We cannot accept it because it would bring immediate and overwhelming crisis to the industries that I have mentioned. Neither can we accept the alternatives suggested. Some of us read the inspired leak in the Economist last week, which talked about the introduction of a scheme, similar to that in Germany, of short-time working—a scheme that would be difficult to administer and, in my view, would cause division among the work force, some of whom would get payment for short time working and others for working all the week.
  The alternative is to continue discussions with the Community on this issue. We need a political initiative. I cannot think it would be better than coming from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We know that there will be a July Summit meeting, and I hope that we can then persuade our colleagues in the European Community that this scheme is worthy of consideration in terms of the whole Community. I hope that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will talk to the Europeans and tell them that because of the economic and social dislocation that would be caused if the scheme were dropped we must ask for it to be continued, and that we shall seek to persuade our colleagues in the Community to consider applying the scheme themselves. Only in that way shall we safeguard the jobs of workers not only in this country but in the rest of the Community.

  421
  I cannot accept that the battle is anywhere near over, although some newspapers seem to think that it is. In my view, we shall have far greater pressure brought to bear on us by the unions, employers and people of the areas that are most dependent on this scheme.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be forthcoming on the points that I have raised.
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Max MaddenI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) for securing this debate. The presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle), Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), and Burnley (Mr. Jones) indicates the strength of feeling in constituencies where there are substantial textile, clothing and footwear interests about the future of the temporary employment subsidy.
  We all realise that this subsidy has been placed in jeopardy because of the direct intervention of the European Commission. In a Written Answer, the Under-Secretary said:
  "I confirm that the Government have received a letter from the EEC Commission under Section 93(1) of the Treaty of Rome drawing attention to the need to give advance notification of any proposal to continue the TES scheme beyond 31st March 1978.
  The Commission has expressed doubts about the compatibility of the scheme in its present form with European policy on competition and has suggested various changes they would like to see in any future scheme. The Commission's letter is being taken into account in the Government's current review of the future of TES."—[Official Report, 19th January, 1978; Vol. 942, c. 280.]
  We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale that TES has secured in excess of 370,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. We have also heard that it is a most effective weapon against unemployment, that it is extremely cost-effective and, most important of all, that it has given numerous companies a breathing space. This has enabled them to reorganise, secure new markets, create new designs, and return to viability.
  We must remind the Opposition, who are opposed to subsidies and who say that firms in difficulties should be allowed to close, that in the textile areas firms that close never reopen. New investment gen-
  422
  erated in allowing firms to close is not brought into the areas of textile decline. People out of work face the future of long-term unemployment, or of moving home to the more prosperous South and South-East against their will. That is a prospect that none of us is prepared to support.
  Nor are we prepared to support, as an alternative to legislation, the prospect of giving payments for short-time working. Such a scheme would be undesirable and unacceptable. I ask the Under-Secretary how many jobs would be lost if TES were abandoned and we moved to the alternative scheme of funding and supporting short-term working. We may not get a reply, but I suspect that a considerable number of jobs would be lost, and that unemployment would increase.
  I agree that we should be seeking urgent agreement with the Community not to abandon TES but to introduce it on a Community-wide basis in order to deal with unemployment in the Community's textile, clothing and footwear industries. Contrast Commissioner Vouel's attitude on unhindered competition with that of the other Commissioner who recently negotiated one of the toughest protectionist policies—the Multi-fibre Arrangement—to protect the Community's industries. We have this paradox even within the Community. Faced with this paradox the Community should not seek to victimise British workers in these industries.
  I urge the Under-Secretary to convey to the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet the fact that we are not prepared to acquiesce in this further attempt by the European Commission to impose its will on the British Government. We faced a similar attempt over the green pound and over drivers' hours. Are we prepared to tolerate this intervention in our affairs? I urge the Government to stand firm. We know best how to combat our unemployment problems. We do not want policies imposed by Brussels. We must argue our case in the interests of the workers whose interests we defend here. I urge the Minister and the Government to tell the Common Market in the clearest possible terms that its objections are unacceptable and that we intend to deal with our unemployment problems in the way that

  423
  we believe is most effective and has proved most successful in the past few years.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. George Rodgers: I shall concentrate my remarks into a few sentences. I appreciate deeply and warmly the gesture of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) in allowing so many hon. Members to participate in the debate.
  The deep instrusion into the employment and industrial policies of this country by the mandarins of the Common Market is a bitter pill to swallow for hon. Members who were freely elected to this House and for those who saw that they were elected. It is a sombre reminder of how much power was taken away from our Parliament when we entered the Common Market.
  The welfare of many thousands of people in the North-West, and certainly in Lancashire, is, for the time being, dependent on the continued existence of the TES. It is surely apparent that the economic problems of member States of the EEC will vary and logic and common sense indicate that the responses to such problems must also vary. Unfortunately, Common Market legislation is not renowned for its common sense.
  I must register my regret and bitter resentment that the Government can be threatened with the prospect of being hauled before a court like a common criminal, charged seemingly with the offence of endeavouring to keep people in employment at a time of harsh economic circumstances.
  I have no intention of refighting the campaign on our membership of the Common Market, but I am adamant that those who advocated our continued presence in Europe did not venture to explain that we should become captive to rules and regulations designed to obstruct the battle against unemployment.
  The subsidy has not merely preserved a great number of jobs; it has enabled people to retain their dignity and has given purchasing power to families who would otherwise be experiencing harrowing times. We must protect our right to defend the legitimate interests of our people, and I am confident that our Min-
  424
  isters will do so with vigour. If we accepted the dictate of the Commission on TES, it would be the start of a slippery slope that would end in total national humiliation.
  I am much taken by the strategy of attack as the best form of defence and I urge the Government to launch a counter offensive to call on other EEC member countries to introduce legislation to combat unemployment in their own nations rather than indulging in unconstructive actions against measures to provide jobs in the United Kingdom.
  11.34 p.m.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble). If any hon. Member has pursued the need to preserve the textile and footwear industries, it is he. If it had not been for people such as my hon. Friend, we we would not be arguing for these industries tonight.
  I wish to speak about the experience of my constituency. Without TES, it would be a graveyard, certainly for the textile industry. Let me emphasise the message that has already been given to the Minister. We must stand up to the pressure from the Common Market. If we do not, we shall suffer a mortal blow in North-East Lancashire. Unless we say that the subsidy will continue, there will be further unemployment. It is already occurring. It is occurring in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones).
  That is why I simply say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that he must fight for the present scheme. The scheme is simple and flexible, and it has preserved jobs. Why change it at the diktat of the EEC? If the EEC says that it distorts competition, let it be remembered that there are many other schemes in the Common Market that distort competition. Why should we cease to operate the TES? If we do, we shall strike a heavy blow at the textile and footwear industries.
  I ask my hon. Friend to reassure us that he will continue to resist the pressure and will fight within the EEC until it adopts the policy of the TES as we know it today.
  11.35 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I have about three minutes in which to speak, and I want to try to complete my remarks in two and a half minutes.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) for allowing me to take part in the debate. My constituency is affected in precisely the same way as my hon. Friend's as regards textile viability.
  I shall explain to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State what is happening in Burnley at this very moment as regards the small firm of John Booth & Co. On behalf of the firm I have been to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Industry and Employment and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The owner is a small entrepreneur who sank his money into a firm that was derelict. In that way he brought into existence about 80 or 90 jobs. He lost some of those jobs and he now wants help. He has had TES and the extension of TES. What is needed to help this man is a pittance compared with what the Government have paid out for some years in other directions. In comparison with what they propose to pay out to other industries, it is a miserly sum. If some small assistance were given it would be possible to bring back into employment those that the firm lost a few months ago.
  Last weekend my constituency lost a firm that employed 130 people. The problem is continuing and it is quite untenable, especially in an area such as Burnley, which since the turn of the century has been making an extremely valuable contribution to our economy.
  I must say bluntly that I do not think that my right hon. Friends are playing the game. If I were asking for thousands of pounds I could understand their response, but on behalf of others I am asking for hundreds of pounds which would bring back into employment about 30 or 40 people and make a company viable once more.
  I appreciate that time is short, but I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give an answer one way or the other. I have been to four Ministries and I have not yet received a definite reply. That is not playing the game. Naturally, I should prefer an affirmative
  426
  reply, but in any event I ask for a definite reply.
  Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale for giving me the opportunity to say a few words.
  11.38 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): The importance of the debate is illustrated by the presence at a late hour of my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), Sowerby (Mr. Madden). Burnley (Mr. Jones), Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle), Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) and Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).
  Unfortunately, the rules of the House preclude me from giving a full reply, but I undertake to write to my hon. Friends about the matters that they have raised. I promise to convey their deep feelings to the Prime Minister.
  I give the assurance once again that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave yesterday—namely, that it is the Government's view that it is essential to continue the support for industry that is provided by the temporary employment subsidy. My right hon. Friend said that should we have to modify the scheme we could do so only when we are in a position to provide a scheme that covers the area within the scope of the TES and provides equivalent support for employment.
  We cannot accept a situation in which 186,000 people are declared unemployed. The Commission asked that we should end the temporary employment subsidy before 31st March, but we said that this was impossible. It is my clear understanding that firms which have qualified for and claimed TES by 31st March will benefit from the subsidy for the full 12-month period.
  I wish to make it clear that were it not for the request from the Commission there would be no question but that the subsidy would have continued in its present form. However, the Commission has challenged that and asked that the proportion of TES that goes to any one sector of industry should not exceed the proportion of employment in that sector

  427
  to employment in manufacturing, or some similar formula to limit disproportionate support to any one sector; and that the maximum period of payment for TES should be 12 months—in other words, it suggests that the supplement scheme should be dropped. This would hit textiles, clothing and footwear hard.
  The Commission has also asked that important cases should be notified individually in advance to the Commission, and that if TES is to continue beyond six months a plan for reorganisation and restructuring shoud be submitted to the Commission at the six-month stage.
  We have resisted hard in this matter and have sought to put the arguments put so eloquently by my hon. Friends in this debate. We have done so because we believe that the Commission has not understood the importance of the scheme in saving jobs and in helping our textile, clothing and footwear industries to modernise themselves to become competitive.
  The TES has given a breathing space to our textile, clothing and footwear industries. It is not intended to be a permament prop to ailing firms. However, it has been used as a splint to give temporary help to firms to get over a bad period.
  It is inconceivable that we could concede the drastic reduction demanded by the Commission to which I have referred. Therefore, we shall be negotiating very hard indeed in Brussels to avoid the
  428
  damage which any drastic change in the scheme would bring to the North-West and other areas in which textiles, clothing and footwear activities are so heavily concentrated.
  I emphasise that, although the Commission has expressed views about the TES as a whole, it is concerned predominantly with textiles, clothing and footwear. It is suggesting not a complete withdrawal but a reduction in these sectors. Our view is that if that reduction takes place because of the power which the Commission could use we shall have to protect our working people in other ways from the harm that such a move could do to them. The Government are conscious of their responsibilities to the working people in these industries. This is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been so diligent not only in pursuit of negotiations with Brussels but in trying to make certain that if concessions have to be made there will be some replacement to save jobs.
  I cannot answer my hon. Friends on the matter of—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  WALTON, LIVERPOOL
  WALTON, LIVERPOOL
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  LADYWOOD, BIRMINGHAM
  LADYWOOD, BIRMINGHAM
  PUBLICLY OWNED INDUSTRIES
  PUBLICLY OWNED INDUSTRIES
  ANTI-APARTHEID YEAR
  ANTI-APARTHEID YEAR
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE
  EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE
  CITY OF WESTMINSTER
  CITY OF WESTMINSTER
  COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  TEXTILE IMPORTS
  TEXTILE IMPORTS
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  WELLING
  WELLING
  WALES
  WALES
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  ISLE OF MAN
  ISLE OF MAN
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Judges' Rules and Administrative Directions
  Judges' Rules and Administrative Directions
  Prisoner's Letter (Newspaper Publication)
  Prisoner's Letter (Newspaper Publication)
  Mr. Mohammed Iqbal
  Mr. Mohammed Iqbal
  Banderists
  Banderists
  Myra Hindley and Ian Brady
  Myra Hindley and Ian Brady
  Mentally Disturbed Prisoners
  Mentally Disturbed Prisoners
  Lord Longford (Prison Visits)
  Lord Longford (Prison Visits)
  Prison Visitors
  Prison Visitors
  Public Defender System
  Public Defender System
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Limited
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Limited
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
TRANSPORT
  Bromham Bridge, Bedford
  Bromham Bridge, Bedford
  A1101, Wisbech (Speed Limit)
  A1101, Wisbech (Speed Limit)
  Ferries (Charges)
  Ferries (Charges)
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
CIVIL SERVICE
  Devolution Referendums
  Devolution Referendums
ENVIRONMENT
  Old Farmhouse (Birchington)
  Old Farmhouse (Birchington)
  Salford (Housing Action Area)
  Salford (Housing Action Area)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  House Building
  House Building
  Fuel Conservation (Palace of Westminster)
  Fuel Conservation (Palace of Westminster)
  Architects' Services (European Community Directive)
  Architects' Services (European Community Directive)
  Freehold Houses (Rent Charges)
  Freehold Houses (Rent Charges)
  Price Rings
  Price Rings
EMPLOYMENT
  London
  London
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Working Week, Working Year and Working Life
  Working Week, Working Year and Working Life
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Employment Opportunities
  Employment Opportunities
  Industrial Disputes (Merseyside)
  Industrial Disputes (Merseyside)
  Disabled Persons (Quota)
  Disabled Persons (Quota)
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Skilled Workers
  Skilled Workers
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Bristol
  Bristol
  Employment Promotion Expenditure
  Employment Promotion Expenditure
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Apprenticeship
  Apprenticeship
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.
  Prices
  Prices
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Homeworkers
  Homeworkers
  Job Creation Scheme
  Job Creation Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployment Benefit (Ineligibility)
  Unemployment Benefit (Ineligibility)
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Expenditure Programmes
  Expenditure Programmes
  Pensioners (Hospital Costs)
  Pensioners (Hospital Costs)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Migraine
  Migraine
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry
  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Eraldin
  Eraldin
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Social Worker (Frauds)
  Social Worker (Frauds)
  Hospitals (Wolverhampton)
  Hospitals (Wolverhampton)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Stephen Menheniott
  Stephen Menheniott
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
  Science Research Council
  Science Research Council
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Adult Literacy
  Adult Literacy
  Local Education Authority Staffs (Criminal Convictions)
  Local Education Authority Staffs (Criminal Convictions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  National Economic Development Office
  National Economic Development Office
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Interest Payments (Republic of Ireland)
  Interest Payments (Republic of Ireland)
  Police Provident Benefit Funds
  Police Provident Benefit Funds
  Price Indices
  Price Indices
  Customs and Excise Duties
  Customs and Excise Duties
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Wines and Spirits
  Wines and Spirits
  Reserves
  Reserves
  Tax Exemption (Compensation for Nazi Persecution)
  Tax Exemption (Compensation for Nazi Persecution)
  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Sector Working Parties
  Sector Working Parties
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Commission Management Committees
  Commission Management Committees
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabies Control
  Rabies Control
  Sewage Sludge
  Sewage Sludge
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Farmers (Efficiency)
  Farmers (Efficiency)
  Badgers
  Badgers
ENERGY
  Waste Gases
  Waste Gases
  Oil Refining
  Oil Refining
  Crude and Refined Oil
  Crude and Refined Oil
  Octane
  Octane
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
INDUSTRY
  Value Added Tax and Vehicle Excise Duty
  Value Added Tax and Vehicle Excise Duty
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Ethylene Cracking
  Ethylene Cracking
  Coke Production
  Coke Production
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Electrical Appliances
  Electrical Appliances
  Scrap Metal
  Scrap Metal
  Mersey Tunnel (Tolls)
  Mersey Tunnel (Tolls)
TRADE
  Films
  Films
  Mandarin Oranges
  Mandarin Oranges
  Distribution Statistics Advisory Committee
  Distribution Statistics Advisory Committee
  Fish
  Fish
  Seamen (Pay)
  Seamen (Pay)
  Pay Settlements (Guideline Breaches)
  Pay Settlements (Guideline Breaches)
SCOTLAND
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Kidney Machines and Donors
  Kidney Machines and Donors
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Elderly People (Hostels)
  Elderly People (Hostels)
  Firemen (Pay)
  Firemen (Pay)
  Aberdeen College of Education (Entry Quota)
  Aberdeen College of Education (Entry Quota)
WALES
  Vocational Preparation
  Vocational Preparation
  Work Experience Programme
  Work Experience Programme
  Employment (Training)
  Employment (Training)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Pensioners (Pembroke)
  Pensioners (Pembroke)
DEFENCE
  Racal Corruption Trial
  Racal Corruption Trial
  Service Personnel (Foreign Armed Forces)
  Service Personnel (Foreign Armed Forces)
  Aviation Jersey Limited
  Aviation Jersey Limited
  Fire-fighting
  Fire-fighting
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Separation Allowance
  Separation Allowance
  Chilean Armed Forces
  Chilean Armed Forces
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  People's Democratic Republic of Yemen
  People's Democratic Republic of Yemen
  Paraguay
  Paraguay
  Laos
  Laos
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Lough Neagh
  Lough Neagh
  Schools (Literature)
  Schools (Literature)
  Telephones (Handicapped Persons)
  Telephones (Handicapped Persons)
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Child Benefit Scheme
  Child Benefit Scheme
  Disabled Persons (Aids)
  Disabled Persons (Aids)
  Accident Reports
  Accident Reports
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Social Services (Expenditure)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Lord Hothfield—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

LILIAN BAYLIS: NATIONAL THEATRE MEMORIAL
Lord AMULREE: 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 it is intended that some memorial be placed in the National Theatre to commemorate the work done by Miss Lilian Baylis.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I understand that the National Theatre Board is proposing to name the north-western corner of the main terrace at 49 ft. level the "Lilian Baylis Garden", and to place an appropriate memorial plaque there.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that quite encouraging reply. May I put a not very direct supplementary question? Can the noble Lord, or somebody else, explain why it was that Miss Baylis ran her theatres—the Old Vic and Sadler's Wells—at some degree of profit, whereas the National Theatre appears to have run at a dead loss right from the start?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I cannot accept the supplementary as following in any way from the original Question. I think nothing less than a short essay on the changes in public habits, in the inflationary situation of the world and all
652
the rest of it would answer this question, and I do not propose to inflict that on your Lordships. I would only say that the National Theatre, which has been conceived and built over a long period, is now playing to full houses, which is a great deal better than if it were not.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that it would be better to consider naming one of the three theatres in the National Theatre complex the "Lilian Baylis Theatre", rather than to put a plaque in the gardens?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the decisions as to the names of the theatres were made some years ago. I think it would be very invidious in relation to some of our colleagues in this House if we were to change them now.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept it from me that, whatever happens in the end, the decision to honour the work done by Lilian Baylis will give enormous pleasure to masses of people all over the country who know what they owe to her?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am delighted to say that the Government are in absolute agreement with what the noble Baroness has said. I think Miss Lilian Baylis has made the most remarkable theatrical contribution of the century.

FALKLAND ISLANDS: HYDROCARBONS
2.39 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to invite applications for licences to explore for hydrocarbons off the Falkland Islands.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords,

653
there are no such plans at present. Until the seismic surveys, now under way, are completed and their results evaluated, we do not have a sufficiently clear picture of the potential resources of the area.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may ask him whether we can have an assurance that, when the time comes and licence applications are acceptable, the operation of issuing licences will be a United Kingdom Government/Falkland Islands affair, and that Argentina will have no part to play in the area which belongs to the shelf of the Falkland Islands?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly expect that that will be the procedure. I am sure the noble Earl will join me in hoping that the Anglo-Argentine negotiations which are currently proceeding will result in the establishment of the two working groups to which I have referred previously, one of them on economic co-operation. I hope we can look forward to an agreement on co-operation among all three countries in the exploitation of the resources of this area.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House when it is expected that the seismic operations, to which he referred in his original Answer, will be complete and the results known?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. We expect that the surveys, which will be presented to the Government, may reach us in March. Thereafter, there will be a period during which it will be necessary to evaluate expertly what the surveys have revealed—the data made available—so that we can decide, first whether there are any considerable and commercially viable deposits in the area and, secondly, how to proceed in their exploitation on the lines broadly suggested by the noble Earl.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, if workable deposits are indeed identified would the noble Lord accept that their exploitation could make a great difference to the economy, and therefore to the full independence, of the Falkland Islands without—if I may put it with great
654
respect—the need of Argentinian interference?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that may well be so. We hope that the results of these surveys, if they are favourable results, will benefit not only the Argentine but also the Falklands, and in that way fortify the economy of the Falklands.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, is there any truth in the reports that the British National Oil Corporation are negotiating with the Argentinian National Oil Company with a view to issuing joint exploration licences?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is not referring to the fact that early last year application was made to the Argentine Government for permissions of that kind, which were in fact granted. However, the firms concerned came to the British Government and asked for permission to survey in the Falkland Islands continental shelf, and this was granted on the conditions I have set forth in the House today.

CONSUMERS AND THE NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
2.43 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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, in view of their Statement on 14th November last that progress had been made on the proposed White Paper dealing with the report of the National Consumer Council entitled Consumers and the Nationalised Industries published in August 1976, a date can now be given for publication of the White Paper.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I regret that I cannot go further than the earlier reply to my noble friend. The Government still hope to publish a White Paper responding to this report and to that of the National Economic Development Office as soon as possible, but as yet

655
no definite date has been set for publication. However, I can assure my noble friend that progress has been made since last November, both on the White Paper and on the implementation of some of the report's recommendations. I am sure that my noble friend will have welcomed the Government's announcement of the appointments of two consumer members to the newly-reorganised Post Office Board.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would not agree that we have been trying to track down this elusive date for a very long time but that at some time, doubtless, the House must know of it. May I ask—for, while I am delighted that two consumer representatives have been appointed to the Post Office Board, what I am after is the date of this report—whether it is possible that she and my noble friend Lord Oram can give matters a push so that we may know the date a little earlier than is anticipated?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have been trying to give matters a little push this morning, without success, and I shall certainly invite the help of my noble friend Lord Oram when he returns.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the National Consumer Council was set up in March 1974 and that all those who work in the consumer field of the nationalised industries are urgently awaiting the results of this report? Will she, perhaps, give a second push where it hurts?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I shall have to take the advice of the noble Baroness as to the best place to push. We are anxious that we should have this report as soon as possible. There have to be a lot of consultations about it and it involves a number of Departments. I can only ask the House to be patient for a little longer; and we will do what we can.

GIBRALTAR: SPANISH MEASURES
2.45 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 their representations to the Spanish Government have resulted in any alleviation of the Spanish measures against Gibraltar.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, exchanges with the Spanish Government have resulted in a much improved atmosphere with regard to the Gibraltar question. There has been an increase in direct contact between all concerned. Although there has been no general alleviation of Spanish measures, the telephone link between Spain and Gibraltar was restored just before Christmas.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does it follow from that Answer that there has been no alleviation either in respect of the closing of the land frontier or of the restrictions imposed on the airport? In view of the fact that as long ago as last May the noble Lord, Lord Oram, indicated to the House that Her Majesty's Government were making strong representations in this respect, is that not an extraordinarily disappointing state of affairs? What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, when I said that there was "no general alleviation", I qualified that by saying that there has been an improvement in the atmosphere between the two countries. There has been an increase in direct contact which is, surely, a very good thing to happen, and I gave an instance of how the Spanish Government authorities had moved somewhat in the direction of restoring communications. An instance is the telephone link which was restored just before Christmas and is still maintained. I think that we may take heart from the fact that leading Spaniards have visited Gibraltar and have talked to Gibraltarians and in that way have heard at first hand—some of them for the first time—exactly what are the feelings of Gibraltarians. We in this country are well aware of those feelings. It is greatly helpful that the Spanish people and their leaders should be equally aware of them.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether

657
the situation is as it was when I was there last: that is to say, that people working in Gibraltar can communicate with their close relations in Spain only by shouting across a frontier under threat of the rifles of the frontier guards? Is there any such situation anywhere else except on the Berlin Wall?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend gives a somewhat colourful description of the situation between Gibraltar and the rest of the Iberian Peninsular, but I cannot fault him. We deplore the fact that normal communications between Gibraltar and the rest of the Peninsula have not been restored and we are working hard to restore them. We find in the attitude of a democratic Spain a much more helpful posture than in that of the old Spain.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while welcoming what the noble Lord said, cannot the Government persuade the Spanish authorities that the continuation of these restrictions is a bar and a handicap to any rational discussion of the future of Gibraltar; since any Government of this country under that pressure are bound, if they make any concessions at all, to be accused of surrender so long as the pressure continues?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has enunciated a principle of great validity in situations of this kind and not only in respect of the Gibraltar question. We have recently had exchanges about Belize and about the Falklands. As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, it is surely much better, in relation to colonies and areas like this, to behave in a helpful and friendly way rather than to impose difficulties and inconveniences which can only have an adverse effect on the very purposes that those applying those difficulties have in mind.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is true, as is reported this morning, that Spain has proposed that Britain should retain the naval base while Gibraltar becomes part of Spain?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is referring to certain Press reports; but we have not received anything from any official Spanish quarter on those lines. Therefore I cannot comment at this stage.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, if this difficult situation is to be resolved by stages could the next stage be, while Gibraltar remains land locked, the establishment of direct sea communications with Algeciras across the Bay of Algeciras instead of by the very roundabout way through Tangier?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is certainly a point for further consideration. It has been given consideration in the past and is present in our minds at the moment. Clearly, it takes two to implement any arrangement, even the arrangement which my noble friend has described. I am grateful to him for his suggestion. I shall certainly have another look at what he has said.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, could my noble friend remember that one of the methods by which the Franco Government hoped to cripple Gibraltar was by withdrawing Spanish labour from the dockyards? Would it not be a good start to better relationships if the Government were to suggest that the Spanish dockers who were rendered unemployed by the Franco régime were now allowed to go back to work in the dockyards of Gibraltar?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think my noble friend a former Secretary of State for the Colonies, will agree with me that that consideration may have occurred, certainly to the democratic Government of Spain; if it has not, I am sure that we will take a friendly, early opportunity of reminding them.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, in view of the positive and constructive talk held on 24th November last in Strasbourg between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his opposite number, Sr. Marcelino Oreja Aguirre, would not Her Majesty's Government deem it appropriate at this juncture to ensure that these helpful exchanges continue in the near future?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening in the way he has. It gives me an opportunity to emphasise that the meeting which my right honourable friend had with the Foreign Minister of Spain, Sr. Oreja, in Strasbourg last November, was indeed friendly and constructive. In reply to the noble Lord's supplementary question. I am glad to state to the House that it is hoped to arrange a further meeting as early as possible this year.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Denham be appointed to the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Henley deceased.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN PATENT ORGANISA TION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1977
INTERNATIONAL RUBBER STUDY GROUP (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1978
2.53 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to move that the European Patent Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1977 be approved. With your Lordships' permission, I shall at the same time move the International Rubber Study Group (Immunities and Privileges) Order, as set out on the Order Paper. These orders, which were laid before the House on 10th January, will be made under the International Organisations Act 1968.
The order relating to the European Patent Organisation will enable us to fulfil our obligations under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents and the annexed Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, which entered into force on 7th October 1977. The protocol requires that the Organisation be given legal
660
personality in the territory of each member State and that certain privileges and immunities be accorded to the Organisation and persons connected with it. The present draft order confers corporate status on the Organisation and accords those privileges and immunities which are specified in the protocol. The scale of these privileges and immunities is broadly similar to that accorded to the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts and its staff, except that the president of the European Patent Office is accorded the status of a "high officer", together with certain additional privileges and immunities appropriate to that status. These do not, however, extend to immunity from suit and legal process in any matters concerning the infringement of traffic regulations or damage caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or driven by him, or it may be her.
The European Patent Convention has been signed by 16 European States, including all the EEC countries, and of these seven have so far ratified. The United Kingdom, in depositing its instrument of ratification on 3rd March 1977, became one of the founder members of the Organisation. The European Patent Office has now been established in Munich and by June this year it is expected to be ready to receive its first applications. Under the Convention an applicant, by means of a single application filed in one language (either English, French or German) and processed according to common rules and procedures, will be able to obtain patent protection in all of the member countries he chooses to designate. All examining work will be concentrated at the Munich headquarters, except that under the protocol on Centralisation which forms part of the Convention there is provision for entrusting some national patent offices (and the British Patent Office in particular) with examining work on an agency basis for a transitional period of 15 years.
There is also a branch of the European Patent Office at The Hague, which took over an existing patent searching institution—the International Patent Institute—on 1st March. Together with a small branch in Berlin taken over from the German Patent Office, this office will be concerned with searching and the initial formalities examination. The Convention provides that, for the purposes of information and

661
liaison, sub-offices of the European Patent Office may be set up in the contracting States; but at present it is thought that this purpose can be adequately fulfilled by the national patent offices. It is unlikely, therefore, that a sub-office will be set up in the United Kingdom or that the European Patent Organisation will have any permanent employees working in this country.
The effect of this order on the Exchequer is expected to be minimal, since we shall not be called upon to accord any privileges to officials of the Organisation in the foreseeable future. In the case of representatives who might come here for meetings, they will enjoy no immunity in respect of motor traffic offences (which of course includes parking) and only such immunities and facilities as are required to enable them to fulfil their functions without constraint.
May I now turn to the order relating to the International Rubber Study Group, which I shall move separately. This order is required to enable us to sign and give effect to an agreement with the International Rubber Study Group relating to its headquarters in London. The agreement, which will come into force on signature, provides that the Group shall have legal personality and that such privileges and immunities as are necessary for an international organisation of this nature to function efficiently shall be accorded to it.
The International Rubber Study Group has evolved through various forms since its inception as a British-Dutch Liaison Committee on Rubber, set up at governmental level in 1930. It has grown over the years to become a world-wide body, in which the Governments of 30 countries participate, representing the major producers and consumers of natural rubber. At its headquarters in London, a permanent secretariat is concerned with compiling and publishing statistics, as well as organising symposia and preparing special reports on specific questions as they arise.
Recent years have seen a growth of interest throughout the world in commodity questions. In the context of the North-South dialogue, the role of the commodity trade as a major source of wealth for any developing country has
662
been stressed. For the consuming countries, in turn, the regularity of supply of commodities such as rubber is of direct relevance to their manufacturing industries. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, at its fourth session in Nairobi in May 1976, resolved to set up a programme of study for the major commodities. This programme, under the name of the Integrated Programme for Commodities, is now in progress, examining closely the characteristics and problems of 10 main commodities, including rubber, with regard to both their production and their trade. A further part of the programme is the conference on the proposed Common Fund, the second session of which ended in December last.
Against this background of the highest governmental interest throughout both the developed and the developing worlds, your Lordships will readily appreciate the invaluable role played by a body such as the International Rubber Study Group. Its statistical work casts light on the complex interactions of the world rubber trade, and it provides a forum in which countries may reach an orderly settlement of such problems as arise between different interest groups. In time, and with the favourable progress of the commodity programme, the task of the study group will doubtless grow even more in importance. We may expect, indeed, that it will one day provide the natural foundation for a full international rubber organisation having regulatory functions.
The United Kingdom is already host to five full international commodity organisations, which is a measure in itself of their importance to us. Furthermore, the Government are participating actively in the integrated programme established by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. I therefore recommend that your Lordships approve this order and demonstrate the support of the House for the contribution being made by the International Rubber Study Group to the well-ordered development of this important commodity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft European Patent Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1977, laid before the House on 17th January, be approved.
That the draft International Rubber Study Group (Immunities and Privileges)

663
Order 1978, laid before the House on 17th January, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
3.4 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his detailed and comprehensive explanation of the two orders which are now before your Lordships' House. I do not have any detailed questions to put to the noble Lord, but I should like to ask him whether there is any real difference between the immunities conferred by the two different orders that we are discussing. There are minor variations in phrasing as between the two orders, one of which is coloured blue while the other is coloured white. Is there any significance in the fact that one is blue, or is it merely a political omen? Your Lordships will be wanting to turn to the Theft Bill and therefore, with that question, I once again thank the noble Lord for his explanation of what these two orders are now setting in motion.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the fact that I was not in my place when he started his address to your Lordships on these two orders. But when an order is entitled the European Patent Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, and purports to give privileges and immunities which the ordinary citizen in this country does not have, no doubt the noble Lord will expect somebody from these Benches to make some observations about them.
There are one or two questions which I should like to ask about this order, and I apologise if the noble Lord raised these matters in the part of his address which I did not hear. What is the position of experts, and what is meant by "experts" in Part V? Does this order give immunity to experts of the kind who would be expected to go to the European Patent Office in Munich, which I understand is part of the European Patent Organisation, and who would be dealing with applications for patents lodged in Munich which might then, for some procedural reason, be transferred to the United Kingdom Patent Office for further prosecution? Who are these experts who are to have immunities and privileges over
664
and above those which citizens of this country have? Prima facie, it appears that there may be a large number of them, but perhaps I am wrong in my interpretation of the word "experts" in Part V.
When I was a representative of this Party in the Council of Europe I raised, from time to time, a protest as to the form in which these matters came before the Houses of Parliament, because they arise under a Convention. According to the explanatory note, the Convention of 1973, which was signed by the United Kingdom Government, had annexed to it a schedule which was the protocol on privileges and immunities. As a result of the manner in which this Convention was conceived, and therefore the manner in which the protocol on immunities and privileges was conceived, there was no opportunity for Parliamentary discussion before any body.
I tried, when I was a representative at the Council of Europe, to get the Council to have a discussion on this type of Convention. But the Convention was conceived at the Council of Europe and it has been discussed and it is probably made into a very good form by representatives from Governments without any Parliamentary discussion at all until the matter comes before this House in a more or less finished form.
That is my apologia for addressing your Lordships at such length on this matter: no doubt, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will have answers to the questions which I have raised. The other matter about which I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. Is it likely that the United Kingdom Patent Office will be considered a subordinate body nuder Part III, paragraph 13, of the order?
3.8 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will be aware that outside Parliament there is a good deal of criticism of the very wide spread of these immunities and privileges and therefore there is a considerable body of opinion that would expect Parliament to probe the proposal to add to them. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, in these days when the ordinary citizen is subjected to every kind of restriction, the fact that the number of privileged people in our midst should be increasing is a matter that gives rise to understandable criticism.

665
I should like to direct my remarks to the second body concerned in these two orders, the International Rubber Study Group. In his admirable explanation of both of these orders, the noble Lord did not, I think—and I followed his argument very closely—give any indication as to whether or not this study group would be unable satisfactorily to discharge its functions if it did not have these immunities and privileges. It may be that it could not operate, but, with great respect, the noble Lord did not tell us what those difficulties were. I think that it might be helpful if the noble Lord could indicate to the House whether there is a positive, practical case for granting these immunities and privileges to the International Rubber Study Group or whether they are asked for as a kind of status symbol because, as the noble Lord said, five other commodity organisations already have them. Again in the context of the International Rubber Study Group, I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether among the immunities there are any immunities from taxation. As the noble Lord knows, those are the kind of immunities which give rise perhaps to the strongest of feelings, at least among those who enjoy no such immunities. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us whether any tax concessions are involved and, if so, what they are.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I have sat in this House for a great number of years listening to debates on immunities and privileges Motions. It is at least 10 years since I heard a Front Bench spokesman—I do not remember from which Party he came—say that the House would not pass any more of these Motions but would vote down the next one. I am still awaiting the great day when the next one is going to be voted down. Unfortunately, I did not hear everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, but the other matter, apart from taxation to which my noble friend has just referred, which enrages the general public is that so often these people are able to snap their fingers at parking regulations and accumulate a gigantic pile of unpaid parking tickets. Is that kind of immunity going to apply to these people?
3.12 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in the first place perhaps I may
666
address myself to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. The experts whom he wished me to define—and who would define an expert? But I shall do my best—are independent consultants who are not employed by the Organisation but who are given contracts for specific purposes. It is difficult to estimate how many experts there will be at any one time. That is so far as I can go on the definition of experts in this or any other connotation.
I believe that it was the noble Lord who also asked about the future of the British Patent Office. Under Article 31 of this order, it is not, of course, a subordinate body and its future over the next 15 years will be very much what it is now. It will deal with all applications which come to it from internal sources and, in addition, will act in an agency capacity, as I said, for the Munich office. The 15-year period is deemed to be transitional from the agency basis to the point where Munich, presumably, will be handling everything. But I should imagine—indeed, I should expect confidently—that a British office for purely British patent purposes (some people apply for patent rights simply within their own country) would continue.
The noble Lord also raised a point about procedure. I cannot speak, unfortunately, for the procedure or non-procedure in any other Parliament, but to apply the noble Lord's point to the British Parliamentary procedure, when these agreed international conventions are ratified by this country they need to be approved in that form by both Houses of Parliament. Before, however, such conventions come to us or to the other place a joint select committee looks at them to see whether they are ultra vires in any way. This procedure was followed in this case as it is in every similar case, but I think I know what the noble Lord is after. Although these orders were put to the joint select committee, it is a fact that it was found later to be necessary for the committee to bring up points of deficiency about their drafting. This was instantly seen to and put right. I take it as a salutary reminder from the noble Lord—whose field, the patent field, this is—that we should be very careful to follow the proper procedure of a joint select committee before coming to the two Houses in regard to orders such as

667
this, and I can give him an assurance that that procedure will certainly be followed. Those are the three points which I believe the noble Lord raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who is always kind and even more formidable, almost launched into a critical appreciation of the need for immunity and privilege. As a former very distinguished Cabinet Minister, he will know that this is common form; but again it is a function of this House—I say nothing about the other place—that on these occasions we should be reminded that what we are doing needs to be scrutinised and reaffirmed as to its necessity and extent and must not be taken for granted. The noble Lord knows, of course, that we rest on the Vienna Convention and other international agreements as to how much and how far to go in regard to diplomatic and similar privilege and immunity. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, himself hinted, these are matters of pretty common form. They are less in the extent of the privileges and immunities that they extend than some others that one could mention. In fact, I have armed myself with a rather neat list of the immunities and privileges to be accorded under these orders to the various categories of people who are doing the work covered by these orders. However, it is rather lengthy. I have no desire to hold back my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich from dilating upon some rather fascinating legislation which is to be considered by your Lordships, but I will make available this list to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would it not be briefer if the noble Lord gave me a list of those international organisations which do not have these privileges?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords: this is where one qualifies one's admiration for even the noble Lord. In my recollection there are no orders, and therefore no immunities or privileges accorded to various categories of officers, which are entirely similar. These, too, vary. As to 90 per cent. or more of the privileges and immunities accorded to the study group and to the Organisation, they are similar, but there are what I would call minor differences between even these two
668
orders. There is a minutiae of variation from one organisation to another. Therefore I must resist the noble Lord's enticing invitation to cut that particular corner. I should not be misleading the noble Lord but I might be misleading myself if I succumbed. I repeat that this is a useful list which he and other noble Lords might find it interesting to study. I shall make it available in the Library so that a comparison can be made.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, might it not be more convenient for noble Lords and for others who are interested in this subject if the list were given in the form of a Written Answer to a Question?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the matter is entirely in the hands of the House and the Members thereof. It is always possible for a noble Lord to put down a Question for Written Answer. In addition, I shall be doubly virtuous and will also place a copy in the Library. Perhaps I may proceed with these fascinating questions; I hope that I have taken note of them all. I have a certain facility by now for reading these orders, but I have a diminishing facility for reading my own handwriting. I come to the graceful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, whom once more we welcome to his Party's Front Bench.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I think he was going to answer my question as to whether the International Rubber Study Group involved immunities from taxation and, if so, which?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, reads my handwriting better than I do myself, even from a sitting posture.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, if the noble Lord could see mine he would understand why.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: It is a question of substance, my Lords. The invariable practice in this connection is, of course, to render immunity from internal or host country income tax, but that of course does not absolve any officer from whichever country from paying

669
income tax: he pays his own country's income tax. There is a somewhat complicated procedure whereby this is done, but as the noble Lord well knows—although he is right to get me to remind the House of the position—these people are not absolved from taxation. They are immune from the taxation of the country in which they serve as foreign nationals but their own States take good care that they pay what they would have paid if they had stayed at home. I do not know whether from one country to another there is a certain bargain. I think it works both ways, depending on the two countries concerned. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that point. I know that I have made the position clear to him because he was well aware of it already.
I should like to refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for its brevity and its appropriateness. We are all appreciative of my noble friend (if I may so call him), who speaks from the Conservative Front Bench: we rejoice in him personally although we may deplore him politically. He gave general support to these orders, and rightly so; he is familiar with the procedure and also their purport. As I have said, they vary a little from one order to the other, but not to such an extent, I suggest, as to create an issue for prolonged debate in this House. He made an interesting remark about the colour of the paper on which the two orders were printed; he said that, apart from the difference between blue and white, he could see no difference in them. I doubt whether there would be much greater difference between them if the difference in colour had been as between blue and red.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should be glad if he would answer my point. Are these people able to block up whole streets of London with impunity and immunity?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that they are not immune from the stringencies of our motor traffic Statutes, and I rather stressed the point "including parking offences", and I looked meaningfully in the direction of the noble Lord when I said that.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Deception as to prospect of payment]:
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1, and insert the following new clause:
Obtaining services by deception
("1.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, by any deception obtains any services from another shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For purposes of this section—

(a) "services" means services which are provided in return for payment or the promise of payment and includes the hire of any property;

(b) "obtains" includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain.")

The noble Lord said: I bring forward this Amendment with a great deal of hesitation and it is the same hesitation as I shall feel when I come later to move Amendment No. 3, because each of these Amendments involves in effect demolishing the existing clauses in the Bill and seeking to replace them by something which it is submitted is very much clearer and more easy to understand and at the same time much more effective. It is not so much that I am thereby criticising a draft produced by the Government that causes the hesitation; it is the fact that at the same time I know that I am criticising a draft produced by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, a body that was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and which contains within its ranks a number of extremely distinguished judges, academic lawyers and indeed even one practitioner.
This new Clause 1 is not my own brainchild, I hasten to say. It has been worked out by a number of us in the Criminal Bar Association in the hope that we can produce something rather more practical than the existing draft. I wish to say at once that my intention this afternoon is to invite comment and criticism of which I have no doubt there will be plenty, and then to reflect upon that comment and criticism in order to decide what steps, if any, should be taken at a later stage in this Bill.
The existing Clause 1 appears to many of us to be open to criticism on three quite separate grounds. First, it would involve a judge in practice in directing a jury, (even in the simplest possible case where a man has obtained the hire of a car by handing over a dud cheque) on at least eight separate ingredients constituting the offence. I do not want to repeat at any length what I said at Second Reading, but it is quite clear from the way the Bill is drafted that the judge will be explaining to the jury, first, that there has to be a deception; secondly, that it has to be a deception about an existing fact even though it is about an intention to pay money in the future; thirdly, that the deception must be relevant to the prospect of payment; fourthly, that a cheque is not in itself a payment; fifthly, that inducing somebody to act includes inducing somebody to refrain from acting; sixthly, that the deception must be one which induces the act or the refraining from action; seventhly, that an agreement to act does not amount to an act, and, eighthly, that inducing someone to refrain from taking steps to enforce a liability is not an offence under the clause.
Those are all matters which are integral to Clause 1 in its present form as drafted, and I think it is inevitable that any judge directing a jury will nevertheless feel himself obliged in the simplest possible case to go through each of those ingredients and point out how each of them must be proved by the prosecution before it can be proved that an offence has been committed. That is a complexity which should be avoided if that can reasonably be done. That is the first objection to the clause as it stands.
The second objection is that it involves the judge in directing the jury on concepts
672
which are, on the face of them, contrary to the jury's own common sense. This is always undesirable in the criminal law. Three particular matters arise. It involves the judge beginning by saying, as in Clause 1, line 2, that there must be a
"relevant deception [which] dishonestly induces another to act on any person's promise of payment".
Then he has to go straight on, under subsection (2) of the clause, to say that of course it does not matter if
"the act induced is not itself that in respect of which payment is promised"
in certain circumstances. That is a somewhat discouraging start for a jury.
Secondly, it involves the judge explaining to the jury under Clause 1(3) that by persuading someone to act there is included the concept of persuading somebody not to act, to refrain from action. That in itself is likely to surprise the average juror, and his surprise will be intensified when he is told a few moments later under Clause 1(4) that a person does not act if he only agrees to act. So the jury are going to be told that by "act" there is not included the concept of "agreeing to act" but there is included the concept of "refraining from action". This again, I suspect, may prove somewhat difficult.
The third artificial concept that is introduced by this clause is the concept that the giving in payment of a cheque (this is in Clause 1(3)(c)) is not to be treated as a payment but only as the making of the promise of payment. I venture to think that this again is contrary to the ordinary jury's understanding of life. When he goes into a shop and hands over his cheque he reckons that he has paid for the goods and he would be a little surprised, and so would the shopkeeper, if he was simply signifying to the shopkeeper, "What I am giving you now is not payment; it is a promise of payment". There are thus three artificial concepts in this Bill which ought if possible, I suggest, particularly in criminal legislation, to be avoided. That is the second objection. The first is the complexity of the whole clause; the second the artificiality of the concepts into which this approach to the legislation has led the draftsman.
There is, thirdly, this difficulty—and I went into this point at Second Reading

673
and I do not want to do so again in any detail. It seems to me that, most unusually for the criminal law, whether an offence is committed under this clause depends not upon what the cheat or the defendant does but upon whether the victim responds or reacts in a certain way. In the ordinary way, if the defendant commits the ingredients of the offence and the victim does not respond there is at least the offence of attempting to commit that offence. It seems to me it would be difficult to envisage an offence of attempt under this clause having regard to the provision in subsection (4) where the person does not for the purposes of this clause act on a promise if he only agrees to act. Therefore if a person with dishonesty in his mind makes a relevant deception and obtains the agreement of another person to act, what, in ordinary circumstances, would be at the very least an attempt to commit the offence is no offence at all.
It is undesirable that there should be legislation in which the situation arises that whether or not an offence is committed depends not upon the defendant after he has completed his dishonesty but entirely upon whether or not the victim happens to respond in a particular way. Briefly, those are the criticisms that I make against the existing clause.
Before looking at what I suggest is an alternative and a simpler and more effective approach, may I briefly consider what is the evil which is aimed at by Clause 1. It is set out very simply in the Thirteenth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee at page 10. Paragraph 9 reads:
"The offence of deception as to prospect of payment"—
and that is the side note to this clause which your Lordships are considering—
"is essentially an offence of dishonestly obtaining by deception services on which a monetary value is placed".
Again, a little later in the report some examples are given. Paragraph 12, page 11, of the report reads:
"We think that it will be helpful to follow this account of the detail of clause 1 with examples of frauds which could be prosecuted under the clause. The typical offence under the clause involves obtaining services by deception. In R. v. Page the accused gave worthless cheques when asked to pay in advance the hire charge for a car and to provide a deposit against possible
674
damage. Such conduct would amount to an offence under clause 1. A more serious example of the same type of conduct would be obtaining by deception the use of an aircraft or ship, where the charges for hire or charter might be very large indeed. The clause would also apply to obtaining by deception the use of a chauffeur driven car or a journey in a taxi. Provided there is an underlying promise of payment and a deception going to the prospect of payment being duly made, the clause would cover deceptions in obtaining any of the following services—the use of a computer; the use of a recording studio and the equipment in it, together with the assistance of the staff; admission to a theatre or concert hall; professional services, for example, those of a surveyor; and the repair of a motorcar or television set".
It was because of the wording of paragraphs 9 and 12 of the report that some of us were led to consider whether it might not be simpler and more effective to devise the offence which is contained in Amendment 1 before your Lordships, which is not deception as to prospects of payment, as in the existing clause, but obtaining services by deception. It sets out very simply that:
"A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or loss to another, by any deception obtains any services from another shall be guilty of an offence".
It limits "services" to those
"services which are provided in return for payment or the promise of payment and includes the hire of any property";
and it makes a comment about the word "obtains" which is also contained in the existing draft.
Under the new clause as drafted all the examples covered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee's proposals in paragraphs 9 and 12 would be caught foursquare. It is clear that the Criminal Law Revision Committee themselves considered to some extent whether to approach the problem along these lines. In paragraph 7 of their report they say:
"The effect of section 16"—
that is of the 1968 Theft Act which they were considering—
"is to cover a variety of conduct the common feature of which is that what is obtained can be said to have a monetary value. We have considered a different approach under which the basic offence to replace section 16(2)(a) would be obtaining services by deception. When we examined what the concept of 'services' included we found that it would not serve our purposes without definition. For example, is obtaining the loan of an article obtaining services? If so, it would be an offence for a man to tell lies to his neighbour in order to obtain the loan of a lawn

675
mower. If not, it would not be an offence to give a worthless cheque to a car hire company in order to obtain the use of a car for a few days".
That, I think, is the only reasoning in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's proposal which led them to prefer the complexity of the draft clause in this Bill to the alternative of the straightforward offence of obtaining services by deception. I would ask that there should be considered whether the draft in this Amendment does not in fact cover the difficulty which the Criminal Law Revision Committee foresaw.
They raised the question: Would it be an offence for a man to tell lies to his neighbour in order to obtain the loan of a lawn mower? Under the new amended clause the answer would be clearly, "No", first because of the possible issue of dishonesty; secondly, because there would not be a view to gain for himself or loss to another. Thirdly, it is covered by the fact that in subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause the word "services" means services which are provided in return for payment or the promise of payment and includes the hire of any property. In those circumstances, I respectfully ask that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and those who advise him should consider whether at this stage there is not a great deal to be gained in terms of simplicity and efficiency by proceeding along the other line, indicated first by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, on the basis of creating the simple and straightforward offence of obtaining services by deception, rather than what I suggest is the extremely complicated and difficult version which has been chosen for the Government's Bill. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
3.40 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Before I come to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I think it would be appropriate on an occasion like this to say a few brief words about the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who died a few days ago and who undoubtedly would have been with us today in other circumstances. The noble Lord, whom I did not have the advantage of knowing for a very substantial period of time, was, I know, a very distinguished Member of this House, sitting on both Government
676
and Opposition Front Benches over a period of many years. He was a most distinguished member of his profession. I think it only right on an occasion such as this to pay tribute to his memory and to express to his family our deep regrets at his passing.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who has moved this Amendment today, has, as always, put his case in most moderate terms, and I hope to respond in similar terms. As I indicated when I spoke on Second Reading, the Government are anxious on this occasion, as on other measures concerning the reform of criminal law, to move forward with the greatest possible degree of assent from all sides of the House. I undertook on that occasion that we would look with great care at any Amendments which might be tabled by the noble Lord, or indeed by other noble Lords, when we came to the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. However, I should say one thing—and it is a point which the noble Lord himself has raised—namely, that the Government gave the task of reviewing this particular section of the Theft Act 1968 to a law reform agency, the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and that it is, broadly speaking, their proposals which we are discussing today, though they obviously have the support of the Government.
I think that the situation was put very fairly during our Second Reading debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, who would have liked to be present today but who, unhappily, is not particularly fit at the moment: unless there is some really overwhelming advantage to be gained from the changes, the House should consider carefully before making amendments to this Bill, given the fact that it comes from the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The noble Lord's Amendments are in fact a radical departure from the proposals of the Committee. Essentially, the Committee recommended three new offences. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is proposing to rewrite two of them and to make pretty substantial changes to the third.
If I may come to some points of detail, on Clause 1 there is, I believe, only one major issue—namely, whether the word "services" should replace the phraseology

677
of the clause. If "services" will stand the strain, then the clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, does have the advantage of greater simplicity; I think that is undeniable. It is not, I assume, intended to be very different in scope. But can we rely on the word "services"? That is an issue where I am bound to say that I think there is some doubt. In the Government's view, the word "services" does not have the precision needed for a term which is to define a particular type of criminal conduct. The matter was discussed at some length both in the working paper and the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and the conclusion they reached was that the approach being put forward by the noble Lord was unacceptable.
Furthermore, if we were to adopt this Amendment, there would be another problem; that is, there would be a considerable overlap between Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, whether the latter was in the form proposed by the noble Lord or indeed whether it was the Government's clause. While this would not be a fatal objection if Clause 1 could be adjusted to prevent the overlap, this does not appear to be practical. As I shall explain when we come to the noble Lord's Amendment to Clause 2, his clause produces a total overlap with his Clause 1; but the overlap with which I am now concerned is that between his Clause 1 and the Bill's Clause 2(1)(a).
The Committee's aim was to deal in Clause 1 with deceptions intended to avoid payment and to deal in Clause 2(1)(a) with deceptions which obtain exemption from certain charges or obtain services at a reduced price. Unfortunately, obtaining services at a reduced price comes within the noble Lord's Clause 1. Clause 2(1)(a) is not in a form which easily separates into obtaining services at a reduced rate and obtaining exemption from other charges. I may have to expand on this when we come to discuss Clause 2, but the only point I need to make now is that the Committee's careful division of deception into different cagetories with the minimum of overlap would be upset if the noble Lord's Amendments were to be accepted. It can hardly improve the Bill to increase the number of overlapping offences.
In short, while I have every sympathy with the noble Lord's motives, I do not
678
believe he has come up with a solution which has not been considered and rejected by the Criminal Revision Law Committee, or one which is an improvement on Clause 1 of the Bill as it stands. Nor do I think it would be advisable for your Lordships to go against the advice of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and approve the use of the term "obtaining services", which they specifically reject, which could involve purchasing apparent simplicity at the price of uncertainty, which would have to be resolved eventually by decisions of the Court of Appeal.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: First, from these Benches may I join the noble Lord the Minister in his tribute to Lord Chorley and extend our condolences to his family. Also from these Benches, I should like to explain that my noble friend Lord Mansfield is unable for reasons of health to take part in the debate on this Bill, and he regrets very much that he is not able to be here.
I should like to comment on the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. It seems to me that there are two criteria by which this must be judged. First, it should be clear and understandable not only to a judge but also, in his direction, to a jury. On the face of it, the draft clause of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, looks beautifully easy and clear. However, I think that the very fact that something in a Bill looks clear and easy may perhaps be the first trap, because one usually realises that it is much more difficult to understand than if it were written in a much longer form and looked very much more complicated. One has only to remember the comments of the late Lord Reid in his judgment in DPP v Turner, when he said that he thought that this would need a much greater expansion in order to avoid rarified analyses from judges to juries.
Secondly, I asked myself whether this more or less equated with the clause that it purports to replace in the Bill before the Committee? The Bill is, of course, intended to replace Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, which specifically refers to pecuniary advantage being gained. The question that I should really

679
like to ask and which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will be able to answer is as follows. Do the words, "by any deception" not open his draft clause very much wider than the clause in the Bill? If we have "any deception", surely that means that anybody can obtain a service, possibly as one obtains a counter service. It is not necessarily obtained by a person's promise of payment. I accept that, in his definition of "services", the services are those which are provided in return for payment or the promise of payment, but that definition does not necessarily apply to "by any deception". It seems to me—and, of course, I stand to be corrected—that the noble Lord's Amendment would very much widen the type of offence that would fall within this clause. Therefore, I should be grateful for some clarification of the Amendment in this respect.
I must confess that, in my view, until the Law Commission review of conspiracy to cheat and defraud and consideration of fraud offences generally is completed, it will be extremely difficult to get a satisfactory clause to deal with the kinds of offence which are arising and which are becoming more and more sophisticated and difficult as opportunities become available to more members of the general public every year. Therefore, in that respect I am not very happy with the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, but perhaps he will be able to enlighten me on this particular point.
3.54 p.m.
Lord HALE: I apologise for joining this debate a little late and missing some important remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. However, I speak under some difficulty because I have spent four out of the last five days in bed and I am not sure that I should be here today at all, or that I shall be able to see the end of the debate. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will not keep emphasising the necessity to have regard to the very able, elaborate, complicated and honest document of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. That Committee has gone out of its way from start to finish to express its own doubts about almost everything connected with
680
this matter. It records from time to time the consultations that it has had with members, advisers and persons with different opinions about vital matters; indeed opinions which go to the whole boundaries of the question of what is criminal law, what is tort, and what is what we call a more humble civil law even than tort. It talks about the question of whether getting into debt should be made a criminal offence and rejects it, and, as regards this particular question, raised the issue of borrowing a lawn mower, which in these days, when even lawn mowers are extremely sophisticated, is not very easy. If one has a large lawn one has to use a little persuasion on an unenthusiastic neighbour to lend you his new elaborate lawn mower.
There is such a mass of papers that I would not like to speak with certainty about anything, but there has been some talk even about the possibility of borrowing books and how far that can be an offence. Of course, as regards anything connected with books one would be able to find evidence of criminal conduct on the part of almost anyone who owns a reasonably large library whether of good books or of bad.
I apologise for not having said one word about the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who was someone whom we regarded with veneration. I sat at the feet of Gamaliel 30 years ago. The generosity and knowledge of Lord Chorley were always devoted to the service of our progressive law, to its understanding and enunciation and to a great many good causes which arose from his forensic knowledge.
I have no doubt whatever—in fact no one has—that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is in many ways admirable compared with this elaborate clause. In an unpremeditated observation I made on a previous occasion I referred to the fact that there used to be at least a definition of theft in the Larceny Act which has stood the test of time, but which was apparently thought not to stand the test of an electronic age. It is difficult for this House, without all Members being experts in electronics, to provide for all the possibilities. Some of the problems that arise are indeed astounding. The two cases which were decided on the same day by the courts produced a

681
diversity of opinion from the judges which was astounding and they also produced a diversity of honest opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, quoted the respected and venerated name of the noble Lord, Lord Reid. In fact, in one of those two cases the noble Lord, Lord Reid, delivered a minority opinion which was forceful and so on, and emphatically called attention first of all to the necessity of the interpretation of any clause of criminal law with strictness and without elaboration.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has divided the clause that he has put forward under two heads, which I noted as "the lawn mower clause" and the "milk on the doorstep clause". I might say a word about the "milk on the doorstep" as regards Clause 2, if that is the correct clause. Mark you, we are talking now about clauses which import a possible offence, a possible conviction and five years' imprisonment.
I have an increasing respect for the Law Society and the work that it is doing, having been somewhat of a maverick in my time. However, it was a little unfortunate that I should receive its observations on these clauses on Saturday morning last, when it was too late to give effect to its recommendations, which have apparently been considered by the Home Office, without much enthusiasm, since last June. Lying in bed trying to concentrate on things celestial, which appeared at that moment more imminent than things terrestrial, I decided to draw back my observations which, of course, were very useful but which involved in some cases Amendments which it was too late to table. But it quotes Professor A. T. H. Smith in the Criminal Law Review, 1977, at page 261. He does not think that there is any need for relevant deception, but he uses an expression which attracted me; he thinks that these things might lead to a "rarefied analysis".
In the cases of Turner and Ray, which were not very terrible cases anyhow, and which occupied the time of a court of first instance, an appellate court and then the time of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House—the ruling on one of which overruled the ruling of a strong Divisional Court by three votes to two—we were reaching the point when rarefied analysis was getting to a stage so remote from ordinary analysis and ordinary
682
understanding that the criminal law was becoming very largely a matter of obscurantism—a matter on which I have listened to learned lectures in the past. I recall what happened when Mr. Justice Darling passed sentence on the accused, after a finding of "guilty", with an apt and erudite Latin quotation. The accused turned to the warder and said, "I cannot understand what the old boy said and I am not sure what has happened". The warder rather brutally said, "Well, there is one thing about it. You have the good fortune to have five years to find out". I have had only a day or two to find out, and I confess that I have not completely found out. I do not think that anyone who has listened to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich in his very brief and summary reply could fail to feel that the clause of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, at least offers a good deal more clarity and hope.
This business has really had an unhappy course and the Criminal Law Revision Committee has been at some pains to say that its original draft got knocked about when it was discussed by noble Lords. The actual origin of some of this was a Bill called The Rent Rebates Bill, which in my view was an act of political deception on behalf of the Labour Party, which some people are still talking about now. They said that if a man filled in a form which did not contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth, he could be prosecuted criminally for obtaining a rent rebate by deception. No one goes into the question of whether he may have asked his Member of Parliament to fill in the form at one of his weekly interviews and the Member of Parliament unwittingly made the deception, not the applicant. That was embodied in an Act in 1967 which was repealed in 1968. The Act which repealed it in 1968 was, of course, the Theft Act with this word, "deception", which I find a little apt to lead to rarefied analysis of itself.
We are told that at some stage we shall come to the question of giving cheques. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in the debate on Second Reading (and I am sorry he is not here) pointed out the real difficulty of modern life in these matters. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has explained with clarity a clause that he has drafted with clarity. Time after time the Criminal Law Revision

683
Bill Committee has said that it is in difficulty here and in difficulty there; that possibilities arise and that possibilities cannot be clarified. I suggest that the Committee will be well advised, if given the opportunity, to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder.
4.6 p.m.
Lord FOOT: I should like to start by saying a few words in support of the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I came to this House 10 years ago almost to the day and my maiden speech was devoted to supporting an attempt by Lord Chorley to amend the Street Offences Act. Because of my support his attempt failed, but from that time onwards I was able to work with him upon various matters. He was my predecessor as the president of the Commons and Open Spaces Society. As I knew him for only 10 years I did not know him in his prime, but I think that all of us who have attended your Lordships' House for the last 10 years will have admired the enormous courage with which Lord Chorley, suffering from so many physical disabilities, continued to come here and make his contribution, even right up to the end. In fact, I believe that the last occasion when he addressed your Lordships' House was in support of an Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Regulations, which reflected his deep love of the English countryside. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having given us the opportunity to express these feelings about him.
I listened with as much care as I could to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, had to say in defence of the wording of the Bill as opposed to the Amendment of my noble friend. I think that it is right to say that the substance of his argument was threefold: first, that this was the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee; secondly, that it was questionable whether "services" was an adequate alternative word to use. But, as I understood it, the main burden of his case was that if we amend the Bill in the way in which my noble friend suggests we would have a large area of overlap as between Clause 1 and Clause 2. I entirely agree with all that my noble friend has said about the disadvantages of Clause 1 as it now reads from the point of
684
view of simplicity, comprehension and understanding.
This morning I made some attempt to read through the Bill to try to understand what it meant. I would hazard the suggestion that if an ordinary layman, or indeed a lawyer, looked at the Bill without reference to anything else, he would find it absolutely impossible to understand what Clause 1 means, what it covers, or its scope. If that is right—and I think it is undoubtedly right—it is surely a very great disadvantage, especially when we are writing the criminal law, to write it in such a way that it is incomprehensible to the layman or even to the lawyer who does not have an opportunity of referring to his law books. It is a very grave evil if we write the criminal law in such a fashion.
If that is right, it seems to me that the Amendment of my noble friend, in fact, gets over the difficulty, because if one reads it without reference to anything else, it is immediately comprehensible to the ordinary layman. In my submission the only way in which one can understand Clause 1 of the Bill is by reading in detail the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It surely cannot be right to pass legislation which can be comprehended by ordinary people only if they refer to a long, elaborate report prepared by a group of distinguished lawyers.
I suggest that one of the reasons why the Revision Committee have not come up with something better and simpler is because, after they had gone through their long deliberations, and considering all the difficulties that had arisen under the original Clause 16(2)(a), they fully understood the matter and they reduced it to language which they could comprehend. But it does not follow from that that it is something that is comprepensible to ordinary mortals. Therefore, I would urge my noble friend to invite the Government to give this matter further consideration before the next stage so that some simpler form of wording could be worked out.
4.11 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: It seems to me that this is an amazingly wide clause. When some ingenious characters find a way to get round the law,

685
it often happens that the law is extended by the draftsmen, who are asked to deal with that particular difficulty, to cover a much wider front than anybody really expected. For instance—and I hope the noble Lord will put me right on this—does Clause 1 make it a criminal offence for anybody to take a drink on a round if he has reason to suspect that the man standing the round will not be able to pay for it at the end of the evening? According to the wording, that would seem to be a criminal offence. He is abetting by accepting the drink, and he has grounds for thinking it may not be paid for.
Then, look at Clause 2. A builder, or somebody like that, is having difficulty with his cash flow. He has a bill from his merchant falling due and he rings up and says, "Can you give me another week because I am expecting a client to pay this week", and, knowing his client, it is unlikely that the client will pay this week. Is this really a criminal offence? Do we want to make that a criminal offence? On the basis of the words of the Bill we seem to be doing so. In order to catch some clever rogues, we seem to be running the great danger of extending the scope of this Bill far wider than a criminal system should be allowed to go. Before we finally pass this Bill, I hope that it will be considered whether we can make it more intelligible—and I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has done much to make it more intelligible—and also a little narrower.
Lord BROCKWAY: I should like to associate myself with the tribute that has been paid to the late Lord Chorley. Over the years I have had great affection for him, for his character, for the principles he held, and for the great courage he showed in these later years in attending and participating in our work despite physical deformity.
I speak with some reluctance because, as a layman, I have not the least idea what this clause means. I have not got the beginning of an understanding. I want to ask our Front Bench and their draftsmen, when they are preparing Bills of this character, to think of the ordinary citizen and not just of the lawyer. By instituting legislation of this character, they are imposing a penalty upon the ordinary citizen. The lawyers in this debate—my noble friend Lord Hale on
686
one side and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on the other—have argued against their own interest. This complicated and incomprehensible legislation is just a gift to the legal profession. I want to add this: while I have not got a beginning of a notion what the clause we are now discussing means—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Hear, hear.
Lord BROCKWAY: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, says, "Hear, hear", with an implication that a layman should not participate in a debate of this character.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: The only implication was that I did not know either.
Lord BROCKWAY: I am delighted to hear that. So often, despite our different points of view, I find myself not only appreciating the humour of the noble and learned Lord but his interventions in this debate. What I want to say very strongly is this: I read the debate of the Second Reading, and my overall impression is that, in an attempt to bring a prosecution against those who the noble Lord, Lord Paget, said were rogues, this legislation opens out the possibility of making criminal the acts of a whole mass of little men who are not criminals at all, and at the same time ignores the much greater unsocial acts of richer men who will not be caught by this Bill. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I hope he will press it to a Division.
4.18 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, or my noble friend Lord Wigoder, make their concluding remarks, may I ask one brief question for clarification on one of the eight points which I thought my noble friend made very clearly; that concerns the distinction made between a cheque and cash. One is described as payment, and the other described as a promise of payment. Of course, if I write out a cheque which is a dud cheque because I have nothing in my balance, that is clearly fraudulent. If I give a dud pound note, that is equally fraudulent. But I notice

687
that on the only two notes I have got on me, one a five pound note and the other a one pound note, each has printed on it that Mr. Page, on behalf of the Governor of the Bank of England, promises to pay the sum of £1 or £5. I do not quite understand what that means now. There was an unfortunate time when it meant that they had to pay out gold. Perhaps it means that they will pay out with 10p pieces now; I do not know. It seems to me that to introduce that distinction, in the way that Clause 1 does in the Bill—whereas the terms in the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Wigoder do not raise that issue; cheques and cash are regarded as equally dishonest or equally honest in this—is an unnecessary complication. I do not know whether there is any explanation.
Lord WIGODER: I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion and I will indicate briefly what appear to me to be the main objections to the proposed new clause. The first point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, as to the scope of the proposed new clause. It is intended to cover substantially the same scope as the existing Clause 1 of the Bill. It is conceivable that there may be very marginal cases of no significance caught by the one and not the other and vice-versa; but all the examples that were given in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report as to the objects of their draft are, I believe, caught substantially and adequately by the proposed new draft.
Secondly, Lord Harris referred to the difficulty which the word "services" could involve. I accept that, but at the same time one must remember that the word is used in Clause 3 in the Government's own draft Bill, where it refers repeatedly to services done or to a service which has been provided. I should have thought that if it was solvable in relation to that clause it should be equally solvable in relation to the proposed new clause.
The other argument which Lord Harris mentioned was that there might be a degree of overlap between the proposed new Clause 1 and the existing or proposed new Clause 2. I accept that. There are many circumstances in which there are facts which constitute an offence not merely under one section but under more
688
than one section of the criminal law. To give an obvious example, there is an offence of obtaining property by deception. The ordinary case of obtaining property by deception is perhaps to hand over a dud cheque and obtain the goods. That is an offence under that substantive provision; it would equally be an offence under Clause 1 of the Bill brought forward by the Government, so I doubt whether the question of overlap is a significant objection to the proposed new Clause.
I indicated at the outset that, of course, I should not wish to proceed further on this matter today but should want to consider carefully the observations made by your Lordships. Lord Harris might think it possible to have some informal discussion between him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, who presided over the Committee at the time the draft was produced, and myself if I could be of assistance; and perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who has been making encouraging noises from his place on the Opposition Front Bench, might be of assistance, also. I hope that in those circumstances it might be possible to come forward at a later stage of the Bill with a draft that has the general agreement of your Lordships' House, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I was not present on Second Reading, but I wonder what is happening to legislation in this country. Here we are altering a part of one subsection of an Act which we passed during the Lord Chancellorship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, rather less than 10 years ago, which was designed to take the place of various sections of the Larceny Act, the Debtors Act and so on. To iron out a few obscurities in a part of one subsection, it apparently takes four pages and 25 subsections of new legislation to do the trick. The only thing about which we are all certain is that we do not know what the new provisions mean as they stand at present.
I am therefore wondering what is happening to legislation in this country.

689
The Statute Book is growing and growing. Nobody understands it and one wonders whether the exercise is worth the pain of legislation and the trouble that the judges will have in understanding it. I venture to suggest that the more words one puts in a Statute the more cases will go to the House of Lords, and the more the noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches, among whom occasionally I have the privilege of sitting, will say that the measure is very badly drafted and should be revised. I wonder how long this process is to go on. Year after year we pass 3,000 or more pages of Acts and I think another 10,000 pages of subordinate legislation. Nobody knows what the law is and nobody can know because it is getting so voluminous.
I wonder how the French get on. They have quite a simple penal code and it deals with this kind of question. I venture to believe that they probably write the thing on a half sheet of notepaper, and the courts find no great difficulty in getting on with it; and they seem to live a prosperous and happy life and enjoy many of the good things of life as well as we do. I am profoundly sceptical about this whole exercise and that is really all I can say about it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I take note of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, He raised a number of issues of broad principle about which I would not wish to comment; but as he will recall, this matter was sent to the Criminal Law Revision Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, when he was Home Secretary as a result of a number of problems which had arisen in the courts about the interpretation of the 1968 Act.
To make a brief comment on the debate which we have just had, on that occasion certain problems arose, as a result of debates which took place in your Lordships' House, when the argument which was put forward and which has received much support today was that the law should be simplified in some way. As a result of that simplification of the law, a large number of cases had to go to the courts and the law became in a fairly chaotic state, as a result of which the then Home Secretary had to ask the Criminal Law Revision Committee to look into the
690
matter. I make that point without making any comment about the substance of the debate which we have just had. We should consider for a moment some of the so-called simplification processes which lead to a very substantial amount of litigation and the enrichment of members of the Bar.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: That is the only good thing to come out of it.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Obtaining relief from liability by deception.]:
4.27 p.m.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 16, leave out (" forego") and insert ("forgo").
The noble Lord said: It had not occurred to me that I should have declared an interest in seeking to simplify a piece of legislation. I do not think this is an Amendment which would cause the downfall of the Government. As I understand the position, the word "forego" has two meanings; it has the meaning "to go before" or "to precede", in which case it is usually spelt with an "e", and it has the meaning, which it is intended to have in Clause 2, of "abandon", "give up" or "concede", in which case it is normally spelt without an "e". My authority for the proposition is every reputable dictionary on which I have been able to lay my hands; I have not been able to find any disreputable dictionaries. Perhaps I might also rather powerfully pray in support of this Amendment the spelling used on the Front page of the Bill: in the Explanatory Memorandum, the word "forgo" is spelt without an "e" in relation to Clause 2. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that this is not an Amendment over which, if it were to be carried against the Government, the Prime Minister would find it necessary to tender his resignation. There are two alternative ways of spelling this word and it is our view that both are equally correct. The Criminal Bar Association, in its comments

691
on the Criminal Law Revision Committee's draft Bill made the point that it is spelt without an "e" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Fowler also spells it in precisely the same way, but I rejoice to say that there is a very reputable source—on this I hope to carry the noble Lord with me—in that the main Oxford English Dictionary gives approximately equal weight to both spellings, and the trend seems to have been for the "e" to be included by writers of the eighteenth century and after. I am sure the noble Lord will be interested to hear that an example of the spelling "forego" occurs in one of the works of Dryden, who wrote:
"When to ripen' Manhood he shall grow,
The greedy Sailer shall the Seas forego",
spelling it on that occasion with an "e". However, as I said, it would be foolish to suggest that this is at the very heart of the Government's case so far as this particular measure is concerned. Therefore, I rejoice to say—and I hope I shall carry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, with me in this matter—that on this particular occasion I think that it is necessary to solidify the "Lib-Lab Pact", and would suggest that the Committee should accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause—
Evasion of liability by deception
("2.—(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains the reduction or the evasion or deferment whether in whole or in part of any debt or charge for which he or another is or may become liable shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For purposes of this section "obtains" includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain.")
The noble Lord said: I am delighted to find your Lordships' Committee performing its function as a revising Chamber so very adequately. This Amendment is a slightly more complex matter. It is a proposal that Clause 2 of the Bill should be rewritten and it should appear in the very much simpler version set out in Amendment No. 3. There are one or two observations which I think ought to be made on the existing Clause 2 of the draft Bill. First, it of course marks a departure from
692
the existing law. It marks a departure from the existing law in Clause 2(1)(b), where I believe it introduces for the first time the "intent to make permanent default" where there is a dishonest inducement to a creditor or a person claiming payment to wait for payment. I think I am right in saying that, since the case of The Queen v. Turner, it has been clear that there is no need for there to be an intent to make permanent default, and that this is an element which has been introduced as a result of the deliberations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I cannot help wondering what is the purpose of so introducing it, because the Committee themselves recognised that in the vast majority of cases it would in fact be quite impossible to establish such an intent, and therefore one would, in effect, be passing a provision into law and at the same time recognising that it would be a dead letter from that moment onwards.
Perhaps I ought to add that the suggestion has been made that, unless the necessary intent to make permanent default is regarded as an essential ingredient, there may be a tremendous surplus of quite unnecessary prosecutions for wholly trivial offences. If I may say so, I do not think that that is likely to happen. Certainly, since the case of Turner, which is some years ago now, there has been no sign that prosecuting authorities have been abusing the position and have been, for example, prosecuting the housewife who has put off the tallyman for a week by dishonestly telling some lie, which is the sort of matter which might be caught in that way.
The proposal to include an intent to make permanent default in Clause 2(1)(b) seems to give rise to a quite intolerable position so far as any judge and any jury are concerned, because under Clause 2(1)(a) as it stands it is an offence dishonestly—and I use only the material words—to secure
"the remission … of any existing liability to make a payment",
and that is so whether or not there is an intent to make permanent default. Under Clause 2 (1)(b) there has to be an intent to make permanent default in dishonestly inducing a creditor to forgo (with or without an "e") payment. I cannot, however much I think about it, see any material distinction—certainly not one which can

693
be explained to a jury—between securing the remission of a liability and inducing a creditor to forgo payment; yet, as the Bill is drafted, the one does not require an intent to make permanent default and the other does.
If one gets rid of that concept of "intent to make permanent default" as being, as I say, unnecessary, and as being a dead letter from the moment it is written in, it is then, I believe, possible to make the clause very much simpler and, again, very much more effective, simply by saying, as is said in Amendment No. 3:
"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains the reduction or the evasion or deferment whether in whole or in part of any debt or charge … shall be guilty of an offence".
Really, the arguments for this are the same as I used in relation to the proposed new Clause 1—the grounds are simplicity, clearer understanding and clarification—and I would put this forward as an improvement. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: I should like very strongly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said in relation to Clause 2(1)(b). I should like to inform the Minister that, if the noble Lord's Amendment is not accepted, we shall reconsider this matter before the next stage of the Bill, because we do not consider that "intent to make permanent default" can really be justified in legal terms or by way of an explanation by a judge.
As to the drafting of the noble Lord's Amendment, I should like to make one comment which he may consider otiose. Nevertheless, it seems to me that a reduction or deferment must be something which the victim agrees to, whereas an evasion is an action which the offender in fact commits. I should have thought it not possible to have all three actions governed by the same verb. I know this is being slightly difficult, merely over the wording and drafting of the clause, but I think it would have been better if it had read,
"dishonestly obtains the reduction or deferment and evades whether in whole or in part …",
or some such words; but, as it stands, I do not think it makes complete sense.
Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he intended his new clause to cover all liability, and to depart from
694
the meaning contained in the original Clause 2 of the Bill, which as I understand it covered only liability where it was legally enforceable. I think that, as the clause is at present drafted in the Amendment, any liability would be included, and that of course extends the purpose of this Bill very widely. I should be grateful to hear the noble Lord's comments on those matters when he answers on this Amendment.
Lord HALE: This clause arises from one of the most remarkable criminal cases that has been argued in our courts for some time, the case of Ray. The case of Ray is the case of the university student who goes into a Chinese restaurant and orders a Chinese dish, or inclusive meal, for 47p and does not pay for it; but even then the circumstances are a little unusual. He is one of a party of five university students, four of whom intend to go in and buy a meal and who invite him to accompany them. He says he cannot, he has only 10p—and 10p will not buy anything these days. Of course, I recall the days when it would have bought one a large meal. Indeed, it is rather more than I used to pay for my meals in 1917, when one could get a fish cake for six old pence. But he is induced to go in, rather reluctantly, and they have the one dish and none of the supplementary dishes they could have had. Then, at a certain time, someone suggests that they should run off without paying, and they do run off without paying.
As the matter arises only in the case of the one man, Ray, who had 10p and who pleaded not guilty and who said he went in intending to pay and was left in a position where he could not pay, the accompanying details of all the events are not available. Nor does one need them. One never does on appeal; one gets limited facts. It was said against Ray, although the magistrates found that he went in honestly intending to pay, that he stopped for a few minutes afterwards, after the decision not to pay; and by that stopping afterwards and looking innocent, apparently until the waiter had left the room, he had made a criminal act of deception which induced the waiter not to exercise such precautions, whatever they may be, that he could have used on this gentleman with 10p in his pocket; and by that stopping, by that delay, he had committed

695
an act of deception. That was the first crime he committed and that was the first moment he committed it; on that finding of fact—which was carefully done by the magistrates who set out the facts in perfect detail—he was convicted and fined £1 and, of course, became a convicted thief.
It is well because in all this Act there is very little about mala in se, very little about criminal intent; it is all imputed by an act of deception. The accused, being convicted, asked for a case stated. The magistrates stated the facts, the courts after that, under that procedure, are bound entirely by the magistrates' statement of fact (and so is everybody else) to accept the facts. You cannot argue now about what was in his mind. You cannot wonder what a chap should do when the rest of his colleagues had decided to bolt, and had bolted, and he could not pay, and he took a convenient moment or two. It may not have been very reputable conduct but is it the sort of conduct on which it is the intention that all the majesty of the law, in all its force, should be called upon to examine the matter, and to give him a conviction—which could deprive him of promotion in the future, or a job or entering into the United States—by the imposition of a fine of £1, the consequences of which none of us is able to measure?
So he appealed to a divisional court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England—and I apologise for the fact that I am not sure whether it was a Divisional Court of three or of two. The Lord Chief Justice asked one of his colleagues to deliver the judgment of the court—and it was a judgment of the whole court, whether of two or of three—which really dismissed this pretension with, one would have thought, complete conviction: and "the appeal will be allowed". While refusing leave to appeal to the House of Lords, the court certified that there was a point of sufficient public importance to be referred to the House of Lords for their Lordships to consider, and it was heard by a court of five judges.
All of this was over a very long period of time and, in the end, two of their Lordships agreed with the decision of the divisional court and three of them decided otherwise. I have read every word
696
of the arguments and they are very impressive. But it seems to me that it comes straight to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said a few minutes ago in his admirable observations.
Was this the criminal law and the "Red Judge", as we knew it? Was this the kind of thing he was there to deal with? Or was it a matter for the county courts? Of course, I am using my own words now. Was this really a matter in which the majesty of the law should be engaged in long, elaborate arguments with a decision in which, certainly, three learned judges had found one way while others disagreed.
These things happen—but over a question of this kind, over a figment of the imagination! I apologise if I have delayed the Committee—I am not anxious to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the observation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and he used the word "tallyman", which is fresh to me. They talk about the possibility that clauses like this could embrace the harassed mother who does not pay for the milk, saying that her husband was out of work last week, when, in fact, the statement is untrue.
The curious thing is that I cannot find anyone saying, that she has to know that it is untrue. We have lost touch with mala in se. If her husband tells her he is out of work and gives her no money, then she gets no money and that is the effect on her. She does not know whether he is out of work. She may have a shrewd suspicion, if he was that kind of a husband, that there was a race meeting that week. But she does not get the money and cannot pay.
I will not elaborate this matter because the obvious reply is that that is all right, that no one would dream of prosecuting in a case like that, no one, even if she is liable to conviction under an Act with enormous penalties and summary trial and trial on indictment and so on; no one would dream of it. But when do they start to dream of it? Supposing that she does it twice running or three weeks running. At what stage does she become a criminal and a convicted victim?
It seems to me at this stage that there are, too, some possibilities that the Committee

697
have not considered. I am not even sure whether they are absolutely familiar with the normal system of vending milk. It is not a commodity to which I have ever been addicted; but it is the necessity in most houses, and in many poorer houses it is the most necessary food of all. I may go down to my own house and open the door very early in the morning and see in the peristyle a single bottle of milk—a very apt subject for a chef d'oeuvre of Andy Warhol—and within a few weeks I shall probably see blue tits by it, for they have devised a method of getting the milk out without removing the burnished gold cover which helps to make the picture. And the so-called tallyman who is travelling by in an attractive pastel coloured vehicle arrives on a Friday or Saturday and asks for the week's money. With a small family it is sometimes extremely difficult to find the money to pay. But the housewife will also probably be presented with an elaborate notice saying that other commodities can be supplied if she ticks them off on the list. This is a useful service because the question of delivery of food is not easy. Therefore she may be tempted to buy a few more commodities. It is not an act of deception of course if her husband is still at the races and not out of work. And so it goes on, and it can accumulate.
The milk dealers do not want this because they will begin to feel that if there are any prosecutions then the sale of milk will diminish and people will be frightened off. Then the green pound would have to be revalued, or something of the sort, in order to balance off the various complex processes.
Five judges of the House of Lords—in each case judgment reserved—at least two judges in the Divisional Court, including the Lord Chief Justice, all delivered well argued, brilliant, elaborate dissertations which should be apt subjects for investigation of a student's moot. But the noble Lord's Amendment is much clearer and much better. I appreciate his generous courtesy in letting me have a copy of this at a much earlier stage than the Law Society. I said I would be prepared to go so far as to say that this was a tremendous improvement upon the original draft for which I would happily vote, although I was not particularly sure that I would vote for the Bill if I had the chance.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: As a layman, I hesitate to intervene in this Committee. We have had distinguished legal brains brought to bear on the Amendments and the Bill itself. Perhaps some of my colleagues here are in another world. Crime has a curiously changing face. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, that, sadly, we are not dealing any longer with a little lady who does not pay the milk bill. The retailer will tell you that we are dealing with a very sophisticated criminal who uses the credit system and the cheque system with the deliberate intention of acquiring goods and services without paying for them.
I am not arguing for or against the Amendment. I am intrigued to hear so many speakers say they cannot understand the Bill. But why pick on this particular Bill? In the short time that I have been in the House of Lords I have rarely understood clauses, particularly some that I have had to argue on behalf of the Government from the Dispatch Box. One relies heavily on the Explanatory Memorandum and the fact that the draftsmen tell you that they must encompass everything in order to catch everything, and indeed everybody. The mere use of the word "tallyman" suggests that some members of the Committee are not au fait with the sophisticated nature of some of the people who use the system. This is why we have had to have Amendments to the Theft Act.
I can recall a gentleman who went the whole length of one street and obtained goods on promise to pay with credit and cheque. It was extremely difficult to find any Act or clause under which this man could be charged. Eventually it was possible, because he was foolish enough in one instance to make off with goods without even presenting the forged cheques or obtaining the credit. So he was dealt with as a thief. This Bill is no different from a number of Bills that we have had in this House; but, as a magistrate, one relies upon the learned clerk who has to interpret these Acts, and usually manages to do so. Magistrates have to listen fairly to the evidence presented and exercise common sense and mercy. I plead with members of the Committee to appreciate that this is dealing with a sophisticated kind of criminal, not the poor little woman who does not pay her milk bill.
5.55 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for this short debate. I have listened with interest to what he said: I am a trifle surprised that he has produced a new clause which has a remarkable similarity to the subsection of Section 16 of the Theft Act 1968 which has been the cause of all the trouble. For that reason, I am more doubtful than some others who have spoken whether this Amendment would improve the situation radically.
The problem about the old form of words used in the 1968 Act is that too much was compressed into too few words, all in the sacred name, no doubt, of simplicity. That has been one of the central problems with which the courts have had to wrestle in terms of interpreting the intentions of Parliament in the Theft Act 1968. Clause 2 of the Bill creates an offence of obtaining relief from liability by deception in three specific types of cases which, for the most part, involve fraudulent conduct where the deception is practised after a transaction has been entered into. There is one exception; but, broadly speaking, that is the situation.
The relevant cases are: first, where the deception dishonestly secures the remission of a liability to make a payment. That is dealt with in subsection (1)(a). The second induces a creditor to wait for or forgo payment in circumstances where he intends to make permanent default. That is subsection (1)(b). The third is where a person dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment. That is subsection (1)(c). This latter case may include frauds where the offender has acted dishonestly from the outset of the transaction.
Instead of this, the noble Lord's Amendment creates a wide offence, which both virtually repeats—as I have indicated—the words of the existing subsection (2)(a) of Section 16 of the 1968 Act, and covers all cases within the noble Lord's new Clause 1, which we were discussing a few moments ago.
The conduct with which the Bill deals was covered by Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act, except for the new offence of "making off without payment" which is dealt with in Clause 3 with which we will deal in a moment. If Clause 2(1) of the
700
noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, hiring a car and paying by a dud cheque would, for example, be both an offence under Clause 1, as obtaining services by deception, and equally an offence under Clause 2, as evading or deferring a charge for which a person has become liable.
There is another feature of this Amendment, and I hope that on this I will carry my noble friend, Lord Hale. I should be a trifle surprised if he was altogether at one with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, so far as the intention of this particular Amendment is concerned. Another feature of this Amendment is that by omitting any reference to "permanent default", I think it would apply—I suspect that the noble Lord will confirm this—to the case of the stalling debtor, and whether or not he intends to pay one day. This is a point of some importance, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will accept. The Bill before your Lordships provides that a debtor who, by deception, dishonestly induces his creditor to wait for payment or to forgo payment shall be guilty of an offence if he intends to make permanent default in whole or in part of his liability to pay. That is the proposal before us. The effect of the final words is to make the provision narrower than the corresponding offence in Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.
On this aspect, the Criminal Law Revision Committee took the view, with which I must say the Government concur, that Section 16(2)(a), as it has been interpreted by the courts, is too wide and has the effect, for example, of making it an offence for a housewife to tell a rent collector that she cannot pay this week because her husband has been off work when that is not true. That is the situation under the existing law and it is that which we are proposing to change. The Committee thought that such behaviour should not be a criminal offence, and therefore limited the provision to the case of a person who intends never to pay a debt. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between the situation under the existing law and what the Committee recommended as regards narrowing the terms of this offence, which is contained in Clause 2.
While certainly recognising that it is perfectly easy to have two views on this, because it is inevitably a matter of some

701
debate, the provision recommended by the Committee is, in our view, a satisfactory compromise between the extreme of making it an offence where the debtor obtains further time by deception, even though he intends to pay one day, and the totally opposite extreme, which is certainly favoured by those who take the view that the enforcement of debts is a matter for the civil law, of having no offence of obtaining by deception the opportunity to delay paying a debt, even when the debtor has no intention of honouring the debt at any time. People who take that view have the clear opinion that this is not a matter where the criminal law should intervene at any stage. That issue is not before the Committee at this stage, because it is not the proposal of the Government or of the noble Lord.
Lord HALE: I appreciate the very clear explanation which my noble friend has given, and I know that he has a point here. But, on this question of intent to pay, can that be interpreted in the same way as the case of someone who is perfectly honest and has always meant to pay, but is pretty damned sure by now that he will never have the opportunity? Is it a case of hoping to be able to pay, and believing that the situation may arise in which he will be able to pay? Who decides at any stage? Does it not really mean that the person has to be brought before a court to establish his intent to pay, as an answer to the first charge? Is not the whole of this almost a students' moot involving the life and liberty of a person in question?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No. I think that it is a point of greater substance than that. I have explained fairly carefully—and I am sure that my noble friend, who has taken a great interest in this Bill, will want to examine the terms in which I have put the argument—that there is this clear point that what the Committee have recommended—and the Government agree with them—is a narrowing of the terms of the present criminal offence That is what we are proposing in Clause 2. What I have been pointing out is that there are a number of people who believe—and I think that there were two colleagues of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, who took this view—that in no circumstances whatever should this be a criminal offence.
702 z
That is not the view of the Government. We agree with the majority of the Criminal Law Revision Committee that it is right to maintain the criminal offence, but that we should have this provision in sharper and closer terms than is the case under the relevant section of the 1968 Act. It is, of course, for your Lordships to decide in the case of the stalling debtor, which is certainly a point of considerable importance, which view is the right one. As I indicated earlier, it is perfectly reasonable to take one of two or three separate views. What I am saying today is that the view of the Criminal Law Revision Committee is a compromise between two positions, and it is one which I would certainly commend to your Lordships. For that reason, I think that the form of words set out in Clause 2 of the Bill is preferable to the new clause which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has put before us.
5.7 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I hope that both the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who has argued his case very well, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will take this little argument away and decide what to do on Report, because I remain a sceptic about the whole of this matter. The noble Lard, Lord Wigoder, said at the beginning that, if you make it the intention to avoid payment permanently you are, in effect, passing a clause which will be a dead letter, and I think that he is right. I do not believe that a jury would ever convict, except in the rarest possible case, because they would not find the intention proved. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that, if you take that out, the so-called "stalling housewife" gets convicted, and I think that he is right. What do you do?
Nobody has yet told us how many fish are in the net. If I may refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, dud cheques have normally always been criminal in one way or another, because of the old law of false pretences which is continued into the new law. If you know that you have nothing in the bank account and get something by giving a dud cheque, you very often find yourself in gaol. One agrees that Clause 3 ought to be a defence. The old ploy of bilking the cabman is an example of making off without payment. But how many fish

703
are in either of these two nets which we have cast into the sea!
Is this not a case of over-fishing? Can the noble Lord perhaps tell us on Report rather than in Committee whether there are any people, and how many there are, who will be convicted under this new clause? If there are not a great many, perhaps it might be as well to leave it to the civil courts to make them bankrupt and not send them to prison.
Lord WIGODER: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would be kind enough to assist me over deciding what to do between now and Report stage by dealing with one matter which I raised on Second Reading and which I have raised again today. In ordinary language, what is the distinction between securing the remission of a liability to make a payment under Clause 2(1)(a) and inducing a creditor to forego payment under Clause 2(1)(b)?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: We shall have to take this matter further. I shall deal with the point in a letter which the noble Lord will receive by the end of this week.
Lord WIGODER: Again I am grateful for the noble Lord's observations. I take very much on board the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, regarding the drafting of line 1 of the Amendment and I should like to look at it again. If I may deal with "legally enforceable liability", I must confess that I had assumed that it would be a legally enforceable liability so far as debts are concerned, but again I should like to look at the point with my colleagues and perhaps to speak to the noble Baroness between now and Report stage. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said about the importance of this legislation. For the most part they will be offenders who commit comparatively trivial faults who will be caught by this clause, but by no means will this always be so. Therefore it is important that the legislation should be adequate to catch those who commit serious offences. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was right in saying that the draft which I have ventured to produce slightly extends the law; certainly it was not intended to restrict the existing law in any way. As I have
704
said, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I should like to consider the position again before Report. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Making off without payment]:
5.12 p.m.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 33, after ("that") insert ("immediate").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and with the leave of your Lordships may I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Again this is a small matter. When a person has consumed a meal or filled up his car with petrol and then decides not to pay and goes off, the question arises whether it is more accurate to describe him as a person who knows either that payment is required on the spot or that immediate payment is required. I am not absolutely enthusiastic about either of the two alternatives.
The word "immediate" which I put forward in the Amendment connotes a connection in time which may not be entirely appropriate, in the sense that a person having a meal in a restaurant is not expected to pay until a couple of hours after he has consumed the meal. On the other hand, the draft wording in the Government's Bill seems to me to connote a connection in place which may not be entirely appropriate. I can see difficult arguments being raised by querulous members of the Bar to the effect that their client ought not to be convicted of an offence because he had his meal in the basement of the restaurant, whereas he was asked to pay on the way out at the cash till on the ground floor, which was not the spot where he had in fact acquired the meal, or obtained the goods or services. I rather suspect that neither the present wording "on the spot" nor, indeed, the Amendment "immediate" is entirely appropriate. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will think that it might be possible to find an improvement to both forms of wording before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Could I say at the outset that, although I could meet the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on the "e" in "forgo", I am afraid that I am not in quite such a happy position when it comes to this particular Amendment as to whether the word "immediate" should be inserted rather than the words "on the spot". Certainly I shall look at the matter, and if the noble Lord, or, indeed, any other noble Lord, has any proposals to put to us we shall be very glad to consider them. The words "on the spot" in the Bill were aimed at the case where the goods are supplied, or a service done, on the basis that payment will be made there and then, and the customer thereafter dishonestly makes off without paying the bill. If "immediate" were substituted for "on the spot", it might well change the effect of the clause, since "on the spot" relates, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has suggested, both to time and place, whereas "immediate" relates only to time. Certainly we do not wish to widen the clause by extending it to other cases where immediate payment is required—as, for example, where immediate payment is demanded by post. Nor are we certain whether the amended clause would always catch the person who dishonestly left a restaurant after having a meal but just before the bill had been presented to him. For that reason, we are not attracted to the idea of substituting the word "immediate" for the phrase "on the spot" but, as I have indicated, if some alternative form of words is suggested to us we shall be very glad to consider it.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I wonder whether the noble Lord could assist me on one point which relates to subsection (2) of this clause. Where goods are taken for work to be done upon them, surely the person who does the work has a lien on the goods until payment is made. I do not quite follow what kind of problem the Amendment to subsection (2) is intended to deal with.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I shall gladly look at that point, but I was addressing myself to the narrower terms of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Nevertheless, I shall gladly take account of the point made by my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton.
Lord WIGODER: I am grateful for the noble Lord's intimation. I have no desire to put him on the spot, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 not moved.]
5.17 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: I put down this Amendment following the comments of my noble friend Lord Mansfield during the Second Reading of this Bill. I think that everybody will agree that an arrestable offence has to be a serious one and that normally it carries a sentence of imprisonment of up to five years. So far as this subsection is concerned, the maximum penalty is two years. It seems to me that to give anybody the power to make an arrest for an offence which bears only that penalty shows that an unwarrantable amount of power is being given to the average citizen over his fellow citizen.
If one looks at Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968, in subsection (3) the power of arrest given to a citizen applies only where a car is being stolen or removed. The power of arrest specifically does not apply to subsection (5) of Section 12 where a pedal cycle is involved. A clear distinction is made between a valuable article which has been stolen or which could create danger to others and one which is of relative unimportance. Therefore I submit that to give anybody the power to arrest without warrant somebody else who has committed one of the offences which I understand are covered by Clause 3 is over-egging the pudding.
Although I may be wrong, I understand that Clause 3 covers trivial offences such as stepping off a bus without having paid one's fare and putting a coin which is not a coin of the realm into amusement arcade machines. We are bringing the criminal law into the area of the ridiculous and almost into disrepute if we give to people the right to arrest anybody whom they even suspect of committing one of these trivial offences. Therefore I ask the Minister seriously to consider deleting this subsection. I would add also that the kind of person who would be induced to

707
arrest anybody else would probably not be aware of the civic responsibilities and dangers of falsely arresting anybody on suspicion. For example, a hotel waiter or someone in a small café may suspect that someone is going off without paying, and this Bill would give power to such people to arrest a person going out of the café door, with the prospect of course of causing disrepute to the person who may be falsely arrested. I urgently request the Minister to reconsider this particular subsection of Clause 3 and have it deleted from this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, surely this is just the kind of case where one does need to have this power of arrest, and very much because it is trivial. If a man goes into a café, does not pay the bill and proceeds to walk out, how can one ever find him again if one cannot shut the door?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It is always a pleasure to have my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton on my side. I start off on that happy note and I hope it will continue at other stages during the passage of this Bill. Certainly I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having put this case and, as she rightly said, it was a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, during the Second Reading debate. I will come to the particular point which he raised, where I attempted to reassure him—unhappily, I think, without a great deal of success—that he would not be arrested if he paid his hotel bill in a particular way. As I have mentioned the noble Earl, I am sure that I speak on behalf of everybody when I express the hope that the noble Earl will soon be restored to health. I regret that he is unable to be with us today.
Clause 3 creates a new offence to deal with what has become a common form of dishonesty that is unhappily difficult to prosecute under the existing law. Under the clause it will be an offence for a person who has eaten a meal at a restaurant to run out without paying his bill—to take the example given by my noble friend Lord Paget—or for the man who has travelled in a taxi to run away without paying his fare. The only persons who are likely to offend in this way are those who
708
do not expect to be traced subsequently. So if there is to be a prosecution the offender has to be caught before he escapes. Thus it is necessary to have an arrestable offence. There is no other power of arrest which would enable the waiter or the taxi driver to detain the offender until the police arrive, and that is why subsection (4) creates a power of arrest. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that without that power of arrest this clause would be of remarkably little value. However, the fear expressed by the noble Baroness—which, as I have said, was expressed by the noble Earl at Second Reading—is that the power could be used against innocent people. She is absolutely right and that is a matter which we should take extremely seriously.
I will take first the example of a diner who refuses to pay for a meal which he has taken in a restaurant, because he may claim that he has been the recipient of particularly bad service. I assume so far as this example is concerned that the complaint is an honest one, although it is only fair to say that there have been cases where diners have consumed large meals with apparent pleasure and only complained of the quality after receiving the bill. If the diner has an honest grievance he will not object to leaving his card or giving his name and address, and once he has done that it will be clear that he is not acting dishonestly and the waiter cannot have reasonable cause to suspect him of committing an offence under the clause. Accordingly the arrest would be unlawful if the waiter purported to detain the diner under subsection (4).
The second example is that taken by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, during the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is the example of the traveller—indeed the traveller was the noble Earl himself—with an aeroplane to catch, who cannot wait in the queue to pay his bill in the hotel and leaves a part payment, with instructions to send the bill to his home address. The hall porter, seeing a guest depart apparently without having paid his bill certainly has cause for suspicion, but the proper way for him to proceed is obviously to ask the traveller to show him the receipt, and that is obviously what a hotel porter would normally do. In such a situation the traveller will explain what he has done

709
and it will become clear that there is no question of attempting to avoid payment of the bill. As a result the hall porter will certainly not have reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been an attempt to commit an offence under Clause 3 and so if, in such circumstances, he attempts to detain a traveller he will in fact be guilty of false imprisonment.
Undoubtedly it is a difficult matter and I perfectly understand the anxiety felt by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I think we should pause before creating new criminal offences in order to make absolutely sure that they are in fact necessary, but, with great respect, it seems to me that the view of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on this matter is a reasonable one, that there is in fact a defect so far as the existing law is concerned and that it is desirable to have this offence incorporated in the Bill.
Baroness ELLES: While I totally accept many of the things said by the noble Lord, I would point out on behalf of the noble Earl that he would not have a receipt to show to the hall porter; and secondly, if he had to have an argument about it he would certainly miss his plane. To have your passage impeded by someone who has, apparently, a legal right to arrest you when you are in fact going about your lawful business and in fact hurrying up to do it seems to me to be outrageous.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Clearly it could be outrageous if hotel porters behaved unreasonably. Obviously there would be a particularly angry dispute, but it is only fair to say that, so far as the present situation is concerned—and I am not speaking about the situation that would arise once this Bill is on the Statute Book—there will undoubtedly be a disagreeable scene, to put it mildly, if somebody makes off from an hotel and the hotel staff do not believe that he has paid his bill. In the current state of the law no doubt if the noble Earl was approached by a member of the hotel staff he would explain the situation, and that would be the situation when we had changed the law. What I have said is that the hotel porter could not effect an arrest and be safe so far as any remedy in the hands of the noble Earl
710
was concerned, if in fact he arrested a person, having had a reasonable explanation given to him.
Lord HALE: I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen it, but there was a report in The Times since the Second Reading of this Bill of a case in which an arrest for shoplifting had been effected by pinning a man in the yard and an employee of the shop was standing on his chest, with others holding him down in order to prevent him from running away. He was in fact acquitted on evidence so clear that the prosecutor's story was virtually impossible. The prosecutor said he had seen him putting a number of things in his pocket, the things were there as exhibits, and it was found that they would not go into the pocket. The police officer gave evidence that the man was being held down. He was awarded £6,000 in damages and I expect the case is now going to appeal on the amount of the damages.
What the noble Lord was saying was that if at a lifeboatmen's annual dinner everyone dashed out of the café to answer a rescue call and went out to sea without paying the bill, someone could arrest the lot of them. I know that one can always produce such examples, but this would be a rather good reason for leaving without paying the bill if you had no securities due to the blow-out and if you had to organise the team to go. Emergencies happen nowadays. Quite simple people go out on call to try to rescue people from the snow and may forget to pay 3/6d. here or there. I do not think that one makes the law ridiculous by producing these slightly extravagant examples; one makes the law ridiculous by passing a law that can produce them.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: I wonder if I could help the noble Lord on the subject of the man leaving an hotel in haste in order to catch a plane. Surely if he is an honest man and is catching a plane it is quite obvious that he will have his name and address on him because he will have his passport or similar document. All he has to do is to scribble his name and address on a piece of paper so that it corresponds with what is on his passport and anybody who stops him walking out after that is surely guilty of illegal arrest.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: There is an even simpler method—to pay the bill.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: If the bill has been presented to him. One knows the delays in these matters. If they have not had time to present it, it can be a little difficult. I know that sometimes these hotels are a little slow.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: Again, surely, this offence does not arise until the bill has been presented. Nobody can be accused of leaving an hotel dishonestly until the bill has been presented.
Baroness ELLES: In order to conclude the discussion about running out of the hotel, perhaps I may mention the point made by my noble friend Lord Mansfied, who said that sometimes when he was staying in an hotel by the airport there was a long queue at the reception desk before one could pay one's bill and that he sometimes found himself at the end of this very long queue without the queue moving forward but with his plane ready to take off. Therefore, he put his key into an envelope with his name and address, placed it in the post box and said, "Please send the bill to my address". This is the situation that he would find himself in, but the hotel porter might possibly have the right to arrest him as he came out of the hotel for not having paid his bill, though he was clearly not in a position to do so. As regards the passport, so far as I know, you do not yet need a passport to go to Scotland, so the suggestion that my noble friend would have his passport on him is not as simple as all that. In the circumstances and after all this discussion, I had better withdraw the Amendment, but I leave it to the noble Lord the Minister to sort out the difficulties. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Supplementary]:
Lord HALE Lord HALE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert ("means any dishonest deception by words or
712
conduct as to facts or as to law including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception; and section 18 of the Theft Act 1968").
The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to limit slightly the definition of "deception" as given in Section 15 of the Act of 1968. I have attempted to reproduce it as nearly as possible in the same words but to insert the word "dishonesty", which I think can never do any harm. I deliberately left out "deliberate or reckless" deception to try to keep the matter away from the civil law. The word "reckless" originally got imported in connection with motoring offences which have always been dealt with on separate lines. Finally, I have omitted the last words which relate to any other person or to the action being done on behalf of somebody else. I do not quite see how the introduction of those words does anything more than add a new element of controversy, a new element of splitting and a new element of variation.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will very properly say, "Yes, but you are altering the words in this statute and leaving Section 15 of the 1968 Act unaltered. You have imported your own alteration into this statute and left Section 15 as it is". As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will say, and as has often been said, it is very undesirable to have two different definitions of the same word in a series of statutes dealing with the same matter. It is only due to my modesty that I felt that if I suggested a sensible Amendment to this I could venture to say that it would be just as well to put another Amendment down on Report. I was not quite sure whether it was practicable to bring the main statute into line with what I submit is a definition of "deception" which is clearer, more succinct and less open to criticism. Anyhow, a dreadful word. That is why I beg to move this Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hale for having explained this Amendment. I fear that I cannot recommend the House to accept it. I think the situation is that those of your Lordships who were concerned with the Theft Act 1968 will remember the care and thought which the Criminal Law Revision Committee at that time gave to their definition of "deception"

713
which is applied by Clause 5(1) of this Bill, of which they gave a very full explanation in their Eighth Report on theft and related offences (paragraph 101).
May I say at once that my noble friend Lord Hale has anticipated my arguments precisely? In our view it is not wise and could only cause confusion to have in this Bill a definition of "deception" which departed in material particulars from the existing definition in the 1968 Theft Act, which is common to both Sections 15 and 16 of that Act. On matters of detail, the words "whether deliberate or reckless" which the noble Lord suggests omitting were discussed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in their Eighth Report, which I think was published in May 1966, when they explained that, under the law as it was then, doubt had arisen about the relation between "deception" and "recklessness" for the purpose of offences of dishonesty. I do not think it right this evening to go into the arguments in detail. They are set out at some length on page 49 of that report.
As the Committee said, it was right that "deception", for the purposes of the deception offences they had in view, should cover recklessness in the sense of not caring whether the statement is true or false. That is the kind of recklessness which counts as deception for the purposes of the civil law; but not mere carelessness. Another difference is that the Amendment includes the word, "dishonest", and I do not see any reason to include this word in Clause 5(1), since it already appears in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill and it does not seem justified to change the existing definition in this way.
There is, I fear, a further difficulty about this Amendment; that is, the omission from the definition of the words, "or any other person". In our view, these words are necessary, since it is right that deception as to another's intention should be brought within the scope of the offences in this Bill. Let me give an example. A man works for a large company and is about to leave their employment and to emigrate. He obtains accommodation in a luxury hotel by persuading the management that the company will pay his bill. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this kind of case should be covered, and we do have some substantial doubts
714
as to whether it would be if these particular words were omitted. To summarise the argument, quite apart from the consideration which I have just put forward, it does not seem to us right to change the existing definition so far as this piece of legislation is concerned and leave unaltered, as would be the case, Sections 15 and 16 of the 1968 Act.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I see my noble friend's last point. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hale made the point that it is difficult having different definitions in two Statutes. But, if the whole be considered, surely Lord Hale's definition is very much the best one. One has to be very careful indeed in introducing the concept of carelessness into criminal law. A motor car is such a dangerous instrument that carelessness in driving it may be criminal. It may be that in the issuing of a company prospectus you need very special rules and recklessness there can be treated as criminal. But take the example which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave of a man whose service with a company was coming to an end who went to a hotel and told them that his company would be paying the bill. He either believes what he is saying or he does not. If he believes the company is paying his bill, he ought not to be convicted, even if his belief is perhaps insufficiently founded. If he does not believe it, he ought to be convicted, and it is for the jury to say whether he believed it or did not. To introduce a concept of recklessness in order to make a man criminal for being a bit careless would, I should have thought, be quite wrong.
Lord HALE: In view of the silence, I will reluctantly follow the course that has been taken by all previous speakers. I thank the noble Lord for his constant courtesy during the debate, which was of great assistance to me because I spoke with difficulty. I hope he will make it quite clear that the Report stage is not going to take place without reasonable time for considering the many things that have been said, and reading the Bill through again and seeing if I can understand it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, commencement and extent.]:
5.44 p.m.
Lord GARDINER Lord GARDINER moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 6, leave out from ("on") to end of line 7 and insert ("the expiration of one month beginning with the date on which it shall have received the Royal Assent").
The noble and learned Lord said: Although I have been present during the whole of the Committee stage of the Bill, I have not addressed your Lordships before. May I just say how much I should like to associate myself with what has been said about the late Lord Chorley, who was a friend of mine. He was, I think it is right to say, principal Parliamentary assistant to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jowitt, in the Attlee Government. He was a distinguished academic lawyer, particularly, of course, in the field of commercial law. He was for many years chairman of Quarter Sessions. He did a great deal for the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency. He was a constant attender in this House, as has been said, even after he was extremely disabled. I am sure that his death is a loss to the House.
I do not propose to repeat on this Amendment what I said at Second Reading of the Bill. The point, briefly, is that it really is for Parliament and not the Executive to decide when a Bill is to take effect. When both Houses have duly considered this Bill they will, presumably, either be of the opinion that the Bill constitutes an improvement in the law or they will not. If they are not of that opinion, presumably they will not pass the Bill. If they do pass the Bill, presumably it will be because they consider that it will be an improvement. I was unable to think of any reason why in that case it should not come into effect within a reasonable time. My Amendment says a month after Royal Assent. It is convenient for lawyers, who have to get copies of Acts of Parliament and consider them and advise their clients, and it is convenient for all the criminal courts of the country, which have to be supplied within a reasonable time. When I raised this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lord Harris said:
"… we want it to come into effect as soon as possible. I will gladly look into this point before
716
the Committee stage".—[Official Report, 17/1/78, col. 49.]
I anticipate that he may have done so, and I await with eager trepidation what he has to say. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS or GREENWICH: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for having returned to this matter by moving this Amendment. I can repeat that the Government, in including a commencement order provision in this Bill in place of the one proposed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, had no intention whatever of unduly delaying the date on which it would come into force. Our only concern was to secure the most convenient date for all concerned in what I think is commonly recognised to be a fairly complex area of the law. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend has criticised the Government on this measure, and I believe on others, with the best of motives, out of concern to ensure that there is not unavoidable delay in bringing into force useful measures. But I think it is only right to say that commencement orders are a useful part of our system, and I would remind my noble and learned friend of the number of Acts, with which he was concerned during his distinguished period on the Woolsack, which were put through with commencement order provisions.
I have as a result of my diligence—the noble and learned Lord will be glad to hear—obtained a list of measures which were put through. In some respects the noble and learned Lord's record is better than that of the Home Office in relation to some of its Bills, but I regret to say that in one case it is substantially worse. I have looked at a series of Bills, six different measures, ranging from the Administration of Justice Act 1965 to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 to the Solicitors Act 1965. The noble and learned Lord will be surprised to know that with regard to one section of that Act—I entirely accept that no doubt there were wholly justifiable reasons—the commencement order provision took 6½ years before it was put through. That is in no way to diminish the argument which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has put to the Committee today. Certainly I wish—I am sure that we have common ground on this matter—to ensure that there is not unreasonable delay on this or on other measures.

717
As I pointed out on the last occasion, there are, I think, excellent reasons for cases—the Solicitors Act was one of them—where different parts of an Act must be brought into force on different dates. However, it is quite impossible to predict all those dates in advance. Nevertheless, what we are discussing today is in terms of this particular measure, and my noble and learned friend gave us advanced notice that he was going to put down this Amendment. I said that I would consider the matter and, indeed, I have done so. I certainly would not wish to argue that we cannot do without a commencement order. Certainly I would be willing to move an Amendment at the Report stage of the Bill bringing the Act into force at the expiration of a period of three months beginning on the date on which it is passed. I think that would be adequate to ensure that all those concerned have enough information about the date upon which it will be brought into force. Therefore, if my noble and learned friend would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, I would be glad to put down an Amendment at the Report stage to that effect.
Lord GARDINER: I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. It is always wise for the Government to allow one Amendment of some kind during the Committee stage of a Bill. However, would my noble friend elucidate further—because I do not know what course the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would wish me to take—why it should take as long as three months during which the country will be deprived of the superior reasons of drafting contained in the Bill rather than the existing law?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think that it is necessary to make sure that all practitioners and every one concerned have reasonable notice. With great respect to my noble and learned friend, we have I think met his point on the substance of this matter, which is to put on the face of the Bill a date upon which the Act will come into force. If we simply push these things through and have a date earlier than the one which I am proposing there is some danger that some people will not be adequately informed. There are a very substantial number of people who must be informed
718
of changes in our Statutes. I do not think that a period of three months is unreasonable and, with great respect, I have given my noble and learned friend his case on this point.
Lord WIGODER: The reason that I added my name to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was that I, too, was anxious that commencement order provisions should not be used unless they were necessary. I recognise, of course, that with many Statutes it is necessary that rules should be laid or further research should be done on certain measures—the Criminal Law Act is one which comes very much to mind—and commencement orders are necessary. However, now that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has at least given way on the principle raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I should be very happy to go along with whatever course the noble and learned Lord thinks appropriate in the circumstances.
Lord GARDINER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
5.55 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Industrial and provident societies are more popularly known as co-operative societies. They have always been able to take subscriptions to shares from their members and also to take deposits which have come very largely from the families of members. Indeed, my mind goes back to the days when it was the practice in the beginning of many societies for two members of the committee to sit at a trestle table on a Friday evening to take the share subscriptions and the deposits. However, shares and deposits have always been subject to statutory maxima. In 1893 the limit on shareholding was £200. No member could hold more than £200 in

719
shares. In the case of deposits no society could take more than 10 shillings at any one time from a depositor and no depositor could have more than £20 in a deposit account. These maxima operated for the subsequent almost 60 years.
It was 1952 before there was any change. In 1952 the maximum shareholding was increased from £200 to £500. In the case of deposits, instead of 10 shillings at any one time it was not more than £2 at any one time, and instead of the maximum in a deposit account being £20 it was £50. Since 1952 the maximum shareholding has been increased twice. In 1961 it was increased from £500 to £1,000. In 1975, in the Bill which I myself piloted through this House from the Dispatch Box, it was increased to £5,000. Therefore, since 1952 the maximum shareholding has been increased from £500 to £5,000.
However, no change whatever has been made as regards the maximum in the case of deposits since 1952. The purpose of the Bill is to give the same percentage increase to the maximum for deposits as has already been given to the maximum for shares. That is to say, the Bill purports to increase the amount of deposits that can be made at any one time from £2 to £20 and the maximum that can be held by a depositor from £50 to £500. That is the purpose of the Bill.
The only substantive part of the Bill is Clause 1(1) which sets out these increases in the maxima. The remainder of Clause 1, that is subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5), all do what has been done in the 1952 Act, in the 1961 Act and the 1975 Act. They give the committee of the society a facility for taking advantage of the new law immediately. For example, in the case of Clause 1(2) the committee can increase the maximum of a deposit holding from £50 to £500 by a resolution. It does not have to wait until the rules are amended. Subsection (3) allows the committee, by resolution, to increase the deposits that can be made at any one time from £2 to £20 in accordance with the Bill.
Subsection (4) says that the committee must pass its resolution within 18 months of the Bill becoming law if it wants to do it by resolution. Subsection (5) indicates that any change of the maxima must be
720
included in the next amendment which the society makes to its rules, otherwise the rules will apply and not the resolution of the committee. In other words, the increase by way of resolution is merely an immediate facility until there is a change of rule. But immediately there is a change of rule the maxima must be changed by rule and not simply by resolution of the committee.
Clause 2 is formal. Subsections (1) and (2) deal with the construction and citation. Subsection (3) deals with the commencement, one month after the passing of the Bill. Clause 4 provides that the Bill, like the parent Act, will extend to the Channel Islands but not to Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, there are three further issues I should like to raise. First, this maximum in the case of deposits, which has remained for 26 years, has been an unnecessary frustration. In consequence, the deposits held by depositors in co-operative societies have declined over the years. In 1966 it was £7 million; in 1976 it had fallen to £4 million; and it will fade away altogether if some change is not made in the maxima to correspond with the inflation that has taken place in the meantime.
Secondly, these deposits are not the substantial part of the funds available to co-operative societies. In point of fact, they represent less than 1 per cent. of the funds available in co-operative societies. They are a convenience for their members and their families, and we see no reason why that convenience should not be continued and kept up to date.
Thirdly, since this Bill was introduced to the House, there have been consultations between the co-operative union, which is the union of all co-operative societies—in other words, it is an employers' union rather than an employees' union—and the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies representing the Treasury. They have come to an understanding. The understanding is that it should be adequate to provide new maxima that would take care of the inflation that has taken place since 1952, and that would be about one half of the maxima that are proposed in the Bill. That is to say, instead of £20 at any one time the Treasury are prepared to accept £10 at any one time; and instead

721
of a maximum of £500 in any one account, they are prepared to accept £250 in any one account. As I say, that takes care of the inflation which has taken place since 1952. I shall move amendments at the Committee stage to reduce the maxima proposed accordingly.
But what about the inflation of the future? In the 1975 Act, which increased the maximum shareholding, there was a provision that future changes should be made by order rather than by Statute. The Treasury are willing that this Bill should have a clause which would permit increases in the future to be made by order rather than by Statute. I hope that that will take care of future inflation. Therefore I appreciate the consideration and the sympathy which has been shown by the Registrar and the Treasury, and gladly accept their proposals; I shall propose Amendments at the Committee stage. With this happy result having been achieved with the Treasury, I hope that the Bill will have the wholehearted support of this House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jacques.)
6.5 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Jacques on the clear manner in which he has explained the purposes of this short Bill. Clear exposition is something we always expect of him—and we are never disappointed. This Bill is also a happy combination of legislation and the mover concerned with it since, as we all know, my noble friend has had a very distinguished career in the Co-operative Movement and was, in fact, Chairman of the Co-operative Union from 1964 to 1970.
As my noble friend pointed out, the limits which the Bill seeks to amend were fixed as long ago as 1952 and the Government accept that there is a clear case for some increase. The small deposit-taking to which the Bill relates is mainly conducted by retail co-operative societies. Its purpose is not so much to obtain funds for use in the society's business—since, as my noble friend pointed out, deposits contribute only very marginal amounts—but rather to encourage saving by young
722
persons who are disqualified by reason of age from becoming shareholders in the society; and also to provide a deposit facility for those who for any reason do not wish to become members.
It is not easy to form an exact judgment on what constitutes small deposits in this context, but in the Government's view realistic limits for these deposits would at present be £250 by way of gross amount and £10 for any one deposit. The purchasing power of the pound is just under five times less than it was in 1952, so these increases are more in line with the rate of inflation than those proposed in the Bill before your Lordships' House. Therefore, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Jacques is ready to accept these limits and will be tabling Amendments for the Committee stage. But with these limits there is a strong case for a provision enabling them to be varied by Statutory Instrument in the future. As he has indicated, he will be tabling an Amendment to that effect as well. My Lords, with the Amendments which my noble friend Lord Jacques has intimated that he will seek to introduce to give effect to these matters, I can happily say that this short but useful Bill is welcomed by the Government.
6.7 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I also am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for having so clearly explained the purposes of the Bill. When I first read the Bill, together with the previous Acts of 1965 and 1975, it seemed to me that 10-fold increases were quite reasonable as the limits had been frozen for so many years, and that they would be consistent with the increases in the shareholdings that had been allowed. I also gathered that deposits were limited but loans were not, and this seemed to be a little absurd as a depositor who had reached his limit could presumably then make a loan to the society.
However, I now understand—as the noble Baroness has told us—that although these deposits amount to only £3.6 million now, the reason the figure is so low is that most of the depositors are young people. I may say that this figure of £3.6 million compares with the figure of £28 million for loans and £146 million of share capital. I quite understand the

723
societies wishing, so to speak, to get the young people hooked on the idea of saving at an early age before they are in a position to take any substantial interest either by way of loan or by way of shares.
So if it is indeed the case that the depositors are predominately youthful, I understand the Government's wishing perhaps to go only part way with the increases suggested. I am glad that the Government are sympathetic to the purpose of the Bill.
The only other point I should like to make is that there has been a recent development in the Treasury suggesting that there should be an insurance protection for depositors up to 75 per cent., and that this is now being considered by deposit taking institutions. I hoped, that being so, that the Government might have gone further and gone the whole hog on these increases, but perhaps when this new deposit insurance scheme comes into being we could look at the matter again. In any event, I gladly support the intention of the Bill in bringing more up to date the maximum permissible level of individual deposits.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that the Amendment which my noble friend will be moving at Committee stage, enabling the limits to be varied in the future by Statutory Instrument, in fact takes care of a certain amount of the points that he made.
6.10 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there is one point that I should like to make. The Co-operative Union and the Treasury are at present negotiating the guarantee scheme for the societies' loans. I understand that they have not met with any difficulty. There will almost certainly be a guarantee scheme by which societies collectively will guarantee the loans of any one society. I am authorised by the Co-operative Union to say that the scheme, when completed, will also apply to deposits. I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, that when that scheme comes into force, and if this Bill has been passed, the Government will be able to make any future changes by order, and I hope that they will look at the possibility of increasing
724
creasing the amount in the manner which he suggested. With the guarantee available, it certainly would appear to be justified.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS BILL
6.12 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will know that the purpose of the Bill concerns a doubt relating to the status of North Sea oil participation agreements under the restrictive trade practices legislation. This doubt could jeopardise the implementation of the Government's policy for majority State participation in petroleum finds in United Kingdom waters and cause uncertainty in the industry. We need to remove it.
In order to give effect to the Government's participation policy, agreements have been negotiated over the last three years with companies with commerical discoveries made under licences issued in the first four rounds of licensing. During the negotiations the Government have worked on three principles: that companies should be left financially neither better nor worse off as a result of participation; that the British National Oil Corporation should have secure access to up to 51 per cent. of petroleum produced; and that the BNOC should have an effective voice and vote in how fields are managed. Companies have, in general, accepted these principles. We now have participation agreements with 44 companies; agreements with 29 companies are in final form, though some are still subject to technical clearances. Negotiations continue with a further 15 companies which have not yet reached agreement in either outline or final form.
Real progress has been made in gaining a public involvement in commercial finds through the introduction of the BNOC as a partner in existing licences. The BNOC itself deserves a tribute, I think, since, although established scarcely two years ago, it is now a vigorous and expanding oil company with a major presence on the United Kingdom continental

725
shelf, including the capacity to act as operator at all stages of development. As licences being issued in the fifth round of licensing are on terms which provide for the BNOC to be a 51 per cent. partner, the Government's participation policy is well on the way to completion.
I should also like to pay a tribute to private enterprise, whose rôle in this success story we fully acknowledge. However, we have been advised that there is a possibility that some aspects of negotiated participation agreements might be held to be restrictions under the terms of the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts of 1976 and 1956. That would mean that they ought to be registered with the Director General of Fair Trading.
The chief aspect of agreements which might necessitate registration is the fact that the BNOC gains access to petroleum from the companies by means of options to take it at market price. Although it could be argued that the Crown is a party to the agreements and the doctrine of Crown immunity applies, we are advised that this is not by any means certain, and we think it wise, indeed essential, to remove the existing uncertainty over the agreements. If they were to be registered, the Director General of Fair Trading would have to submit them for examination by the Restrictive Practices Court against the criteria in the Act.
Participation agreements are an essential part of the implementation of the Government's North Sea oil participation policy, which is designed to secure a greater say for the nation in North Sea operations. It is surely inappropriate that such agreements should be judged against criteria intended to apply to agreements entered into by commercial enterprises for purposes not concerned with national policies.
Under Clause 1(1) of the Bill the Secretary of State has power to certify an agreement if it appears to him to be a participation agreement. Under subsection (2) any such certified agreement would be exempt from the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts of 1976 and 1956. Taken together, the effect of the two subsections is that any certified agreements which might otherwise be registrable would not have to be registered, thus avoiding all the difficulties I mentioned earlier.
726
My Lords, that is the main part of the Bill. The remaining provisions define the limits of the power to certify. Subsection (3) defines a participation agreement as closely as possible. It broadly follows the corresponding definition in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975. I shall repeat here assurances given in another place to the effect that it is not the intention to certify ordinary commercial agreements entered into by BNOC.
Subsection (4) states that the Companies Act definition of "subsidiary" shall apply to any wholly owned subsidiary of the British National Oil Corporation. Subsection (5) provides for a statement to be laid before Parliament in respect of any certificate issued under subsection (1). The statement must give the date of the certificate, the date of the agreement, and the parties to the agreement. Parliament will, therefore, be able to monitor the use to which the Secretary of State puts this power that would be given him under the Bill. Subsection (6) defines "agreement" as having the same meaning as in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976; "petroleum" the same as in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act; and "petroleum products" as in the Energy Act 1976. This last definition was introduced in Committee in another place by way of clarification. Together with the concluding words of subsection (5), it makes clear that participation agreements will not include agreements in any substances other than petroleum and petroleum products.
In addition to the provisions in the Bill, an undertaking has been given in another place on behalf of the Secretary of State that he will consult the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection before certifying an agreement under the provisions of subsection (1). The need for this legislation to remove doubt over the legal position of participation agreements is urgent because without it the Government, BNOC and the North Sea oil companies do not know where they stand. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
6.21 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I find the name of

727
this Bill rather quaint; I think it should be called the "Participation Disagreements Bill". Clearly we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his clear explanation of what it is all about. It seems to me that it is really designed to remove an unforeseen legal loophole which might otherwise have been exploited by the reluctant suiters among the oil companies who will be raped upon the bed of participation, as I would see it.
This is not an activity which we think BNOC and the Department of Energy should be engaged upon, for the reasons which we gave ad nauseam in the debates on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act. But, alas, however much we may think that, we cannot oppose the Bill because, however unworthy the purpose and intent and however incompetent the Government may have been in rushing through legislation which we believe to be largely unnecessary anyway, no responsible Opposition could refuse a Second Reading of a Bill which is designed to eliminate uncertainty and to establish a clear and unequivocal basis for the exploitation of our offshore energy resources.
However, before letting the Bill go we should have a look at the purposes and practices it is designed to protect; that is really to have a look at the nature of the birth of BNOC and its conduct and manners during its adolescence. As the noble Lord said, it has grown up extremely fast. I am bound to say that I do not find the picture, as I understand it, very reassuring. Many of the worst fears which we voiced seem to us to have been realised in practice.
I should say right away that we have always recognised the need for some kind of regulatory agency to direct, control and co-ordinate the overall pattern of offshore oil and gas activity. We do not think BNOC is probably the right vehicle to do that, but I would not want to give the impression that a Conservative Government would want to turn BNOC into a kind of Party political football by eliminating or suppressing it root and branch. A more statesmanlike and pragmatic approach would be to encourage BNOC to continue where it is manifestly carrying out useful and successful functions within the normal constraints of fair
728
trading. But I think we should have to examine carefully and identify those areas where it is performing contradictory functions or where its activities are impeding progress and damaging the good name of this country. In these areas its wings should be clipped and its worst excesses restrained.
The fundamental problem is that BNOC combines within one organisation the function of a regulating agency with that of a holding company participating in all the operating companies in the North Sea. It is an interesting fact that even the Government's own consultant, that not uncontentious figure Professor Peter Odell, is reported to have objected to this arrangement whereby there are two conflicting functions within the one organisation. It is this ambivalence which makes nonsense of the oft-repeated assertion that participation negotiations are voluntary. This has been exacerbated by the retrospective element in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act which really smacks, as was said so many times, of changing the rules of the game halfway through.
Time and again the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, from the Government Benches asserted that negotiations would be voluntary. I suggest that they are voluntary only in what one might call the Orwellian sense of that word. Is it voluntary if, without granting participation on existing licences, one is not considered for future licences? Can the Government deny that that is the situation? That is merely one example.
Great powers were given to the Minister and to BNOC in the Energy Acts. Very complex permissions were required for many aspects of our oilfield and pipeline operations and we believe that those permissions can be and are being exploited to put pressure on companies to accept participation agreements which they regard as onerous and discriminatory and which, incidentally, expose the public purse to unnecessary risks and calls on scarce financial resources. I will not particularise on these because I am not seeking specific answers to them from the noble Lord. Indeed, I am sorry to tell the House that the atmosphere of mistrust in the industry between the companies and BNOC is such that they would not wish to be quoted because they would genuinely believe that

729
any public airing of their misgivings would be likely to be prejudicial to the negotiations which are currently going on; that is an exceedingly unhappy atmosphere in which to be pursuing the exciting developments which are taking place off our coasts today.
I wish to make it clear that, in saying that, I am not suggesting that we are the mouthpiece or creatures of the oil companies. I am not going to suggest that they are benevolent international saints; equally, we are not paranoic about them either, as some Governments tend to be. We simply believe that you are likely to achieve more if you have forthright and fair, though nevertheless tough, negotiations, rather than the appalling atmosphere of mutual suspicion and distrust which pervades the reports passing between BNOC, the Ministry of Energy and the companies that I have seen. So it is hardly surprising if we are reluctant to hand over still more power and give a kind of retrospective amnesty to the Government and their creature, BNOC. I rather think they are really asking to be put in the position of President Nixon, who said:
"It is not wrong if the President does it".
As I understood it, that was virtually what the noble Lord was saying this Bill enables the Minister to say.
When one considers the delays which all this kind of negotiation is causing, I do not think one really ought to be surprised. It is now said that it is taking two years to achieve what was done in two months in the heady days, four or five years ago, before all this legislation was produced—when, incidentally, the Government already had all the taxing powers they needed to protect the public interest. I do not think you can expect anything else when you consider that there are, I think, although I did not write down the numbers as the noble Lord was speaking, 44 licences in which BNOC participates, whereas I do not believe it has yet succeeded in agreeing more than 15 complete operating plans. It would be a mammoth task when you consider that the oil companies are, on the whole, dealing with one operation while BNOC has to deal with them all.
I doubt whether BNOC will in fact be able to do very much to increase its
730
capacity to deal with these situations, judging from some of the advertisements which one has recently seen. They are a little alarming, because there is a whole page of advertisements here and in some of them they are talking about opportunities for people who have not been in the industry before. This rather suggests that they are intending to recruit a whole lot of people who have no experience whatever of the industry, and if ever there was an industry in which experience counts, I would suggest that it is this one.
So I should like to challenge the Minister to show where any participation agreement, whether or not it was contrary to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 or the Act enacted by his own Government in 1976, has really helped in the production of oil and gas, or where it has been voluntary in any sense of the word other than Orwellian "newspeak". Would any ordinary person consider it voluntary if someone agreed to sell a £500 car for £50 when the alternative was to get kicked in the teeth or have a bomb put in the car? This is what most of us would call arm-twisting or a protection racket.
These are strong words, but I believe that this is the attitude that the oil companies have; and, in commercial terms, that is what the imposed participation agreements represent. I suggest that in these circumstances it ill-behoves the Minister in another place to disguise a threat in the form of exhortation, saying that it is in the best interests of companies as well as of the Government to get on and get their participation agreements finalised.
That is the negative side, but we always try to look for something good. As the Minister said, the Government have, in one or two instances, bowed to pressure, and some small but valuable improvements have been made in another place, particularly regarding information to the House about the agreements which are to be laid, and about BNOC's dealing in non-petroleum products and the exclusion of chemical feedstocks. As usual, my Lords, I have gone on too long. I can only say that this is still a Bill which should never have been needed, and I am reminded of the Welshman in a remote area who, when asked how to get somewhere, said, "If I was going there, boy, I wouldn't start from 'ere".
6.35 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his clear description of this Bill. What he said has clarified a number of the points I had intended to raise in the course of this debate, When a Bill comes before this House and is said to be retrospective and to grant exemption from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, it is not surprising to find somebody from these Benches making at least a few observations about it; but, as the speech of the noble Lord has made matters quite clear about the retrospective necessity for this Bill, I will not deal further with that aspect of it.
There are one or two points that I should like to mention, and they arise out of the definition of a participation agreement. I notice from the Explanatory Memorandum that it is said that the main purpose of the Bill,
"is to exempt from registration under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 agreements providing for majority state participation…".
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to "agreements providing for majority state participation", whereas the definition in Clause 1(3) refers only to "participation agreement". I wondered whether there was any significance in that. Obviously, no legal significance can be attached to an Explanatory Memorandum—at any rate, that is an arguable matter—but the Explanatory Memorandum refers to "majority state participation", and I wondered whether that was a definition which should be included in the definition of "participation agreement" in the Bill itself.
There is perhaps another, minor point arising out of Clause 1(3)(c), where powers are given in relation to
"any other body on behalf of the Government".
Will the noble Lord be in a position this evening to indicate what other bodies the Government have in mind in this connection? I suppose I should know what other bodies they have in mind from my own limited experience in this matter, but, if the noble Lord can give any examples at this stage, I shall be grateful. Also—and this is a point which, unfortunately, I have not raised with the noble Lord—can he give any assurances that the retrospective provisions of this small
732
Bill will not affect the ownership of any inventions, patented or otherwise, which may arise in relation to contracts and associated matters before the date on which this Bill becomes an Act?
I have some sympathy for many of the observations which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, but I do not propose to develop them at this late hour. I was not quite clear what he meant by "the contradictory activities" of the BNOC, but, as he did not develop that aspect of his speech, I shall not dwell on it any longer.
6.39 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the interest they have taken in this Bill, and I am also glad to know from the Opposition, from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, that they will not be opposing it. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, of course, turned back the clock a certain amount and reviewed what was the Conservative Party policy, what might have been their policy, and what is, in his view, the Government's policy; so that perhaps I, too, might be able briefly to spell out the Government policy and why we took the steps that we did.
When the present Government took office in March 1974, they instigated a review of Government policy towards the oil and gas resources of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. This review was prompted by the widespread belief that the nation would not derive sufficient benefit from these important resources, a view, I may say, that was endorsed by the all-Party Public Accounts Committee in another place and, in view of some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, I would commend this report, which was dated 1972–73, to noble Lords who might care to refresh their memories. A lot of it is pretty devastating about the then-Government's policy and lack of control.
I should like to remind noble Lords that without the efforts of the present Government we should not have had an effective tax régime for North Sea profits, effective development and production control, including control over depletion and control over gas flaring, which is controlled in the United States, or any say

733
by the Government on behalf of the nation in the disposal of the oil. The Opposition apparently are content to allow the oil companies to exploit the nation's resources as they think best, somehow trusting to their benevolence to ensure that the nation gets the maximum benefit from this priceless resource.
I understood from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, that the Opposition would now agree with a great deal of what we have done; and I congratulate them on their conversion. Nevertheless, had they remained in office, it is surely inconceivable that the British people would have had such an opportunity as they have today to reap the benefits of United Kingdom Continental Shelf development. When BNOC was set up, deliberate steps were taken to ensure that its relationship with the Government should be a close and intimate one. This was because it was going to have a major rôle in the development of an absolutely vital national resource. That is why, for instance, two civil servants were included, one from the Treasury, on the Board of BNOC and why the Secretary of State has power to give the Corporation specific instructions. In line with that philosophy, relations between the Government and the Corporation are very close indeed.
It is not accurate to suggest, as the official spokesman for the Opposition in another place said in his constituency last week, that the Corporation raised 825-million dollars from a syndicate of the world's leading banks on the basis of a forward sale of oil without consulting the Treasury. This is what was said and I have a transcript of the speech. I cannot imagine how anyone can believe that a reasonable State corporation would engage in so important an undertaking without consulting the Treasury. I would remind noble Lords, as I have said just now, that there is a Treasury representative on the Board of BNOC.
We have heard also some hard words from the noble Lord about BNOC's behaviour in the negotiations. Of course, I can understand that the oil companies do not want a newcomer in their industry and particularly not a newcomer which has a special relationship with the Government. Nevertheless, State oil companies
734
are a feature of the oil scene in many countries throughout the world and I cannot see what is wrong with the United Kingdom having one as well. As for the conduct of negotiations—and we have heard more today about the old cry about arm twisting—let no one imagine that the oil companies are a pushover and do not know how to look after their interests. Probably, it is the toughest industry in the world. Sometimes the going gets tough and the occasional heated word may be exchanged, but that, surely, is part of negotiations, too. The oil companies do not have a divine right, however much one may believe in private enterprise, to dispose of the nation's resources. The nation surely must have its say. That is what the participation negotiations are all about. I am sure that the majority of reasonable companies accept this and behave accordingly so that good sense prevails and an amicable solution is obtained.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord at this point. Would he define that, as he described it, as voluntary? I do not think that many people would do so.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was coming to the voluntary agreements a little later. I would remind the House that the participation negotiations are being conducted on behalf of the Government and, in all cases, with civil servants taking part. Any company which believes it has a legitimate complaint—and I hope that the noble Lord will transmit this to his friends in the oil companies—should bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me for a definition of a participation agreement. Each agreement is negotiated on a voluntary basis which I shall define in a moment. As will be clear to the House, participation agreements vary greatly to take account of the peculiarities of the various oil fields of the individual oil companies. It is the case that no company is obliged to enter into participation negotiations. It is entirely legitimate for the Government to include, among many other criteria, the extent to which companies are prepared to comply with a policy to which the Government

735
attach importance. It is the British way to seek to influence people by persuasion rather than by the legally-orientated regulatory approach in the United States. But I repeat that no company is obliged to agree to participation. Those who do not must, however, expect the Government to form their own view about the willingness of those companies to co-operate with the Government.
The Opposition have also said—and this, too, was said over the weekend—that BNOC is scrutinising every word in every operating agreement. As noble Lords will know, although the Continental Shelf operating agreements have a number of common features, they vary considerably according to the number of participants in the relevant block and the diverse interests of those participants. No one has ever had to do before what BNOC has had to do: namely, to work out an operating agreement harmonising its own interests with those of its very numerous commercial partners. It is not surprising that this complex task should have taken quite a while to complete. I would remind noble Lords that the licences in question can last for 37 years; so that, surely, a few months taken to get them right is well spent.
The Opposition have also complained that the role of BNOC is confused. BNOC's position is perfectly clear at the present time. First, it is a commercial oil company running operations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, in the Thistle Field, for example, where BNOC is the operator. Secondly, it takes part in operating committees even when it does not have an equity stake through participation. BNOC's other role is that of adviser. The Government have their own staff of petroleum engineers to study development plans. However, it is immensely valuable to have the advice of people who are actually involved in the development and who know about it from the inside. BNOC will be trading considerable volumes of oil and will be able to provide valuable advice on that aspect of the industry, too, so the balance of payments and the general benefit to our economy can be safeguarded.
I must also repeat—because this has again been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and also by his honourable friend over the
736
weekend—that the Secretary of State continues to be the regulatory authority, and BNOC advises him. It is a perfectly straightforward situation. The Secretary of State has regulatory powers, not BNOC. The Secretary of State has powers to issue licences, to control the rate of production, to consent to the drilling of wells, and also of course to consent to gas flaring.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, complained that Government policy had lost time and impeded progress in the North Sea development programme. But he did not produce any evidence of this. Progress on those fields, which had been declared commercial when the Government took office, has been uneven. The demands of new technology, considerable cost escalation and the hazards of operating in deep waters in a hostile environment all meant that the very ambitious development programme took longer to carry out than many had thought. None of this was, however, in any way due to Government activity.
The Opposition have also said that the Government have delayed awarding fifth round licences. The present Government have scrutinised applicants for licences rather more closely than was done in earlier rounds. It is important, in the light of high costs and the advanced technology now required for operations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, to ensure that applicants for licences have the requisite technical and financial capability; and, naturally, all this takes time.
The Opposition also charge that no drilling in fifth round blocks was done during 1977. This is true, but it has not damaged the progress of development of the resources, and companies' drilling programmes were already sufficiently full for the year to prevent them from taking on any more exploration work. Drilling continued extensively throughout the year. The Opposition have claimed that there has been a slowing down of the rate of new discoveries and this has been due to Government policy. Although new finds are still being made, one can expect the rate of discovery being made under existing licences to decline now that companies have held their blocks for some years and have probably investigated the more promising structures. It is for this very reason that the Government decided to

737
hold a fifth round of licences which, as noble Lords will know, is at present in progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked about majority participation. In some cases, the participation is less than 51 per cent. to take account of an existing interest held by the British Gas Corporation and the National Coal Board. The other words to which he drew attention in the Bill—"any other body"—are a reference to the British Gas Corporation or a corporation replacing BNOC. However, it is not at present intended to replace BNOC. That is the reason for that wording.
It was also implied by both noble Lords that the Government had been remiss in not legislating before, and that this kind of legislation could have been included either under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 or the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. The reason for this is that this is new ground for all of us; a lot of it is unknown territory. The precise legal form of participation agreements was not clear at the time when the 1975 Act was going through Parliament. The doubt that we are seeking to remove had not come to light at the time of the 1976 Act which was, in any case, as your Lordships know, a consolidation measure, and hence not the proper place for legislation of this kind.
In conclusion, the Bill will bring certainty to a situation which is at present clouded by doubt. The Government, BNOC and the companies have devoted much time and effort to the negotiation of agreements settling the participation issue. It is clearly most undesirable for the status of these agreements to be in doubt. I should like to stress that the Bill does not effect BNOC's purely commercial activities. It removes the doubt and lifts an uncertainty from the industry's relationship with the Government and with the Corporation.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he is now in a position to deal with another point that I raised: whether the retrospective effect of this Bill would in any way affect ownership of inventions, patented or
738
otherwise, that may have arisen in the course of participation or other negotiation? I am sorry that I have not given the noble Lord notice of this question. If the noble Lord can reply either now or later, I shall be much obliged.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord is a great expert in this field. He has bowled me rather a fast ball. I shall go into the question and let him know the answer before the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ZAMBIA: AID
  ZAMBIA: AID
  TAXATION REVENUE
  TAXATION REVENUE
  IMMIGRANTS AND THE POLICE FORCE
  IMMIGRANTS AND THE POLICE FORCE