Sitting of 17 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

    Doorstep Selling
    Mr. Tilleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what further action he proposes to take to control doorstep selling.
    The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): The Consumer Credit Act provides for a cooling-off period in respect of credit sales on the doorstep and I am hoping to bring this part of the Act into operation as soon as may be practicable. Possible controls on cash transactions are under consideration.
    Mr. Tilley: I am grateful for that answer, but is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of doorstep racketeers, who
    2
    sell anything from double glazing to pots and pans, will not disappear? Will he tell the House and those who are likely to be affected in future what redress they will have under the new arrangements and what they should do?
    Mr. Fraser: Even at the moment the Director General of Fair Trading can suspend or revoke a licence where there has been a deceitful, unfair or oppressive practice by somebody selling on credit. I hope that people will exercise their rights and send complaints to the Director General of Fair Trading when they think that the holder of a licence has acted improperly.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the Minister drew the distinction which he and others drew in the House a few weeks ago, namely, that the draft directive from Brussels does not deal with this important problem? Should not the Commission stop worrying about catalogue mail order trading and leave it to the Government of this country to deal under the present law with some of the abuses mentioned?
    Mr. Fraser: There are problems in protecting cash transactions. On credit transactions, what I told the House was that I hoped to impose no obligation greater than that which would flow from the Consumer Credit Act.
    Mr. Pavitt: May I remind my hon. Friend of the events that occurred at 4 p.m. on Friday when a Conservative

    3
    Member decided, against the pleading of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, people disabled by deafness, Age Concern for the Elderly and from more than 300 small businesses dispensing hearing aids in the high road—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question relates to doorstep selling, not Friday's business.
    Mr. Pavitt: In order to stop doorstep selling of hearing aids, will my hon. Friend examine the possibilities of preventing this practice by means other than that Bill which was before the House?
    Mr. Fraser: I was bitterly disappointed at the behaviour of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I shall certainly see whether there are other ways of achieving this objective, apart from the use of that legislation.

    Roofing Contractors
    Mr. Severasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what action he proposes to take to deal with abuses by roofing contractors; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Fraser: Inexperienced consumers would be wise to take advice before contracting for roofing repairs. The Director General of Fair Trading has the power under the Fair Trading Act to take action against traders who persistently breach their contractual obligations; and also to put proposals to the Secretary of State for controlling particular trade practices which are against the economic interests of consumers. I am keeping under review whether there are sufficient powers to deal with shortcomings in the service trades.
    Mr. Sever: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful answer. Will he further consider the matter and recognise, as I am sure he does, that many elderly people are unable to check the warranty of work carried out and whether it represents good value for money? Does he think that there is a good case for making a register of such contractors, and does he feel that the matter could be referred to the Price Commission?
    Mr. Fraser: I have considered preparing a register, but it would be an enormous operation. With my right hon. Friend, I am giving serious consid-
    4
    eration to a reference of this subject to the Price Commission.

    Consumer Organisations (Scotland)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what representations he has had from consumer organisations in Scotland.
    Mr. John Fraser: My Department has received a number of representations, notably from the Scottish Consumer Council, on a variety of questions.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has any of them suggested how 150 Assembly persons in Edinburgh can do anything to keep prices down?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir.

    Price Control Orders
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many price control orders he has issued during the current parliamentary Session.
    The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Seven, Sir.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that if he wants to retain any credibility in getting down prices he must take action over a long period of time? Does he appreciate that to achieve that aim it will be necessary to ensure that prices are controlled, perhaps even by the use of sanctions, which unfortunately have been used by the Government against firms which pay over the 10 per cent. limit on wages? It is in that direction that he will have to look to keep prices down, especially where firms are not paying corporation tax and where there is very little dividend control. It is time the Minister looked to hammering the friends of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is answering his Question as well.
    Mr. Hattersley: I have always told the House, and I must repeat, that the way of getting inflation down and keeping it under control is by applying those general economic policies that have that effect. We have applied them over the past two years and I hope that we shall go on doing the same in the foreseeable future. However, my hon. Friend is right to say

    5
    that we need an active Price Commission acting against unreasonable price increases—that is what has happened in the past year—and if its powers are to be changed they should be made stronger rather than weakened in any way.
    Mr. Adley: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government have applied these policies for the past two years. What were they doing for the first two years?
    Mr. Hattersley: As subsequent answers will show, in the first two years we were wrestling with the inflation caused by the Conservatives when they were in power.
    Mr. Madden: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many prices have been frozen by the Price Commission? How does he describe the support given by the Tory Opposition for price control legislation—enthusiastic, grudging or non-existent?
    Mr. Hattersley: A number of prices have been directly frozen by the Commission. As I said in my original reply, seven orders have been made. Much more significant is the indirect effect of the Commission's operations because companies have been deterred from even proposing frivolous or unnecessary price increases by the existence of the Commission. This point was made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) during a speech in her constituency when she said that the Price Commission was holding down prices and inhibiting profits. She was not in favour of that, but she acknowledged that it was happening.

    Retail Price Index
    Mr. Hodgsonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the effect of the Price Commission on the retail price index since 1st August 1977.
    Mr. Hattersley: The rate of inflation has been reduced by more than 50 per cent. since 1st August 1977 The work of the Price Commission has made a valuable contribution to this notable achievement.
    Mr. Hodgson: In the light of that answer, does the Secretary of State agree with his previous comments in a newspaper interview that the work of the Price Commission has made only a mar-
    6
    ginal difference to the rate of inflation? Is not the work of his Department really a public relations exercise?
    Mr. Hattersley: Not only do I agree with the answer I gave in that newspaper interview, but I agree with the supplementary answer that I gave to a previous question, which was that the way inflation is brought under control is by applying the right sort of economic policies. The Price Commission can have only a marginal effect, but it has a significant effect in that it assures people, which is absolutely right, that unnecessary price increases will not be allowed to go ahead. Sooner or later, the Conservative Opposition will have to make up their mind whether they want to stop the Commission holding back specific prices or whether they do not.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Is it not clear from the Opposition's attitude to the Price Commission that they are in favour of some wage increases but of all price increases?
    Mr. Hattersley: If there is any evidence that the Opposition believe that price increases that have been directly or indirectly prevented by the Price Commission should have been prevented, I have yet to see examples of it. We have never had a Prayer against the Commission's behaviour, but we have also never had a word of support for the action it took over tea, cement and soda ash and in all its other actions that have been of benefit to the country. I say again that sooner or later the Opposition will have to make clear whether they are glad or sorry that those prices were held back.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to his speech in Barnsley on 24th June, when, as he has just reminded us, he said that the Commission had had a material effect on prices in housewives' weekly shopping baskets—and he quoted tea, soda ash, cement and fertiliser. Does he think that the electors of Penistone were impressed by such an argument? Why does not the kidding stop, and why does he not scrap the whole thing?
    Mr. Hattersley: As I have had a previous opportunity of pointing out, I thought that the by-election results last

    7
    Thursday were rather good, particularly since the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and I agreed before the television programme on which we appeared that there was no hope of Labour holding Manchester, Moss Side. Having said that, I believe that the country recognises absolutely the achievements of the Government in reducing the level of inflation to 7.4 per cent. on the RPI. All the evidence is that people understand the work we have done and support us in it.

    Electricity Consumers' Council
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary tary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he expects next to meet the chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): My right hon. Friend is always ready to meet the chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council but has no immediate plans for such a meeting.
    Mr. Renton: Does the Minister or the Secretary of State get the impression that the Electricity Consumers' Council is satisfied with the efficiency of the British electricity industry? Is it not a fact that British generating and distribution costs do not compare well with other electricity industries of a comparable size throughout the world and that, therefore, the consumer is paying more per unit for electricity than he would if the industry were really efficient?
    Mr. Maclennan: The first thing to recognise is that the industry is now recovering from the policy pursued by the Conservatives when they were in power and is getting back on to the sort of commercial footing which the Conservative Government would not allow it to achieve. As to the views of the council, I follow with great interest the evidence given to the committee of which the hon. Gentleman is a member and I hope shortly to meet the chairman to discuss the council's views.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the higher unit costs in distribution, compared with certain commercial undertakings abroad, may be due to the fact that the electricity authorities in this country provide a service, very
    8
    often at a loss, to all the people of this country—even those in remote areas?
    Mr. Maclennan: The electricity industry does provide such a service, but the questions raised by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) are the subject of scrutiny by the Price Commission in determining whether particular tariff proposals should be permitted. Questions of unit cost and the like fall squarely within the Commission's remit. The Conservatives gave no support to the examination of the electricity industry in this way.
    Mr. Montgomery: Has the Minister thought about having an investigation made into the efficiency of the electricity industry in this country? Has he seen the press report which quoted the Secretary of State for Energy as suggesting that we should ban all coal imports? Would not this have the effect of increasing electricity costs in this country?
    Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission has already made at least two examinations of the electricity industry and has recently published a report on the South of Scotland Electricity Board, which we are considering with great interest and which reflects on some of these matters.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he will give the increase in food prices since February 1974 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he will give the increase in food prices since February 1974 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the increase in food prices since February 1974.
    Mr. Maclennan: The food price index in mid-June had increased by 1049 per cent. since February 1974—
    Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members do not know what is coming.
    Mr. Maclennan: However, in the 12 months to June 1978, food prices rose by only 6.7 per cent., the lowest annual rate other than in the current year, since May 1972.
    Mr. Winterton: Does not the Minister think that that is a disgraceful admission of failure by the Government? Does not he further consider that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, with all his arrogance, should now resign? Where in their 1974 manifesto did the Government promise to raise food prices by more than 100 per cent. in four years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State is now the housewives' public enemy no. 1 and the biggest basket of them all?
    Mr. Maclennan: After that rhetoric, which seems more appropriate to an election than to the House of Commons, I should point out that the facts should be regarded by the House as extremely encouraging because, for the ninth consecutive month, the annual rate of food price increases has been below the general rate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman should also note with satisfaction that the rate of inflation in food prices is one-third of the rate at this time last year.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone else, did the hon. Gentleman, in his closing words, use an offensive expression about the Minister?
    Mr. Winterton: I said that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Affairs was the biggest basket of them all.
    Mr. Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to remember where he is.
    Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware that in a Written Answer which he gave on 23rd June he stated that the only part of the price increase that could be blamed on the Common Market was 1.7 per cent.? So let us have no more talk from below the Gangway opposite that it is the Common Market which has caused this increase; it is the present Government and their devaluation of our sterling.
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that earlier this year the Opposition proposed the devaluation of the green pound, which would have
    10
    resulted in a substantial increase, which the Government resisted. Due to the action of my right hon. Friends; by phasing that devaluation, we have succeeded in saving the British housewife £50 million.
    Mr. Knox: Is not the Minister ashamed of this increase in food prices?
    Mr. Maclennan: I think that it is highly regrettable that in the past five years food prices have increased substantially throughout the world. It is noteworthy that the rate of increase in this country is now substantially below that in a number of other countries in the developed world, including the United States of America and France.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend try to explain to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—although, of course, he may find it slightly difficult as the hon. Member is not too quick on the uptake—that there is direct correlation between the price of food in this country and our entry into the Common Market? Does my hon. Friend agree, whether the hon. Member likes it or not, that it is the tariffs imposed at the point of entry which affect prices in the shops?
    Mr. Maclennan: It is a fact that at the beginning of this year we completed our movement throughout four transition phases. This had the effect of raising food prices in this country. These arrangements were entered into by the Opposition.
    Mr. Marten: On the question of bringing food prices down, which will help to reduce inflation, why do the Government go on paying the 50 per cent. levy on hard wheat imported from Canada when the Common Market does not produce any? That adds about 4p or 5p to the price of a standard loaf. Why do not the Government do something about it?
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman should note, in respect of the common prices and the levy arrangements, that the Government have achieved substantial successes and, this year, have succeeded in bringing down the rate of common price increase to 2½ per cent.
    Mr. Marten: Answer the question.
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman says "Answer the question." I am

    11
    answering his question in my own way. The hon. Gentleman chooses to single out a particular item from a package. He must look at the whole picture and realise how successful the Government have been in holding down the level of common price.
    Mr. Heifer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that hon. Members—unfortunately, including some Ministers—try to defend an impossible position over the Common Market? Does he further agree that, if we are absolutely honest about it, we must admit that the public enemy No. 1 is the Common Market, and that the 104 per cent. increase is due to our entry to the Common Market and nothing else? That needs to be said time after time after time.
    Mr. Maclennan: The deficiencies of the common agricultural policy have been reiterated by the Government on a number of occasions, and most recently by the Prime Minister at the meeting in Bremen where he succeeded in obtaining from his colleagues, at the Heads of Government meeting, the most important assurance that the common agricultural policy would be reviewed and the Commission would be invited to produce proposals for the next Council meeting. The Government have never been in any doubt about the importance of this aspect, in resource terms particularly. My hon. Friend is wrong to attribute the full price increases which have occurred over the past few years—throughout the world and not simply in the Community countries—to the common agricultural policy.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the House and the country will have noted that the Secretary of State is too yellow to answer this most important Question?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady is not making a charge of cowardice, because that is unparliamentary.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: If you wish me to qualify my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I replace the word "yellow" with the word "timid". Is the Under-Secretary aware that if the most that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State can offer the country—after more than doubling food prices after four and a half years, after
    12
    reducing the purchasing power of the pound to 51p, after raising prices by over 93 per cent., after nearly four years of double figure inflation—is a mere further six months of single figure inflation before they return to double figure inflation, who do they expect to cheer that performance? It is an insult—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough for the time being.
    Mr. Maclennan: I must express regret that, due to the barracking by the hon. Lady's hon. Friends, I heard no question from her at all after the first phrase. I have always answered Questions on food prices: there has been no change in practice. The news which I gave in my initial reply, that food prices rose by only 6·7 per cent. year on year—the lowest annual rate since May 1972—shows how the Government are getting on top of the problem of food price increases.
    Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you advise me whether the word "funk" is parliamentary?
    Mr. Speaker: Ask me again later.

    Retail Price Index
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest figure for prices in the retail price index.
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he will give the increase in the retail price index since February 1974.
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the current rate of inflation.
    Mr. Hattersley: The retail price index in June stood at 197·2. This represents an increase of 93·9 per cent. since February 1974, and an increase of 7·4 per cent. in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Molloy: Despite the freneticism of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the vulgar outburst we have just witnessed from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) over price increases, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives kept the House going for nearly 48 hours, opposing

    13
    any control of prices? Is not their behaviour this afternoon disgraceful? Is he aware that his contribution in this matter has dramatically aided the fight against inflation, in getting the co-operation of the trade unions and the CBI, and that all this appalling business we have witnessed this afternoon is in opposition to co-operation—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I can see that I am in for a very rough fortnight. May I ask hon. Members to try to be brief, in the interests of their colleagues whose Questions are lower down on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he is doing, and what causes the Opposition to be annoyed, is making a contribution to the fight against inflation in the interests of our country and our people?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I rejoice in the fact that some of the contributions made by Opposition Back Bench Members are being broadcast into about 1 million homes at the moment. These people will no doubt make their own judgment of the character and the conduct of the Tory Party.
    Mr. Adley: You worry about food prices.
    Mr. Hattersley: On a more important note than the character and conduct of the Tory Party, the point made by my hon. Friend is important in that success in bringing inflation under control over the past two years has been the result of the activities of every member of the population. There has been a contribution made by the trade union movement, which has shown wisdom and restraint. What I hope is that those who are not irrevocably prejudiced in these matters will wish the Government well in their attempt to achieve next year the sort of success on inflation that we have had last year so that we can genuinely get the country back on to a proper inflation path.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to correct an impression given by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during Question Time last Tuesday that a large amount of this deplorable increase was due to our
    14
    membership of the European Community? Will he make it quite clear that he is in agreement with the answers given by his departmental colleagues to the effect that this factor accounts for no more than 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of the increase at the outside? Will he recognise that this enormous increase is totally as a result of the Government's deplorabe policy and atrocious success rate?
    Mr. Hattersley: Tory Members normally confuse the different indices intentionally. I think that the hon. Gentleman's confusion is a genuine mistake. I do not argue for a moment that the increase in the RPI is about 1·7 per cent. to 2 per cent. as a result of membership of the Common Market. With the food index, about which the Tory Party has just made such a fuss, the increase is much larger than that because of the relationship between the food index and the RPI and because of the common agricultural policy's effect on food. Despite my unallayed enthusiasm for British membership of the EEC, I cannot pretend other than that the CAP has had a material effect on food prices in this country.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement of a 7·4 per cent. increase in the retail price index will be welcomed by millions of consumers in this country? Will he also agree that the action of the Government in reducing inflation to this level, with the full co-operation of the trade union movement, will go a long way to ensuring the return of a Labour Government at the next General Election?
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope and believe that both of those statements are true. More important in the immediate future is the need to ensure that we continue with the policies which have brought success over the past two years. I can only repeat that the Tory Party, in trying to diminish the achievements of the British people and trying to pretend—
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear". The Tory Party, in trying to diminish the achievements of the British people, is making it much more difficult for a successful policy on inflation to continue. I believe that we shall

    15
    triumph over that, but what I hear from the Opposition Benches scarcely makes it sound like the party of patriotism.
    Mr. Neubert: To put the Secretary of State's statement in perspective, is it not the case that whereas our rate of inflation is down to 7·4 per cent—a low point and now likely to rise—West Germany's rate of inflation is down to 2·4 per cent.? What plausible explanation is there for our rate of inflation being three times worse other than four and a half years of Labour Government?
    Mr. Hattersley: This selective use of figures gets sillier and more transparent every time it happens. The fact is that today the British inflation rate is lower than the average rate in the OECD. That is an enormous achievement.

    Frozen Chips
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Portection what is the retail price per ton of frozen chips at the latest available date; and how that figure compares with the prices during the corresponding dates of 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977.
    Mr. Maclennan: The information is not available in the precise form requested, but I will circulate in the Official Report the data that are to hand. They show that the average retail price of frozen chips and other frozen convenience potato products fell by 47 per cent. in the 12 months to April this year.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that last year's potato crop was the best for three years? Is he aware that, in spite of that, the buyers and sellers of potatoes and frozen chips—who are friends of the Tory Party—have kept prices high? Is he further aware that because of the high price of potatoes we are importing frozen chips? Will he for goodness sake keep a more watchful eye on this and have discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade to see whether we can stop the importation of frozen chips?
    Mr. Maclennan: I am glad to be able to report that the price in pence per pound has fallen from 30·63p last year to 16·17p this year The price for frozen potato products was, on average only 1p per pound more expensive in April of this year than it was in 1975
    Mr. John Ellis: Irrespective of my hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that people of no political persuasion are asking Members of Parliament why it is that in a year when there has been a better potato crop than ever before potatoes are being destroyed? It is not only that we are importing them; if we have the damned things, why do we not sell them cheaply?
    Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend did not, perhaps, hear the answer I gave earlier, which was to the effect that the price of frozen potatoes—about which this Question is principally concerned—has dropped dramatically by 47 per cent. in the past year. That reflects the lower producers' costs to which he has referred.
    Following are the data:

    FROZEN CHIPS AND OTHER FROZEN CONVENIENCE POTATO PRODUCTS

    Average retail price

    pence per lb.

    equivalent per ton (£)

    April 1974

    12·43

    278·43

    April 1975

    15·17

    339·81

    April 1976

    30·61

    685·66

    April 1977

    30·63

    686·11

    April 1978

    16·17

    362·21

    Source: National Food Survey.

    House Prices
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he is satisfied with the law protecting consumers so far as house prices are concerned.
    Mr. John Fraser: Yes, Sir. Policy on housing and house prices is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Though house prices are not subject to price control legislation, the Government and the Building Societies Association jointly monitor trends in the housing market. My right hon. Friend set out the nature of the current arrangements in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 9th June.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the best protection for consumers, when it comes to house prices, is to make sure that the house building industry remains firmly in private hands?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not know about that, because in the first four years of the

    17
    Labour Government house prices rose by 30 per cent. whereas in the last four years of the last Conservative Government they rose by 100 per cent.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Is it not the case that a modest measure to increase consumer protection for house purchasers was wrecked by the narrow interests of a small group of Tory Members? Will not they be held to account for that outrageous action?
    Mr. Fraser: I am sorry that my hon. Friend's Estate Agents Bill failed to complete its passage last Friday because of fiibustering by some Tory Members. It is certainly my intention to try to reintroduce the legislation at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Boscawen: Is there not a serious flaw in consumer protection as it affects housing in that integral heating systems are often not included in the protection that is given to consumers? Will the Minister do something about this?
    Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has written to me, as have members of the public, about this problem. I am examining it.
    Mr. McCrindle: If the Minister is as complacent as he sounded in his reply to this Question, may I ask why it is that, since the Government asked the building societies to reduce mortgage lending, so as to have some effect on house prices house prices have continued to rise substantially?
    Mr. Fraser: The figure is the other way round. Since the arrangements were introduced, there has been a moderation in the increase in prices. Perhaps I can add that the investigations under restrictive practices legislation have found that private enterprise does not always mean an absence of price fixing.

    Petrol Price Displays
    Mr. Grocottasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he has completed his review of petrol price displays.
    Mr. Maclennan: Yes. The review has shown that the Petrol Prices (Display) Order is working well and has ended most of the misleading displays which were so common before its introduction
    18
    However, a few abuses remain, notably the practice of making discount prices apply only to the purchase of complete gallons, with any part gallons being charged at a significantly higher price.
    My right hon. Friend therefore intends to take action on this and certain other matters to ensure that petrol price displays are clear and unambiguous. Consultations on these changes will start this week.
    Mr. Grocott: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful reply, but may I ask him to turn his attention to the practice common in so many garages, which will be familiar to hon. Members, whereby the number after the decimal point, usually a nine, is printed in about the same size lettering as the decimal point itself? Does he accept that, while his Department may describe that as being advertisement by non-tenderable fractions, or "NTF" as I believe it is called, my constituents regard it as a swindle?
    Mr. Maclennan: Not only do I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point, but I intend that the statutory requirement shall be that the price displayed in decimal points shall be in the same size and boldness as the main whole number. I think that that should stop deception of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the general subject of the price of petrol, will the Minister inquire why it costs up to 10p a gallon more in my constituency, and possibly in his, than in London? That seems much more important than the price of half gallons.
    Mr. Maclennan: I have had some correspondence with a number of hon. Members on this matter. A number of inquiries have been carried out. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is currently conducting an inquiry into the wholesale supply of petrol, the results which I hope to have by the end of this month. It should then be possible to see whether the Government can do anything to deal Arith this serious problem.

    Cost of Living
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if the cost of living has yet doubled since February 1974
    Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir.
    Mr. Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept our congratulations on answering Questions about price increases where the figures are marginally under 100 per cent.? We noted his reluctance to answer questions where prices exceeded 100 per cent. As he failed to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will he tell me where in this document the increases in food prices that have taken place are mentioned? Will he also remind the House whether the Chancellor's arithmetic about 8·4 per cent. in October 1974 was accurate?
    Mr. Hattersley: I look forward to answering Questions about shorter indices later this afternoon. On the hon. Gentleman's original point, every month I witness his attempts to prove that inflation began on General Election day 1974. That is a difficult thesis to sustain. If he does not believe me, I hope that he will join me in a common enterprise: to ask the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—I believe that they are all now on speaking terms again—to agree to the publication of the last inflation forecast received by the Conservative Government in the way that we publish inflation forecasts under the Bray amendment. If the former Prime Minister will agree to publish that forecast, it will make it absolutely clear that the Conservative Government knew that inflation was taking off and that they did absolutely nothing about it.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate at which the rate of inflation is changing is what really matters? Does he further agree that in February 1974 the change in the rate of inflation was high and positive and that the same rate of change is now high and negative? In view of the latest industrial figures and the accumulated value of the pound relative to world currencies, does he agree that there is now a good chance that the rate of inflation might fall even further?
    Mr. Hattersley: My forecast remains that the rate of inflation will stay during this year at or about its April figure, which was 7·9 per cent. Regarding the right index to choose, not only do I agree
    20
    with my hon. Friend, but in months past the Opposition agreed with him. When the RPI was running at 26 per cent. they were not conjuring new figures out of the air; they were concentrating on that figure. They abandoned the annual RPI only when it was moving in favour not only of the Government but of the people of this country. I regard that as a highly disreputable technique.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that to the ordinary housewife the question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) is sheer gobbledegook? The thing that really matters to the ordinary housewife is that, as she gets her shopping week after week, she finds that prices keep on rising.
    Mr. Hattersley: That is not what the ordinary housewife—a patronising term that I should not employ—finds. That is not what women, and men, for that matter, who do shopping, find. They find a remarkable degree of price stability from one week to another. The reports of surveys demonstrate, as was put in a simple sentence in one newspaper, what one lady said: that this week's shopping money now buys last week's groceries and the week's before as well. That is what housewives and others are finding.

    Retail Price Index
    Mr. David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what have been the changes in the retail price index at annualised rates over the last three months, the last six months and the last 12 months, respectively.
    Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he will give the increase in the retail price index, all items, over the last three months expressed at an annual rate.
    Mr. Hattersley: The 12-month increase in the retail price index has been 7·4 per cent. to June. The index has risen at an annual rate of 11·7 per cent. in the last three months, and 9·6 per cent. over the last six months.
    Mr. Price: Does not the Secretary of State's reply illustrate that we are in the numbers game here? Will he tell the

    21
    House which of the various periods selected gives the fairest interpretation of the ongoing rate of inflation? Does he realise that we can play with figures as we like but that the reality of what goes on in ordinary shops reflects our views on the rate of inflation? I assure him that it is still going up.
    Mr. Hattersley: Of course, it is still going up. If I am taking part in the numbers game contest, I am doing so because I answered the hon. Gentleman's Question exactly. If he wants me to choose one index, I choose the index that I regarded as the right measurement in good months and bad for the last two years. When the annual RPI was running at 26 per cent., I said with reluctance that was the best measure of inflation. Now that it is running at 7·4 per cent., I say the same thing. It is the best measure of inflation. It is others—notably Opposition Members—who have chosen whatever index from month to month happens best to make their party case.
    Mr. Dodsworth: Does the Minister accept that in my constituency a person who bought an annual season ticket in June this year would pay £400 whereas precisely 12 months previously it was £298? That is a rate of increase of 34 per cent. The facts are on the record. If we want to be very charitable and kind and divide it by two, because it covers two years, it is still 16 per cent. Those rates of increase are intolerable to the ordinary commuter. Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as a success or a failure of the operation of the Price Commission or as none of its business at all?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not regard it as a great act of charity to divide two years' price increases by two to get the annual figure. That seems to me to be elementary arithmetical prudence.
    Regarding the 16 per cent. increase in rail fares to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of course I regret the need over the last three years to try to get the nationalised industries back into balance. But that need stems from the Conservative Government's decision to run them at a deficit in the hope of currying some popularity in doing so. We are getting the nationalised industries back on to a break-even basis, and that is our duty.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Are not the two critical, truthful and important statistics about the rate of inflation, first, that when we came to power in February 1974 inflation was 16·9 per cent. and rising and that it is now 7·4 per cent. and at least stable and probably falling and, secondly—the Opposition do not like this —that it is now below the OECD average and below the rate of the majority of OECD countries?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is all absolutely true. I should add that before we came to power the Conservative Government knew and anticipated that the rate of inflation would rise, according to their policies, to about 25 per cent. during the next year.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition entirely accept that he wants to make the most of what is probably his last opportunity to answer Questions from us for many years to come? Before he gets carried away with the flow of his own pomposity, as he has already said in many speeches that he knows precisely what factors will affect the inflation rate for the rest of this year, will he say what the inflation rate will be at its highest point this year? Will it be 8 per cent., 8·8 per cent., 9·9 per cent. or 10 per cent?
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: We know its highest point this year.
    Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) is right. I know what its highest point will be this year because we passed it on the way down four months ago. I think that the question that the hon. Lady was struggling to ask was what would be the highest point between now and Christmas. The facts for that period are as I described them in Birmingham six weeks ago. The inflation rate will fluctuate around that April figure, which was 7·9 per cent. What happens after Christmas will depend upon the policies we apply between now and Christmas. It is my earnest hope and belief that we shall continue the improvement next year. As for this year, however, in spite of the strange denials of the judgment that the hon. Lady made five weeks ago, that 7·9 per cent. figure is how it is and it is how it will remain.

  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (GUIDANCE)
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to prepare an advisory booklet on employment protection for the benefit of employers.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever): The Department of Employment is preparing a leaflet for employers on the individual rights provisions of the employment protection legislation. This will be published within the next few months.
  Mr. Ridley: Why was it not published before? Why does the right hon. Gentleman go about promising things to business men and then not getting on with implementing them? Is he aware that, if he does not look out, he will be known as the Chancellor of the Duchy of all things to all men?
  Mr. Lever: It is always more useful if Question Time is occupied in searching for information rather than in expressing a sort of good-natured malevolence. Any remedy for a difficult state of affairs would always meet with the first of the hon. Member's criticisms—why was it not done before? The answer is that we have heard the suggestions of the people affected, and we are trying to meet their desires.
  Mr. Buchan: Will my right hon. Friend consider including in the booklet the statement that the employment protection available would have been a great deal better, more sane, more logical and more humane were it not for the reactionary behaviour of the Conservative Party in opposing Private Members' Bills?
  Mr. Lever: It is the Government's intention to seek to consolidate the legislation rather as some of my hon. Friends wanted. Although I would not wish to withdraw any of the adjectives that my hon. Friend applied in his criticism of the Opposition, it is not certain that we will not be able to achieve by common consent all of the purposes that my hon. Friends seek, in the sense that the purposes of the Employment Protection Act have the assent of most employers and nearly all employees.
  Mr. Tebbit: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although every reasonable person accepts that it is a good thing for employment to be protected, he must have been told, as I have been told by one employer after another, that the Employment Protection Act is inhibiting them from taking on more labour? Will he take that into consideration and ask for a leaflet to be published which will tell employers how they can best avoid the worst excesses of the Act and allow them to take on new labour without the fear that they will be stuck with it even if business falls away or the labour is grossly inadequate?
  Mr. Lever: In common with many others, the hon. Gentleman generalises about "worst excesses" and the like, and I find it difficult to have pinpointed those areas where the Act is working to threaten employment. There are difficulties in the settling in of the Act, and I have no doubt that we shall keep that under review. I have no doubt, either, that there are a great many misconceptions on the part of employers about the impact of the Act—some of them were implied in what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said. It is our duty, of course, to remove misconceptions from the minds even of those who are slower to understand these matters than others.
  Mr. Pavitt: As many of my constituents working for a photographic company called Grunwick are denied the elementary employment protection of joining a trade union, will the advisory booklet do anything for employees, apart from helping the employers?
  Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that the Employment Protection Act is an Act for the protection of the status and rights of working people, not an Act to punish recalcitrant employers or those whom my hon. Friend supposes to be recalcitrant.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his official engagements for 17th July.
  Mr. Lever: Apart from my duties in this House, I have meetings today with ministerial colleagues and others.
  Mr. Canavan rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. William Hamilton.
  Mr. William Hamilton: This is my hon. Friend's Question, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not calling the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to put a supplementary question. I made a statement in April about these open Questions to Ministers. If the hon. Member will raise the matter as a point of order after Questions, I shall deal with it. I call Mr. Hamilton.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to initiate legislation to nationalise the Duchy for which he is responsible.
  Mr. Lever: I have no plans for any such legislation.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast amount of income accruing tax-free to the owner of this estate would be far better employed in replenishing and reservicing the Health Service facilities in the north and northwest instead of its going we know not where but certainly not to be used in the public interest?
  Mr. Lever: Knowing as I do my hon. Friend's ardent republican views, I can understand that he would think that any diversion of this money otherwise than to support the institution of royalty would be desirable. I do not share his view and he ought not, in my opinion, seek to give the impression that this income derives for the private benefit and advantage of the Sovereign. That is far from the truth.
  Mr. Aitken: Since the right hon. Gentleman has been pressed on this matter by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), may I ask him whether he will consider nationalising that income derived from royalties on the hon. Member's books about the Royal Family?
  Mr. Hamilton: Let us strike a bargain.
  Mr. Lever: Sometimes there is apt to be confusion in the interpretation of the word "nationalise". Some people mean by it to acquire for fair compensation and to take into public ownership thereby, and some people mean confiscation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I should confiscate my hon. Friend's royalties.

  MONEY SUPPLY
  Mr. Gowasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from those living in the Duchy about the rate of increase of the money supply.
  Mr. Lever: None, Sir. I understand that the subject does not figure largely in general conversation in the Duchy.
  Mr. Gow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, after the Government's failure in the last financial year to reach their monetary targets, there is, in spite of the absence of correspondence from the Duchy, considerable anxiety there about whether the Government will be able to reach their monetary targets this year? Will he confirm that he is in regular communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that this year the monetary targets are met?
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman's view that the Government are failing to reach their monetary targets is a shallow one and is based upon selecting for his appraisal, not with total impartiality, special periods. I can, however, reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am in continuous, close and amicable contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he and I are satisfied that the Government are doing very well with their economic and financial programme, in particular in relation to their monetary targets.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the people in the Duchy are not talking about money supply, are they talking about the Scotland Bill?
  Mr. David Price: In view of the Chancellor's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that monetary supply does not feature among the thoughts of the people of the Duchy of Lancaster, why does the right hon. Gentleman spend so much of his personal time in Government on this question?
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Member must realise that not the whole of my duties are focused on the specific area historically regarded as the Duchy of Lancaster. I can tell him that different people attach different degrees of importance to the specific performance of the money supply. The different views range from ardent monetarism to a rather lax judgment of the general position. Whichever view one takes, all the evidence is that the money supply is in a healthy condition, that the country's inflation rate is declining and that prospects are good. Contrary to a suggestion from the Opposition a moment ago, the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends are likely to have considerable further opportunities of asking Questions from the Opposition side of the House.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could advise me and other Back Benchers how we may table substantive Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy without running the risks of those Questions being transferred. I am sure that you appreciate the difficulty, that the Chancellor of the Duchy is in a unique position as a Cabinet Minister. He has a wide-ranging and strange variety of duties and if we put down a Question to him, for example, on small businesses, it may be liable to be transferred to the Department of Industry. If we put down a Question about employment, it may be transferred to the Secretary of State for Employment. The Chancellor himself comes here only once in five weeks and only for 10 minutes. How on earth can Back Benchers demand accountability of a Minister with such a wide range of duties?
Mr. Mike Thomas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You allowed a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr Gow) on Question No. 58, which is clearly a similar contrivance. Those living in the Duchy could presumably talk to my right hon. Friend about almost anything. What is the distinction between that Question and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan)?
Mr. Speaker: There is a very clear distinction, if the hon. Member will read his Order Paper. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked a Question about money supply, to which there is a reference on the Order Paper.
With regard to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), I want to remind the House that a year ago almost to the day I first said that I would limit supplementaries on what are called shot-in-the-dark Questions to departmental Ministers. At the beginning of March this year, I told the House that there was no prescriptive right to be called to ask a supplementary question and that I might well exercise my discretion in such cases. Finally, in mid-April this year I stated plainly that I did not propose to call anyone to ask a supplementary question on a shot-in-the-dark Question of a departmental Minister until the House should instruct me otherwise.
I am sorry that the hon. Member should be the first to be caught by the ruling, but I am perfectly clear that, in not calling supplementary questions on these shot-in-the-dark Questions addressed to departmental Ministers, I am protecting the ancient and eminently sensible custom of the House at Question Time. Ministers cannot transfer Questions directly related to their departmental work, and five hon. Members succeeded in getting Questions addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy this afternoon. All hon. Members, Back Benchers and Ministers alike, have a right to be given notice of the real Question an hon. Member seeks to ask.
Mr. David Price: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you apply that, if I may say so, eminently sensible ruling to Prime Minister's Questions, which have now got completely out of hand?
Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that perhaps you should have a fresh look at this, since, first the Prime Minister does not have a Department as such and therefore we have to table Questions of this kind. Secondly, where there is a proper departmental role, you are justified, in my view, in saying that there are sufficient areas in which Questions can be tabled.
However, on this one, we are in some difficulty because the Chancellor of the

29
Duchy has a Department yet seemingly has none. There are many occasions when he is in and out of all other kinds of Departments. One could name at least five or six Departments in which my right hon. Friend has to some extent been involved, or seemingly failed to be involved, since he has had this job. I was always told that the Chancellor of the Duchy was a Minister without portfolio. It therefore seems occasionally necessary to put down Questions of a general kind such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) tabled today.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If any hon. Member has difficulty in seeking to hold me to account for any of my actions in government and finds difficulty with the Table in framing the appropriate Question, I shall readily give him all the assistance in my power. I do not doubt that I should be more successful than one or two of my hon. Friends have been.
Mr. John Ellis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Irrespective of this question, I think that this is a momentous occasion in the House of Commons. It appears to me that you are saying that you will call supplementaries on shot-in-the-dark Questions to the Prime Minister but not on those to departmental Ministers. On extraordinary occasions, hon. Members need to raise matters of political importance—as they do during business questions. While it may not be exceptional in the present case for the House to accept your ruling, and the reasons for it, I ask you to consider that on occasions hon. Members on both sides might have to resort to the expedient of shot-in-the-dark Questions to a departmental Minister I would therefore ask you to reconsider your judgment not only because of how it has arisen at this time but also because, if you are to establish a method of dealing with these Questions today, there may be times when the House cannot achieve what it wants in future.
Mr. Ridley: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), it seems anomalous that we can ask the Prime Minister virtually only shot-in-the-dark Questions. Do you not think that it is remarkable, Mr.
30
Speaker, despite that, how often we manage to hit him?
Mr. Mike Thomas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not agree with the interpretation that you are seeking to impose, but that is of course your right. However, for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, will you tell us tomorrow precisely what you mean by shot in the dark? It appears to me, that the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne is itself a clever device and not a Question which could arguably be addressed to my right hon. Friend. Almost any topic could be raised under the formulation used by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I genuinely want to discover what the Minister has been doing today, what Question do I put down?
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order. I am glad of this opportunity to raise a point about the happenings on Friday—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Shall I deal with this point of order first and the hon. Gentleman's point of order afterwards?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the present point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you clarify your ruling in one respect? The Prime Minister is paid as the senior Treasury Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury. Could you therefore draw to his attention your interdiction on transferring Questions put down to a departmental Minister, because the Prime Minister transfers Questions put to him on Treasury matters as head of that Department? He is also in the habit of transferring Questions put to him as departmental Minister in charge of the Civil Service Department. Could your ruling therefore be applied to the Prime Minister as well—that he should not transfer Questions put to him as the departmental Minister for the two Departments of State for which he draws a salary?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps this is an opportune moment for me to remind the House that when the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made his maiden speech, I had the great honour to be called immediately after him and that I expressed the hope that I should hear

31
him often again. Not every one of my wishes has been fulfilled so adequately.
With regard to this point of order, if right hon. and hon. Members will do me the favour of looking at the statement which I made in April, when there was a crowded House, they will find that I made a distinction in respect of Prime Minister's Questions, because the Prime Minister is able to transfer Questions in a way that other Ministers are not.
I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said because I realise that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in a slightly different position. But the fact that every time that we come to his Questions there are Questions that he has to answer without their being open Questions indicates that we have not yet reached a position where hon. Members will not be able to question the Minister concerned.
May I leave the House with this thought? If the House wishes to change the character of Question Time—and it could be changed overnight, as Prime Minister's Questions were, and we could have a page of what I call shot-in-the-dark Questions asking the Minister his engagements for the day—the House should do that only after a conscious decision and not by accident. That is my opinion, and I take very seriously my duty to guard as best I can Question Time and the privileges of the House.

POLICE (PAY)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the reports of the Edmund-Davies committee, which has been reviewing police pay and negotiating machinery. The two reports are being presented to Parliament today.
I should like to place on record the gratitude of the Government to Lord Edrnund-Davies and his colleagues for these two penetrating and thorough reports.
The committee draws attention to the unique position of the police in our society which, in its view, justifies the maintenance of the prohibition of the right to strike. The Committee also concludes
32
that the work of the police has got steadily more difficult and demanding over the last 20 years. Against the background of increasing crime the committee is concerned about the serious manpower deficiencies in the police service.
The committee recommends substantial increases in the pay of all ranks of the police service—with a view not only to making police service a more attractive career for potential recruits but, even more important, to making the pay of experienced officers sufficiently attractive to stem wastage. Thus, the committee recommends an increase of 29·7 per cent for a police constable in his first year of service and 45·5 per cent for a constable with 15 or more years' service. For the average constable the recommended basic pay will rise to more than £5,000 a year, some £1,500 more than now.
The committee recommends national rates of pay for all police officers, with special allowances for London and Northern Ireland. To meet the exceptional manpower difficulties in London, a new allowance of £650 a year is recommended for the Metropolitan and City of London police, in addition to the existing London weighting of £319 a year. In view of the special difficulties which service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary entails for officers and their families, an increased allowance of £500 a year is recommended. The committee also makes recommendations for up-dating police pay in the future.
As the House knows, the Government are committed to implementing the committee's recommendations on pay, subject only to phasing. The committee recommends that the proposed new scales should be implemented on 1st September 1978, but recognises that the Government, for wider reasons, may decide to phase them. The Government have decided that the increases shall be implemented in two equal instalments, on 1st September 1978 and 1st September 1979. The instalment due on 1st September 1979 will be updated in accordance with the committee's recommendations. Pensions will, however, be calculated as if the recommended rates had been paid in full from 1st September 1978.
The new London allowance will be phased in two equal parts, like the main award. In the case of the Royal Ulster

33
Constabulary, £365 will be paid from 1st April 1978 the balance of this allowance will be payable from 1st April 1979
The Government will now consult the representatives of the police authorities and the police service with a view to making regulations giving effect to the pay award.
In its report on negotiating machinery the committee stresses the importance of setting up new machinery as soon as possible. The Government will now seek the comments of the local authority associations and police representative bodies on these recommendations.
The committee's findings and the new scales of pay mark a fresh era in the history of the police service. Recruitment should be stimulated, wastage cut back, and the police service enabled to counter more effectively threats to law and order.
Mr. Whitelaw: Will the right hon. Member note that the Opposition wish to join him in expressing thanks to Lord Edmund-Davies and his committee for their reports? Does he appreciate that we warmly welcome the reports, especially the stress that the committee lays on the unique position of the police and the armed forces and its insistence that the police service should not have right to strike? The Opposition also welcome the proposed London allowance. and I welcome on personal grounds, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does, the special allowance for the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Following directly from the Committee's basic assumption that the scales recommended should be implemented on 1st September of this year for the clear reasons which it gives, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in deciding to phase the award the Government are taking a major risk over the protection of our people— [HON. MEMBERS "Nonsense."] Will the Secretary of State also note that in the interests of providing for the safety of our streets, the next Conservative Government, as we have consistently urged for more than a year now, after the General Election will implement in full the pay increases proposed in the Edmund-Davies report without delay?
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I note what the right hon. Member said about the unique nature of the police about the Royal
34
Ulster Constabulary and about the London allowance 1 simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take into account the average figure of 40 per cent. increase which is recommended and that, by dividing it into two parts, we are paying 20 per cent. from 1st September and that this is a remarkable pay award. I may say to the right hon. Member that I have spoken to representatives of the police, and I bring to his attention two factors. The first is that the police warmly welcome the award. The second is that I know from going round the country that the police themselves do not take very kindly to the idea that our streets are like those of Chicago. It is not true.
Mr. Mellish: For nearly two years my right hon. Friend has had to take a great deal of personal abuse in this House and outside, even from small elements of the police themselves. Is he aware that what he has proposed is probably the most generous pay increase ever awarded to our police? It means roughly a 40 per cent. increase. Quite sensibly, he has decided to phase it in what can be regarded as two 20 per cent. increases. In the light of the fact that the police received what has been called the normal 10 per cent. some time last year, it means that in this one year the police will be getting a very substantial increase, and quite rightly, in my view.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who has the respect of many of us on the Labour Benches, can only be told that his remarks today were absolutely disgraceful? They cannot and will not be accepted by the police and are mere badinage to try to get policemen to vote Conservative when they know how a Tory Government would fact our economic problems?
Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend has members of his family in the police force, and it is on that basis that he has spoken to me a number of times during the year, thus giving the lie to some of the rubbish that I hear in different parts of the country, from candidates who will never find themselves in this place. that somehow the Conservative Party is the repository of law and order That is not so The award that is given today is a fine award Also my right hon. Friend.

35
representing part of south-east London, and technically an inner city area, knows that this decision will be welcomed by Labour voters and, indeed, by all voters in that sort of area.
Mr. Hooson: May I join the Home Secretary in thanking Lord Edmund-Davies and his committee for their most thoroughgoing and penetrating report? Will it not rank with the Willink report as a very important landmark in the development of the police? Is it not very important, in implementing the recommendations that the report makes for future pay awards to the police, to make sure that there is no pressure for strike rights within the police force? Also, in view of the question asked by the Shadow Home Secretary, will the Home Secretary tell the House how much it would cost the country to implement all the recommendations immediately?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about the pay award. It is a landmark. It is a landmark following Willink in the early 1960s. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not hold me to the precise figure, but I have checked this morning and I think that—I am subject to correction here—the award that I have announced today will cost £250 million.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the Home Secretary agree that Lord Edmund-Davies has vindicated in every particular—wastage, danger, constant commitment and no right to strike—the case that has been made consistently over the last two years by the Police Federation?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the event that it falls to his Government to implement the second stage of the award, it will be inflation-proofed?
Thirdly, if Edmund-Davies has told us—and the right hon. Gentleman accepts it—that this large increase is necessary now, how can it be right to ask the police to wait a further year for the second half?
Mr. Rees: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not had time to read the report, for Lord Edmund-Davies deals with that precise, last point. Also—and again, I understand that the hon. Member has not read the report—recommendation (xlv) says:
36
"The recommended pay scales for the federated and superintending ranks should be updated on 1st September 1979 and in subsequent years in accordance with changes in the index of average earnings (new series) in the previous 12 months."
That has to be taken with recommendation (xlviii), which says:
"Either side of the new negotiating body should be able to propose variations to the up-dating process in the light of changes either in the police service or in pay movements in the economy as a whole."
On the hon. Member's first point, about figures that were bandied about last year, we set up this committee to get the true figures. I leave it like that.
Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that his statement today will be widely welcomed in Bristol and the West Country, where he recently paid a visit? Will he not weary in welldoing until he has made the police service a fully attractive career in the service of democracy—and I emphasise "democracy"?
Mr. Rees: On the last point, I visited Bristol the other day and saw some of the problems there. When my hon. Friend was speaking, it brought a point to my mind that I think is not, perhaps, sometimes realised in all parts of the House. The constable is a unique person. He is rather different from a policeman in other parts of the world. He is unto himself. He takes decisions himself.
Mr. Mellish: He is unarmed.
Mr. Rees: He is unarmed in most cases, in a way that is unlike the practice in other parts of the world. But I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who came to talk to me the other day when I visited Bristol, that I hope that these very large sums of money will recruit people to the police. I think that the professional pay, which we are paying now, will mean that we shall have to give more attention to the professional training of the police force.
This report cannot stand by itself. In my view, it is the harbinger of far greater changes. All of us, in all parts of the House, want to see more professional policemen on the streets. I give my word that, based on this, I shall start talking straight away about what goes on in the Police College and what sort of training

37
is given to a policeman, because we are not talking about Dogberry at play any more. In the world of today there is a very professional job to do, and I give my tribute to the job that the police have done already.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is the Home Secretary aware that not only the Police Federation but the Superintendents' Association and senior police officers generally would regard this as a fair and reasonable award? But would not the Home Secretary agree with them that the real test lies in whether it will have the effect of reversing the present tendency for experienced officers to retire prematurely? Will he, therefore, clarify one point for me? I understood from his latter remarks in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that after September 1979 police pay will take account of movements in average earnings. Will he confirm that as from 1st September 1979, account will be taken of any movement in average earnings that has taken place in the preceding 12 months?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The House will not be surprised to know that I have met all the representative bodies this morning, in the normal way. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is a fair way of putting what was put to me.
Two points arise after what has been said. There are many aspects that affect the middle ranks which need to be looked at very carefully. There are now 7,000 more policemen than there were four years ago. The problem is one of wastage, but wastage at two ends. There is wastage after three or four years, when a young policeman gets married and when his wife is not very interested in his being on three weeks of duty away from home.
I should tell the House something that I had not realised—that many young women who marry policemen find being apart in the community something that they do not appreciate very much. They feel unto themselves in a way that they do not like.
There are many aspects of this problem. However, the hon. Gentleman should consider the pensions that are coming. It will not happen this September, but when men get to the other end of the scale,
38
given the fact that they retire at the age of 45 or 50, and perhaps a little older when they are in the senior ranks, there will be a strong interest in retiring early, because there is a very high pension and there are jobs to be obtained outside that to top up the pension.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I was a little long in my remarks on that subject. But it is not pay alone that will determine the success of the police service. It requires regard by the community for a most difficult job that they have to do.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to make an appeal to the House. The main business for today falls under a timetable motion. I shall be deeply grateful if questions could be brief and to the point.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend try to learn a lesson from the situation of the statement that has had to be made today? Will he accept that the reason why he has had to make the statement along those lines is the application of incomes policies over the period since 1972, by successive Governments, including, so I believe, the three police spokesmen, who act on behalf of the police, on the Tory Benches, who voted for incomes policies under the period of the previous Conservative Government?
Will my right hon. Friend accept that this is a landmark—a harbinger, to use his own words? Will he learn the lessons and see to it that this will result in the Government keeping out of the free collective bargaining arena and letting the people get on with the job, not merely in terms of the police but generally?
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend says "Keep out". I am responsible for the police directly. Under the present arrangements and what is recommended, myself and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland would be involved in the pay negotiations. Anyone who believes that police pay could be left to the free market in order to determine it should realise that the police themselves would lose by it and, in my view, so would anyone else in the public sector. It is only certain parts of the private sector that gain by Chicagoesque free market forces.
Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Home Secretary aware that we on the Ulster Unionist Bench welcome the general increase and, in particular, the special allowance for the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Is he also aware that the arrangements for prompt payment of that allowance, which will no doubt be made by himself and by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will convince the RUC that their outstanding services have been appreciated by Parliament and the entire nation?
Mr. Rees: The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who spoke for the Opposition, spoke for me when he mentioned the regard that we have for the RUC. We know of the number of policemen in Northern Ireland who have been killed. Their wives have also been put at risk. To some very small degree, this payment is a recognition of that.
We shall do our part as to prompt payment. It can be made more quickly in Northern Ireland, because it is made direct, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can move very quickly. Our aim is certainly that it shall be paid from 1st September. We want to get it into the pay packets on 1st September.
Mr. William Ross: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is an element of courage in this decision, and will he accept from me that it was the right decision? Never has a country depended more on a fair and efficient police force for the maintenance of law and order than this country does at the present time. I think that it is regrettable that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said what he said on behalf of the Opposition. Many of us were staggered when we heard of the cost, but it would have been very much easier for us to accept this were it not for the profligacy of the Conservative Party in regard to certain amendments to the Finance Bill.
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—who, of course, had a responsibility in Scotland for the police—for his remarks about a courageous decision. I am sure of one thing—that the most a Government can do about law and order is to see that there are trained policemen on the streets, acting under
40
their own responsibility in a way that is not found in any other part of the world. It is something of which we ought to be proud.
Mr. George Thompson: Is the Secretary of State aware that we in the Scottish National Party welcome this award as a piece of overdue justice? Is he absolutely satisfied that hope partially deferred will stem wastage between now and September 1979?
Secondly, did the Committee look at the question of providing a special allowance in Strathclyde on the lines of that provided in London and in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Rees: The committee looked at the question about Strathclyde. There are, of course, forces other than Strathclyde—for example, in the west Midlands and in greater Manchester—which also have problems. The committee decided that the payment should be made in the Metropolis, where over the years there has been the largest deficiency in the number of policemen. They are the people who continually have extra responsibilities—for example, we know from the press today that they are involved at Heathrow and concerned in problems of terrorism and so forth. Much of this work lands on the plate of the Metropolitan Police in a way which does not happen elsewhere.
I think it is generally accepted that this award will help stop the wastage but, as I said earlier, although pay is a major factor, there are other things as well to take into account.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four hon. Members from each side. Mrs. Dunwoody.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his generous and sensible award should do away once and for all with the suggestion that it is only low pay which causes wastage in the police force? Will my right hon. Friend therefore draw to the attention of the chief constables concerned—and particularly to the head of the Metropolitan Police—that the time has come for them to institute new man-management proposals, and to look at the way in

41
which they handle the existing arrangements inside the police force, particularly in relation to the use of women officers?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she has said, based on her knowledge of the Cheshire police and the work in her part of the country. It is interesting that my hon. Friend talked about assessing the situation, but not only in regard to the heavier recruitment of women in recent years. I talked to the Commissioner this morning, and, even in advance of this report, on the basis of the word "professionalism" that I have been using, we have all—that is, the police department at the Home Office, chief constables in other parts of the country, and the Association of Chief Police Officers—been thinking of how to use professional policemen in a more modern fashion in order to meet the needs of modern society.
Mr. Sims: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that it is entirely illogical for him to say that he accepts the report in full and then to implement only half the figure that the committee suggests as appropriate for implementation on 1st September this year? Is he aware that it is the people, not the politicians, who are making law and order an issue, and that his response to the committee's report does not measure up to the committee's concern?
Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman says that my action is not logical, but the agreement we made a year ago was that this is the way in which it should be done. People are concerned about law and order, but some politicians prostitute this concern in order to try to win a cheap vote.
Mr. Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in addition to these pay scales, there will continue to be a tax-free rent allowance? Will he confirm that in London, with this allowance grossed up, because it is tax-free, a constable after 15 years' service will be getting in excess of £7,500 per annum?
Mr. Rees: I have here the figures for September. A constable in the provinces with 15 years' service, with a rent allowance of £880, and with all the qualifications involved, and with the normal overtime, will be on £6,668 per annum.
Mr. Mayhew: Is it not plain from paragraphs 7 and 8 of the introduction and paragraph 206 of the main report that the committee's findings is that if the Home Secretary is to recruit and retain men and women of sufficient quality to maintain the law and enforce it, the recommendations concerning increased pay must be implemented on 1st September this year? Does the Home Secretary disagree with that and, if so, on what grounds?
Mr. Rees: I disagree because the hon. and learned Gentleman is always the sort of chap who thinks that by talking in this way there will be a few votes in it.
Mr. George Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me, as a new Member who faced the electors not so long ago, that the report and his statement today will be warmly welcomed by members of the public? Will he also take it from me, as the son, the brother and the grandson of police officers—and also as one who was, until his election to this House, a member of the board of governors of the Scottish Police College—that there will be wide support in the police service for the statement made today?
But will he remember that there are groups in the community who will themselves wish to use the report and statement as a precedent for future negotiations or for future bargaining? Will he, therefore, take pains to underline the fact that the police service, alone in the community, is now the only group prohibited by statute from the right to strike, and that this position must be endorsed by the police organisations if the generosity of the Government is to be justified at the end of the day?
Mr. Rees: Phase 4 may be dead but, if we were to accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that we gain out of a non-pay policy, the police would lose straight away if everybody else were to get this sort of increase. Indeed, the whole community would lose, because it cannot stand a 40 per cent. pay increase for everybody. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) knows that I have some knowledge of his connection with the police, with his family background. I am extremely grateful to him

43
for his comments and, with regard to the last part of his question, I think that that is what the police as a whole will say.
Mr. Aitken: Will the Home Secretary try to give rather calmer answers to questions from this side of the House? In particular, will he say what precisely are the wider reasons to which he referred and which he took into account in reaching his decision to phase these pay increases? Do the Government accept that the police are a unique case? If they are a unique case, why do the Government need to alter the recommendation of the Edmund-Davies committee of an immediate increase, presumably on the ground that other wage claims which are not unique might be affected?
Mr. Rees: Whether I am calm or otherwise is my business, and not the hon. Gentleman's. If he could hear the rubbish that comes from him and his hon. Friends he would think it no wonder that I get hot under the collar. It is clear that a 40 per cent. increase paid now would not be in the interests of the community. What we have done shows the uniqueness of the police, at the same time taking into account the wider problems of the community, which the Conservative Government certainly did not do.
Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reception that the report has had from the House not only justifies the setting-up of the Edmund-Davies committee—and the House should be grateful—but shows also that he was right all the way in asking Opposition Members to await the report so that we could avoid making the police in this sensitive area of police pay a political issue? The Opposition have lost an opportunity to do that this afternoon. What will be the salary of a young man entering the police force later this year compared with the pay of a young constable who joined over 12 months ago?
Mr. Rees: A constable entering the Metropolitan Police as from 1st September 1978 will have a basic pay of £3,187, a London allowance of £325, a London weighting of £319, average overtime of £1,020 and average rent allowance of £1,172. The figures in that case
44
come to £6,023 and that would have to be compared by subtraction—which no doubt my hon. Friend is capable of doing more quickly than I—with the situation now. Overall, the new increases will bring advantage to the citizens of London as a whole, including that part of Ealing which my hon. Friend represents.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The right hon. Gentleman has had the advantage, which we have not, of reading the report. He mentioned consultation with the police authorities. Is there anything that he is trying to do to ensure that there is some form of consultation within the Metropolitan Police district, which does not exist at the moment in a democratic sense?
Mr. Rees: A wider aspect of consultation is another matter. The Greater London Council is not involved except with the precepting for payment for the Metropolitan Police.
Later—
Mr. Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to seek your guidance on the nature of the unparliamentary language used by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in reply to questions put to him today from the Opposition Benches. It was in the hearing of the House that he made a grossly offensive personal remark to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), saying that he would do anything for votes. That remark, made in the context of the legitimate point that my hon. and learned Friend was seeking to make, was grossly unfair. Also, it appeared that the Home Secretary's language to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) suggested that there was something in the nature of prostitution in the legitimate points made from this side of the House about police pay. Could you use your good offices to restrain the Home Secretary in future?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will listen to what I have to say now. I hope that in the next few weeks we can have less emotion, less of an eye on another coming target and more on the day-to-day business, for otherwise things will become more difficult every day in this place.

POST OFFICE WORKERS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION) BILL
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for allowing me to put this point of order at the moment, because I recognise the pressures of time that we have. I should have been tempted to raise this matter in another way had it not been for the discussion that has just taken place and its evidence of strong support by the Conservative Party for the workers in the public service.
I wish to draw attention to the behaviour of hon. Members opposite last Friday and to what happened to a number of Private Members' Bills. In the case of the Bill affecting public service workers, the Post Office Workers (Industrial Action) Bill, I remind you that the Bill had received a Second Reading on the Floor of the House by a majority of 20 to 1. Hon. Members opposite had said that they were in favour of the principle of the Bill. In Committee, amendments were withdrawn, presumably because hon. Members accepted the assurances that had been given in relation to them.
However, the events last Friday prevented the Bill from going through its final stages in this House, so that the Post Office workers still remain the only workers, apart from the police, who are deprived of the right to take industrial action.
I want to draw your attention to how it happened. I hesitate to use the word "filibuster", and it would be wrong of me to do so, because it is unparliamentary, but I refrain from using it for no other reason. At any rate, we were in the position where the promoter of an earlier Bill agreed to accept completely all the amendments proposed, yet hon. Members opposite continued to discuss those amendments. It may not have been a filibuster, but it was an attempt to prevent a highly important Bill, affecting a section of the workers, from being reached.
What protection can be given to Private Members when they are faced with this shameful, disgraceful and reactionary treatment? Is it not a question that you might wish to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure? Above all, does such behaviour not make a nonsense of the protestations of the Tory Party in their attempt to woo the trade unions at present?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry for the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) as I am for other hon. Members whose Bills failed to get through. Friday was the last day for Private Members' time, but as the hon. Gentleman knows we never recognise anyone as filibustering in this House. I can only say to him that there is no known remedy open to those whose Bills are low down on the list on the last day for Private Members' Bills. If a Bill is high up on the list and the House has the will to carry it, the chances are brighter but, as we have learned many times, one hon. Member is enough to prevent a Bill from getting through. There is nothing that I can do about it.

POST OFFICE WORKERS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION) BILL

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN
  The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

  George Martin Morton Esq., for Manchester, Moss Side.

  Allen McKay Esq., for Penistone.

WALES BILL (TIMETABLE MOTION)
Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow night, or early on Wednesday morning, we shall be debating the timetable motion on the Wales Bill. This motion has not been placed on today's Order Paper. We shall be debating 198 Lords amendments. I do not know whether discussions have taken place between the Front Benches, but some Back Benchers have heard that Divisions will take place at certain times yet do not know which amendments will be taken at such times. Could you possibly help us, Mr. Speaker, in order to prepare ourselves for the debates which will take place up until midnight on Wednesday and on Thursday evening?
Mr. Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I proposed to raise this matter with you at a later stage. What the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) says is quite true. I do not think that the motion for tomorrow night is yet in the Table Office. There is, of course, no absolute obligation on the Government to do that, and presumably it will be on the Order Paper tomorrow. But the circumstances are that up until about midnight tonight and tomorrow we shall debate amendments to the Scotland

47
Bill, and then go immediately to the Wales Bill. That means that some of us will have very little time available between now and Wednesday afternoon to comprehend what the Government propose to do in relation to Wales. Therefore, the House is placed in real difficulty in so far as at this stage we do not know how that timetable motion is to be designed. It may well be that some hon. Members may wish to table amendments. That is extraordinarily difficult in the particular circumstances of this week, because we do not yet know the terms of the motion. I do not know whether the Government can put this right, but it is a difficulty in which the House finds itself.
Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) will understand, I am afraid that I cannot help the House. But I shall certainly look into the matter, because I think that the interests of hon. Members are concerned.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we do not know the contents of the motion today, and if we shall not know until tomorrow what the contents will be, what will be the possibility of Back Benchers tabling an amendment to it if they so desire?
Mr. Speaker: If there are genuine amendments to the motion when it is tabled, I shall look at them as manuscript amendments, because I do not believe that the House should be robbed of an opportunity of tabling amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am not encouraging amendments. All I am saying is that I shall certainly look at this matter, because I believe that the House must guard its own rights in matters of this sort.

ROLLS-ROYCE ENGINES (CHILE)
Mr. McNamara: In view of what you said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Cabinet's decision to grant an export licence to four Rolls-Royce Avon engines at present at East Kilbride and belonging to the Chilean Government".
48
I think it is self-evident that this matter is urgent, because a decision has been made and it is possible that attempts might be made to move the engines. It is specific, because it concerns four Rolls-Royce Avon engines. That it is of public importance, is again self-evident.
At a time when in the western world we have been bewailing our impotence and inability to try to protect human rights in Soviet Russia, and our inability to help dissidents there, it seems to be a very wrong time indeed for the Government to be granting an export licence for these four engines to help a tyrannical, anti-democratic, fascist regime in Chile. These engines, if put into aeroplanes, will be used to suppress human rights within that country.
I could go on for a long time, but in view of what was said earlier I shall bring my remarks to a close. However, I should not like you, Mr. Speaker, or the House to think that the shortness of my remarks fails to underline the urgency and importance which I attach to this matter.
Mr. Speaker: May I first thank the hon. Gentleman for the brevity of his remarks. The House will appreciate that they have been brief only because of the nature of our business. I am very much obliged to him.
The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek an emergency debate by moving the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Cabinet's decision to grant an export licence to four Rolls-Royce Avon engines at present at East Kilbride and belonging to the Chilean Government".
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, I am not required to give reasons for my decision. I am afraid that I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

ROLLS-ROYCE ENGINES (CHILE)

  REGIONAL AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of the 1976 Review of the Strategic Plan for the South East be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.—[Mr. Bates.]

SCOTLAND BILL
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Lords amendments further considered.

SCOTLAND BILL
  Clause 31

    REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS, ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 63, in page 15, line 14, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State").
    4.26 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments nos. 64 to 68.
    Mr. Milan: This group of amendments deals with clause 31, which deals with the remuneration of Members of the Scottish Assembly as well as the remuneration of the Scottish Secretaries and the assistants to Scottish Secretaries. At the moment the clause provides that these are matters to be decided by the Assembly itself, although in the first instance, before it is able to make a determination—really, before the Assembly is elected—a determination will be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    This group of amendments would provide that the Secretary of State should fix by order the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members, Scottish Secretaries and their assistants, and also pensions, gratuities, allowances and the rest. I say on behalf of the Government that we could not accept an amendment of this nature because we believe that these are matters which ought to be decided by the Assembly itself.
    If I am asked, as I dare say I shall be in the course of this debate, what the appropriate level of salaries of Members of the Assembly should be, I would have to say that that can be decided only in relation to a number of factors, such as the work load of the Assembly Members and Scottish Secretaries, the hours that the Assembly may decide that it ought to sit and the general arrange
    50
    ments which the Assembly will make for conducting its own affairs. In the meantime, it is impossible to take an absolutely firm view of these matters. But what I am absolutely firm about is that the Assembly should have as much freedom as possible in deciding its procedures and other operational matters. In accordance with that policy, the level of salaries and allowances should also be left to the Assembly to determine in the light of its own appraisal of these factors.
    If we were to say that these were matters which the Assembly could not be trusted to decide for itself, we should be expressing in the Bill a considerable and completely unjustified distrust of the Assembly. Of course, under the Bill the Assembly will have responsibility for a wide range of important matters affecting Scotland. It seems to me to be absurd to give the Assembly that wide range of matters and at the same time say to it that it would not be competent to decide its own level of salaries and allowances. On principle, that would be wrong.
    In any case, as we know from our own experience in this place—I do not think that in the past Governments have always been particularly clever in fixing the salaries of Members of Parliament—public opinion plays a considerable part in determining these matters, and in determining the view which the Government, or in this case the Assembly Executive, take of these particular matters.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is it not more accurate to say that public opinion plays the part that the House allows it to play and plays the role that we think it has?
    Mr. Milan: I do not disagree with that, but it is not inconsistent with what I have just said. I said that public opinion plays a role—a perfectly legitimate role—but I do not think that that should be the only consideration. I do not think that a particular interpretation of public opinion at any time should be the only determining factor in these matters.
    However, we know from our experience that public opinion plays a role and it will certainly play a role in determining the salaries of the Members of the Assembly because when the Assembly

    51
    comes to decide these matters it will, in addition to providing justice for its Members, have very closely in mind the general atmosphere in which decisions are being taken and it will bear in mind that it will have to do something which is generally accaptable to public opinion in Scotland.
    These are matters which I think the Assembly is perfectly competent to decide for itself and it is right that it should decide them for itself. I have no reason to believe other than that the Assembly will take a reasonable and practical view of the remuneration that its Members should receive for the responsibilities they discharge in the Assembly.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Is there not a crucial distinction which the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned, namely, that if the Assembly is to fix its own remuneration it will do that out of moneys not raised by itself but with moneys that come from this place?
    Mr. Millan: We are discussing all sorts of decisions about the spending of money, and I am not sure what the special characteristics of this decision are which would justify our taking it out of the hands of the Assembly and putting it into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland. These are matters which the Assembly is perfectly entitled to decide and perfectly capable of deciding for itself.
    If it were desired to have an unnecessary source of conflict between the Assembly, on the one hand, and the Westminster Government, on the other hand, that could be achieved by accepting these amendments and taking this rather sensitive decision away from the Assembly and putting it into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Having said that, however, I recognise that we shall have to set the initial salaries, and that will have to be done in time for the first elections so that it is a matter which is known by the candidates and everyone else involved in the first elections to the Assembly. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to decide these matters by direction. I simply say that that is put into the Bill at present as a purely practical and temporary arrangement.
    52
    It will be possible for the Assembly to alter the salaries and allowances so determined very quickly in its life. It will have to decide for itself whether it will be convenient or politic to do that, but the arrangement written into clause 31(2) is a strictly temporary one which will last only as long as the Assembly does not make its own determination of salaries. How long that period will be, as I say, is in the hands of the Assembly itself.
    I believe that what was in the Bill when it went to the other place was right and that to accept these amendments, which would take the decision out of the hands of the Assembly and put it into the hands of the Secretary of State, would be wrong in principle and would have very undesirable practical implications. For the reasons that I have outlined, I invite the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment and those following upon it.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I am very disappointed with the Secretary of State's speech and his desire to stick to the Bill as it was. It is hard to believe that he has really thought out the consequences of the concept that the Assembly itself should fix the remuneration of its Members.
    The right hon. Gentleman has said that it would be a source of conflict if this House were to fix the salaries and allowances of Members of the Assembly. I suggest that it would be very much a source of conflict if the Assembly were left to its own devices in the matter.
    In supporting the Lords amendments I wish to say that we have no desire to be mean or petty in prescribing the arrangements for the remuneration of Members of the Assembly and the Scottish Executive. We support the amendments because we believe that the House would wish to be realistic and take account of two important factors. The first, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), is that the Assembly itself will not be responsible for raising any revenue. The second, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State, is the work load of the Assembly. We must take that into account if we are to consider the remuneration of Assemblymen. The Secretary of State agreed that this is the critical factor, but he added that it

    53
    was too early to say what the work load might be.
    What shall we learn in the next few months that we have not learnt in the past two years about the Assembly's functions, its role and its work load? The Government's defence of the Bill as it stands revolves around the argument that the Assembly should be free, in the Secretary of State's words, to suit itself in these matters, in the same way as the salaries of Westminster Members is a matter for this House. A crucial distinction is that this House also has the extremely unpopular task of raising the revenue to pay for those salaries, while the Assembly will be just another organisation spending public funds.
    I know that the few Members of the House who passionately support the Assembly do not like it to be compared in any way with local government, but at least for this purpose it must be so compared. As we know, local authorities do not fix their own remuneration, despite the fact that they have to raise revenues.
    I also believe that the Members of the Assembly would much prefer not to have to fix their own salaries and allowances. We know the difficulties that such personal decisions make for Members of this House.
    I suggest that on these grounds alone the Bill should be amended as their Lordships suggest.
    We were unable to debate this clause previously because of the guillotine. Apart from the principle and the propriety of seeking to give Parliament, through the Secretary of State, the right to fix the remuneration of Members of the Assembly, these amendments also enable us to find out more about the Assembly itself and to learn something about the nature of the beast.
    The first thought that must strike anybody is that we are talking about an Assembly that will be part-time. This may have been news to the Government when it was raised in another place on 24th April and again on 8th June, but the Government have had time to consider the work load of the Assembly and Ministers must now know, even though they are most reluctant to admit it, that we are talking about a part-time Assembly. However one looks at the work load, even allowing for the validity
    54
    of Parkinson's law that work expands to fill the time available to it, there is no escaping the fact that this will be a part-time Assembly.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is it not a fact—in asking this I am not being argumentative—that the Conservative Party has throughout argued in respect of the House of Commons that its Members should have the right to do other jobs? In that respect this place also is a part-time assembly.
    Mr. Fletcher: That may be so, but it has little to do with this argument. If anyone works as hard as most of us do and still has outside activities, good luck to him. Members of the Scottish Assembly will be thoroughly bored unless they have outside occupations, judging by the work load of that body.
    My noble Friend Lord Glenkinglas estimated in another place that in a normal year the Scottish Assembly would require only about three months to do its work. I think that that is a very generous estimate. My calculation is that Parliament copes adequately with both non-devolved and devolved matters in this House in less than half that amount of time. Very few hon. Members here today would complain that we do not spend enough time considering Scottish matters.
    I wonder why the Government are so reluctant to admit that they are sponsoring a part-time Assembly in Scotland. I wonder why they appear to be taken aback by that news. Surely, if they have considered any aspect of devolution at all or any aspect of this Assembly, they must have considered the work load and the number of days in a year that would be spent working in the Assembly.
    It may be that the suggestion of a part-time Assembly seems less attractive to Ministers and their supporters in electoral terms. If the Assembly is not presented as a Labour vote winner in Scotla,nd, it cannot be presented as anything at all. Therefore, it may lose its appeal if people are told before the election that the Assembly will meet for only a few weeks each year. Of course, it could be open to the public between sittings, and if the public were charged for admission that might recover some of the costs.
    The fact remains that we are dealing with a cosmetic exercise that must look

    55
    less attractive if it is exposed that the Assembly will be part-time, sitting very few weeks each year.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Member has said many times, as if it were a matter of fact, that this is a part-time Assembly. He has also drawn in aid the point that people in the Assembly can do other jobs, as they do in this House—mainly on the Conservative Benches.
    He also referred to the estimate of Lord Glenkinglas. But that is no criterion for deciding this matter. Is that any reason at all for saying that this Assembly will be a part-time Assembly if its Members wish to do their work diligently, instead of wasting their time in the City as hon. Members opposite do? Is he saying that it cannot be a full-time occupation? Of course it can.
    Mr. Fletcher: By defining the Scottish Assembly as a part-time Assembly I am referring to the amount of time that is required to perform the devolved functions. I have already quoted what Lord Glenkinglas said about the work load and I have already done my own calculations and worked out the number of hours that we spend on devolved and non-devolved matters. If one multiplies that figure by four one still gets only three months of full-time Assembly work.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler rose—
    Mr. Fletcher: No, I shall not give way—
    Mr. Fowler: No, because the hon. Member is in dead trouble.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am not in dead trouble. I want further to amplify the points that I have made about the Assembly. I have made comparisons with similar Assemblies in other countries and these confirm the part-time nature of this body.
    Scotland is not such a special place, despite the claims of enthusiasts on both sides of the House, that it requires something terribly different from, for example, a State legislature in the United States. In the United States where there is a great divergence of population sizes among the States, most State legislatures operate on a part-time basis, working
    56
    about 100 days in the year—the equivalent of 14 full working weeks. That should be of some significance to those hon. Members who are rushing to say that my point is not at all appropriate to the Scottish Assembly.
    The fact is that hon. Members opposite have not given any thought to this at all. They might have done, had the guillotine allowed us to discuss clause 31. However, they should have done so in any case instead of trotting into the Lobbies time after time to support the exclusion of Lords amendments and supporting this Assembly and this plan for devolution. It would do them the world of good if they considered the sort of animal that they are determined to try to inflict on the Scottish people.
    Mr. George Reid: Since the hon. Member has given so much thought to this problem, could he tell us how much Members of the Assembly should be paid if they sit for only three months a year?
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: On the question of salaries the only real comparison is Stormont. A Member's salary in Stormont until March 1972, when direct rule was imposed, was £1,450 a year. Until May 1974 when the Executive collapsed the salary at Stormont was £2,475. In both those periods the salary of a Member of this House was £4,500. Therefore, at that time Stormont Members were receiving about half our salaries. If Members of the Scottish Assembly get half our salaries for one-third of the work load they are doing rather well.
    The Bill gives us some ideas of the Government's intention about the salaries and allowances of Members of the Assembly. The financial memorandum estimates £6,750,000 for salaries and related costs of the Assemblymen and the Executive—150 people—and the 240 supporting staff for the Assembly. If we allow half of that sum for accommodation and service costs, which is a reasonable deduction, we are left with £3,375,000 to pay the salaries of 390 people. That means an average salary of £8,650 for Members of the Executive, the Assembly and supporting staff. Therefore a Scottish Assemblyman's salary would be equivalent to that of a Member of Parliament. That would confirm what was said in another

    57
    place by Lord Kirkhill. Speaking in the debate on 8th June he said:
    "The assumption on which the Government have proceeded is that the pay and allowances of Assembly Members will be in line with those of Members of Parliament".
    He went on to say:
    "The Secretary of State's initial determination will be no higher than the salary and allowances of MPs—and could well be lower."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th June 1978; Vol. 392, c. 1547.]
    That is most gracious of him.
    Therefore we see the Government's intentions, although they are reluctant to admit them publicly. The fact remains that we are talking about the salary being equivalent to that of a Member of Parliament for one-third of the work load. Despite all the noises of disagreement from hon. Members opposite, none of them has sought to try to prove that the work load would be more than one-third of ours.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. Member says that no one has sought to prove that point. That is because the hon. Member refused to give way, so it is not surprising. Does he not understand that devolution is partly about getting scrutiny of matters that we did not have time adequately to scrutinise in this place? Devolution is about better Government, which means more democratic and detailed scrutiny, not only of legislation but of executive acts. Therefore the basis of his saying that the Assembly's work load is only one-third of ours is totally nonsensical.
    Mr. Fletcher: When someone runs out of factual arguments he often resorts to emotional argument. That is what the hon. Member has just done. That we may be our own worst enemies on the matter of salaries has nothing to do with the fact that the Scottish Assembly will be a part-time body which could pay its Members more than Members of Parliament.
    If the Government did not consider the work load when they presented the Bill and financial memorandum to the House, they have committed another major blunder, comparable with their inability to resolve the West Lothian question.
    Throughout all stages of the Bill the Government have refused to face these
    58
    difficulties openly and honestly. The attempt to deceive public opinion continues right to the end, with Ministers refusing to admit that this costly exercise is all about a part-time Assembly meeting for only a few weeks each year. But obviously it is the Government's intention that the Members of the Assembly should have full-time salaries. The House should again be grateful to another place for passing this amendment. If Members of this House will consider the dangerous road that they are treading, they will support us in keeping this amendment in the Bill.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian): There are few certainties in this debate, but I should be prepared to bet my proverbial shirt that, whatever else happens if this Assembly is set up, it will not be part-time. Professor Parkinson will be present—and how.
    Further than that, there is a serious problem whether, if it were part-time, it would limit the nature of those who could become Members of the Assembly. It is a little difficult for a coal miner or a railwayman to be a Member of a part-time Assembly. Many of us would agree, whatever else we disagree about, that it would be intolerable to limit membership of an Assembly, if set up, to those who have private means and could afford to be Members, to pensioners or to those who for some other reason have a major occupation that would allow them to take part in a part-time occupation. My own view is that if the Assembly is set up there will have to be a living salary to go with it.
    When speaking for the Government in the other place, Lord Kirkhill said that it would be insulting to give the Assembly responsibility for a wide range of matters affecting Scotland yet deny it the responsibility for fixing its own salaries. The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke of unjustified distrust. I believe that there is something in this argument.
    My opposition to this proposal might wither away if we were to learn that there were to be tax powers in the Assembly. But the position is a little different. My own personal view is that if an Assembly were elected the Assemblymen would be subject to certain electoral disciplines and the discipline of

    59
    embarrassment and would not put forward a salary for themselves above that of, for example, Members of the House of Commons. Indeed, public opinion would act as some kind of brake. Because of the embarrassment factor, it might happen that they would decide, as others have often decided in the past, ludicrously to underpay themselves for fear of understandable embarrassment.
    I am bothered about the question of principle. Here we have a principle of Assemblymen setting their own terms, their own salaries and their own pension; and then simply forwarding the bill for Westminster to pick up. If there were tax-raising powers, it would be a different matter. But this is part of a block grant. My own view is that it would be a matter of dignity for many Members of what will be styled a Scottish Parliament—it is interesting to see not one SNP Member present for this debate—to settle for nothing less than the equivalent of membership of the House of Commons. To be fair to them, we have to admit that they, in common with us, will have to keep two establishments going. They will have the same problems as those who have to live away from home and they will not be able to live on much less than the salary drawn by a Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: I wish to cavil at my hon. Friend's phrase "forward the bill to Westminster". As he says, this is part of the block grant. Therefore, what he says is total nonsense. Assembly Members will not send any bill here. What they spend on their own salaries will mean that they will have less to spend on other purposes. If they want to pay themselves high salaries and think that that is a means of making themselves popular, that is their own political judgment. It is not up to us to cavil at it, but it will be up to the Scottish electorate to pass judgment on them if they do anything so silly.
    Mr. Dalyell: It may be my fault for being a little thick on this matter, but on the forty-third day of discussion on the Bill I do not understand precisely all about it. If what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) says is true, as I think it may well be, let us be clear that the payment of an
    60
    Assembly in Edinburgh—the 150 Assemblymen, their secretaries and entourage and all the paraphernalia that goes with it—will mean that much less to be spent on hospitals, housing and schools. That should be crystal clear.
    Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden): It is crystal clear.
    Mr. Dalyell: It is not crystal clear in Scotland that the bill for this administrative elephant will mean that much less out of a Scottish allocation for hospitals, schools and all the rest.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: That is an unfair argument. One must pay for effective democratic scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman knows this very well since he is prepared to table endless Written Questions at enormous cost to achieve a certain purpose.
    Mr. Dalyell: When people say that I table endless Written Questions, I must counter by saying that I think I have tabled about half a dozen this year. That was a very unfair statement. On occasions when I have tabled Written Questions they have always related to clusters of Written Questions on questions of policy. I am not one of those who put down endless Questions to ascertain heaven knows what abstruse facts.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): My hon. Friend will recollect that he tabled a series of 25 Questions on the state of the nails in the Royal High School roof. Is that a matter of policy?
    Mr. Dalyell: I tabled a cluster of Questions on the Royal High School, but I recollect that I was given few answers. What was revealed was that nobody had a clear idea of what was going on. If those responsible for construction at the High School had known what they were up to, all they had to do was examine the books and then answer the questions. Those Questions cannot, or should not, have cost £15 a nail or whatever the figure for Written Questions is.
    I wish to ask the following question of the Minister of State. Would it be regarded as right, either here or in the country at large, for Assemblymen, with fewer duties and fewer responsibilities, to be paid the same as Members of the

    61
    House of Commons without the Commons giving approval?
    We still, on day 43, have no clear notion as to what this Assembly will do. We still do not know whether it will be full-time. Surely, the Government Front Bench can tell us at this stage whether it will be part-time and what are to be the hours of sittings and the length of sessions. We are still being presented with a pig in a poke and being asked to sign a blank cheque. Lord Kirkhill has a felicitous phrase for the Assembly. His view is that we should initiate the Assembly on a very light rein. I believe that a light rein means going into some kind of foggy mist in which none of us is very clear.
    I wish to ask the Minister this precise question. What is envisaged as the payment for Ministers of the Scottish Executive? That is a fair question to ask. What will that great figure the Scottish Prime Minister be paid? Will he be paid as much as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Downing Street? Will he be paid as much as a member of the Cabinet? Surely, even if we do not know what an Assemblyman is to be paid, it should by now be clear what Ministers, who presumably will be full-time, will be paid. Suppose that there is a conflict. Who will resolve the quarrel? Presumably it will be a matter for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
    In an article in The Observer some weeks ago, Mr. Alan Watkins wrote:
    "As one Minister closely concerned with the legislation put it: 'The lads seemed to have this curious idea that the Judicial Committee was a collection of politicians who happened to be Privy Councillors. We didn't disabuse them, because if we'd told them clearly that we were giving power to the judges there'd have been trouble.'."
    You bet there would have been trouble. Whoever made that remark made it very perceptively. It is the truth. These matters will be resolved by judges. Is the House sure that judges are the best people to resolve the conflict between what Assemblymen and Assembly Ministers and hon. Members of this House should be paid? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raises his eyebrows. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong, but surely the Judicial Committee will have to resolve this sort of conflict.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Dewar: I am not aware that there is such an arbitration procedure in the Bill. I was aware of the membership of the Judicial Committee and I am sure that my hon. Friend knew about it. I know that it has certain powers on ultra vires and intra vires, but can he tell me where there is provision for the Committee to arbitrate on salaries? I am unaware of any such procedure.
    Mr. Dalyell: In order to save the time of the House, the best thing would be if the ignorance of my hon. Friend and myself could be thrown aside by a substantive answer from the Minister.
    There is another argument that bothers me far more than anything I have said previously. It concerns the time bomb of the Robinson Committee's report on the remuneration of councillors which is ticking under us all. The remuneration of hon. Members may not be uppermost in the minds of those who are concerned about the remuneration of councillors, but we must face the fact that, with 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh dealing with subjects that will be very much the same as those dealt with by local government, comparisons are bound to be made between the payment of Back Bench Assemblymen and those with the heavyweight responsibilities of, for example, those in the Scottish regions and districts.
    Clearly, there will be a question whether Back-Bench Assemblymen should be paid more than, for example, the convener of planning of the Strathclyde region or the convener of education in the Lothian region. The latter two will have infinitely more responsibility in terms of public affairs that any Back-Bench Assemblyman and more responsibility than many junior Assembly Ministers.
    The issue is that the local government heavyweights will either be deeply resentful at the amount paid to Assemblymen, whom they will see as doing much less work and having less responsibility than themselves, or they will all try to gravitate towards the Assembly, and this could conceivably lead to the end of the regions. From time to time, the Secretary of State has reiterated that the Assembly will not affect local government.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have allowed the hon. Member to go a bit wide here. The

    63
    comparison of salaries does not arise on the amendment under consideration or anywhere in clause 31. I therefore ask him to leave out the question whether regions will be alive or dead after the establishment of the Assembly.
    Mr. Dalyell: We are operating under a guillotine and I have taken more than my share of time. I leave it at the point that there is a mighty problem facing us all. If there is to be an Assembly, there will be an enormous amount of conflict between those who do the responsible jobs in local government and the Members of the Assembly. If the Assemblymen are paid what is considered to be a substantial salary and the others have to accept the Robinson Committee's report, there will be very great difficulties and great conflict.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I intervene because I tabled an amendment in Committee which, thanks to the operation of the guillotine, was never reached. The same point arises again because another place has had enough wisdom to question the nonsense of the Bill as it was put through the House.
    It may be that when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) used the term "part-time" he did not please everyone. He was implying that the responsibilities of Assemblymen and so-called Ministers in the Assembly would not cover the entire range of the responsibilities of their counterparts in this House. The suggestion in my original amendment was to limit the salaries of Assemblymen to a percentage of the salaries of hon. Members of this House and to limit the salaries of so-called Ministers of the Assembly to one grade below their equivalents in this House. That would ensure some sort of comparison between the two Houses.
    There is bound to be a decree of friction between this House and the Assembly. There will certainly be deliberately created friction if the SNP takes control of the Assembly. The SNP Assemblymen will make certain that they put through nonsensically high salaries simply to show up the foolishness of the British Parliament in allowing this matter to be left to them. We have a duty to the taxpayers of this country to ensure that the control of salaries in the Assembly stays in this House.
    Mr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the SNP policy for the past six years has been to put out the salaries of Members of the Scottish Assembly to a proper agency which can look at the work involved and tie the salaries to proper Civil Service grades so that Members of the Assembly do not have to go through the indignity of voting on their own rises?
    Mr. Finsberg: I accept that the policy of the SNP is to appeal to whatever happens to be the popular mood of a constituency when there happens to be an election. That is its normal, considered way of proceeding, as it is, frequently, of the Liberal Party. I lump them together as Poujadists.
    If we allow the Bill to go through without the sensible amendments from another place, we shall be creating friction for ourselves. We already have the nonsensical situation that those who print our words receive more for printing them than we get for uttering them. There may be a question of relativities, but if this system goes forward to the Assembly and its Members pay themselves more than we pay ourselves, we as the Mother of Parliaments will make ourselves look even more foolish than some people think we are already.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made a fair comparison between Assemblymen and those in local government. If an Assemblymen's maximum reimbursement derives from a figure laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the responsibilities of those in the Assembly are no more than those of a senior member of the Strathclyde regional council or the Greater London council, and people take offence, it will be because they are small-minded. No one could take offence at comparison with those who are given a maximum amount and can select, within that maximum, the scale or point they want for reimbursement. I should have thought that sensible and reasonable people would not take that amiss.
    I hope that the House will not accept the judgment of the Secretary of State and overturn the Lords amendment but rather will endorse it as being practical and sound.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The House knows my views on the Assembly as a principle. However, we appear, as it were, to be saddled with it. The question now is simply, on this particular group of amendments, who will decide the salaries of the Assemblymen and the Ministers there.
    I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in this respect, that the weakest argument in favour of supporting the Lords amendments is that it will be a part-time Assembly. Certainly it will fill the time available to it, just as this place does. This place is about three-quarters part-time. There is an enormous amount of moonlighting in this place. We do not clean windows, but we go to the law courts and we do other jobs outside.
    It is accepted, and I agree, that there is room in an elected Assembly for part-time Members who choose to do jobs outside. The same thing will apply in the Scottish Assembly. Whether it is part-time or full-time, there will be Members in it, as there are here, who make the job full-time or part-time. In this House there are a number of lawyers who practise in the law courts in the morning. The same may apply in Edinburgh. Maybe that is why it has been decided to site the Assembly in Edinburgh, because there are law courts there and there will be a mass of lawyers coming into the Assembly. They certainly will be part-time Members.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I take the point the hon. Member is making about the legal profession. However, if an hon. Member of this House who is a lawyer finds that he has not a brief on a particular day, there will be work to do in this House and he can come and do it. If a Member of the Assembly who is a lawyer has no legal work to do on any particular day, it is 10 to 1 that he will find that the Assembly is closed because it will be open for only one day a week. That is the difference.
    Mr. Hamilton: I doubt that very much. We sit for only 150 days a year—less than half a year. We sit about 32 weeks on average in the year, five days a week and four days a week for most Members. Indeed, I am one of the most regular attenders here on Friday and I
    66
    very rarely see anybody here. I make no virtue of it. I just happen to like to be here on a Friday.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time is short before the guillotine falls. I ask the hon. Member to realise that what we are discussing is who should be responsible for the payments. I notice by the grin on the hon. Member's face that he agrees with me. Therefore I am not going to allow him to get away with it.
    Mr. Hamilton: I would not cross swords with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are absolutely right. I shall come to the point right away. The question is who decides the salaries. The Secretary of State is quite right. The Assembly elected by the Scots will decide. We can be sure that the Scottish people will be watching very carefully the scale of salaries decided by their elected representatives in the Assembly. They will have regard to all the facts that have been adduced as to the regional chairmen's salaries and emoluments and the relationship between those salaries and those down here. If the salaries are regarded as too generous by the Scottish electors, they will take appropriate action. Having decided to set up the Assembly, we ought to leave it, as a body of responsible, elected people, to decide its own emoluments. I hope that it treats its Members less meanly than we do here.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: I really cannot understand why those in this House who favour an Assembly should wish to deny that Assembly the right to set its own salaries. I can understand perfectly well the view of those who are against an Assembly wishing to deny it that right. That is perfectly logical. But it is not logical for those who wish to have an Assembly to take that line.
    At the weekend I was talking to a constituent who is about 10 years younger than myself and who works for a Government agency. He gets £1,000 per year more than I do and has prospects for promotion. He wanted to know whether it would be a good idea for him to stand for the Scottish Assembly. What is the advice that I should give such a person? He is interested in giving service but he must naturally take account of the remuneration that is to be offered.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with officials' salaries. We are dealing with the salaries of Members of the Assembly.
    Mr. Johnston: These matters have been dealt with at length by other speakers. It is surely proper to—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, and a great deal of it has been out of order, in my opinion. I have heard nothing about officials' salaries so far.
    Mr. Johnston: On the contrary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have no wish to dispute your view or your ruling.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Read Hansard tomorrow.
    Mr. Johnston: Let me put it another way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the setting of salaries for Members of the Assembly and whether they should be set by this House or by the Assembly itself. Surely, in examining this question—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the friend of the hon. Member for Inverness was going to give up his present post and stand for the Assembly, I am sorry. I apologise to the hon. Member. I thought that he was asking whether he should work for the Assembly. I am very sorry indeed.
    Mr. Johnston: The only point I am making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I am sure you will agree is relevant in this context, is that if one looks at the salaries paid in Government agencies, such as the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Tourist Board and compares them with the salaries postulated for the Assembly—to which the Secretary of State made reference in his opening remarks, though he did not commit himself to a figure, being a very careful Secretary of State—it is surely a matter of which this House, in considering this question, ought to take account. After all, there is a great deal of justifiable criticism of the salaries paid to permanent officials, whether in Government agencies or in local government. Otherwise, we shall not have an Assembly of value in checking the Executive.
    As a long-standing supporter of the idea of a Scottish Parliament, I believe there is no point in having one unless it attracts people who have the capacity to
    68
    check, supervise and exert a degree of control greater than is now being exercised over the Executive in Scotland. If that is not done I do not think that there is any point in going through the exercise at all.
    As I understand the opposition of the Opposition—if I may put it that way—it is based, in part, on the fact that we cannot give the Assembly power to fix its own salaries because it does not have power to raise revenue. That was one of the major arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). I do not accept that this argument is soundly based. I would agree with him—though I think that it is contradictory, incidentally, but that is the general Opposition stance on the Assembly—that the Assembly should have finance-raising powers. Given that it does not have such powers, it is surely accepted that it should have freedom to determine the expenditure of the moneys that it has been granted. Unless the Assembly has this power it lacks the responsibility that any properly elected body should have. I do not think there is any contradiction in that at all.
    I fail also to understand the contention by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North that the Assembly would be part-time. At no time has anyone who has been engaged in putting forward the argument for the Assembly suggested that that would be so. I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North who is looking restive. If the Assembly fulfils what I should regard as its main function—to control the Executive in Scotland more effectively than is now happening—inevitably, the role of the Assembly Member will be every bit as full-time as that of Members in this place.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher. The hon. Gentleman is a great federalist. Therefore, he will know that in the United States most of the States have part-time assemblies because the work load does not warrant full-time attendance. The people there are employed part-time in the State assemblies.
    Mr. Johnston: That may be. Different traditions grow up in different parts of the world and different forms of government produce different patterns of behaviour. We are creating a new Assembly

    69
    because of the demand of people in Scotland to see the Executive better controlled. That is the essence of the whole matter. In order to do that, we shall need full-time Members. I also earnestly say that, if we do not pay those Members proper salaries, we shall not get good Members and that will destroy the whole concept.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) will forgive me when I say that, if we are to award salary by merit, to judge by his speech there may be a case for paying some future Members of the Assembly rather more than some Members of this place.
    I turn to the major argument from the Opposition Benches. Again, it convinced me that the Opposition do not understand either devolution or democracy.
    What is devolution about? The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who intervened a little earlier, was trying to say "legislature" with regard to the American States. That is because he thinks of the Scottish Assembly as primarily or solely a legislative assembly. But, if he reads the Bill, he will see that we are constructing an Assembly with a committee structure designed to enable that Assembly to examine Executive acts day by day, to produce pre-legislative consideration of possible legislation, to examine legislation as we do in this place and to perform, if I may put it in summary, a much wider and more effective range of functions than we exercise in this House.
    Many of us have often complained that we have become ineffective over the years because there has been a transfer of power from the House to the Executive—to whoever may be the Government from time to time. We have complained about it from both sides of the House, and rightly so.
    We have tried with both the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies to create new structures with a more even balance—a balance that is rather different in each case. In the case of the Scottish Assembly, there will be an Executive, and so it will be called, but it will be more tightly controlled and scutinised than the Executive ever can be in this House. That is part of the object of the exercise. That is what devolution is about.
    70
    We cannot effectively do that here, because, if we try to do it for the United Kingdom as a whole, we shall have a virtually impossible task. The range of activities of the Government is too wide and we cannot effectively scrutinise all of them. Ministers cannot effectively scrutinise them either. If we look at what is done by regional offices of the Department of the Environment or of the Department of Industry, we discover that Ministers cannot effectively scrutinise those activities because there are too many decisions and they cannot arrive in this House. We have tried to create an Assembly which will be able to scrutinise in detail the activities of the Scottish Executive. I think that is right. That is why I say that speeches by Opposition Members indicate that they do not effectively understand devolution. If devolution is partly about that, it follows that the Scottish Assembly will not be part-time—working for one-quarter or one-third of the year. Whether it is or not is very much a matter for the Assembly. It is not for us to judge.
    That takes me to my second theme—that the Opposition have demonstrated that they do not understand democracy. Why democracy? The Bill has been cast to enable as many decisions as possible, within the broad framework of what shall be retained here and what shall be left to Scotland, to be made by the Scottish Assembly. That is the democratic viewpoint. The view of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that we should leave as much as possible to be decided by the Scots in a devolved Assembly. It may be that the House would wish to cavil at that. It may be that some hon. Members do not agree that we should give that amount of discretion to the Scots. But let us be clear that, when they say that, they are opposing the principle of devolution and, indeed, of devolved democracy because they are saying that all power should be reserved to this place.
    What is wrong with the notion that the Scottish Assembly should be able to set the salaries of its own Members, members of the Executive and the like? It is said that it might fix the level of salary at a point higher than that which we in this place can command. It is suggested that it might fix the salary at a point which would embarrass the paid officials,

    71
    the chairmen or conveners of committees in Scottish local government and so on. Let it, if it wishes to do that. That is what devolution and democracy are about. If it does, and if the electorate does not like it, there is the normal democratic sanction and it will not be returned at the next election.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) laughs. He seems to think that the Conservative Party will be returned at the next election come hell or high water. That may be a confession of lack of faith in the prospects of his party in Scotland. If so, I should not be surprised. Indeed, I should have some sympathy with him. But that is no argument for saying that we here should fix the salary.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart): For the record, perhaps I may point out that I was laughing at something entirely different and unconnected with the hon. Gentleman's speech.
    Mr. Fowler: I am very relieved.
    What is the true argument against allowing the Scottish Assembly to fix the salaries of its own Members? There is no argument against it if we believe that it is to be a democratic Assembly with power not retained here but genuinely devolved to Scotland.
    We have seen yet another confession by the Opposition that they do not believe in devolution. That is what the debate is all about. I am not surprised that another place does not believe in devolution. It wants to hang on to its antique powers as long as it can. However, I am surprised that the Opposition should support the amendment from another place.
    When we consider the prospect that the Scottish Assembly might set salaries at what we should regard as an excessively high level, we must remember that it is thereby taking money that could be used for other purposes out of a defined sum. If it is not a defined sum, it is a sum supplemented, in effect, only by stealing from the rate support grant. That is the only other means by which the Assembly could raise revenue. It could pay less to Scottish local authorities than it receives from the United Kingdom Government in rate support grant. That is in a sense a notional levy
    72
    upon the rates. That is the only way it can raise extra money within the terms of the Bill. But that could be described as the most unpopular political act that any public body in this country could commit. If it wanted to commit collective suicide in that way, that would be for it to decide. But I do not believe that we should reserve powers to this House to fix salaries.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Dalyell: When my hon. Friend comes to speak on this matter from public platforms in the referendum will he make it clear that all this procedure will be at the expense of hospitals, houses and education?
    Mr. Fowler: Of course, I make no bones about that. My hon. Friend and I have discussed this frequently in the past. If we want to spend money on one item we cannot simultaneously spend it on another. That situation applies to us here at Westminster and it always has. There is a limit to public expenditure. We can and do argue about what that limit should be, but none of us takes the view that public expenditure is limitless, and it will not be limitless in Scotland either. Therefore I believe that the Scottish Assembly must be able to set its own priorities. If those priorities include paying its own Members and the members of the Scottish Executive exorbitantly high salaries, judgment must be passed by the Scots, and not by us in this place.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that there are roughly 20 minutes left for Back-Bench speeches. As many hon. Members as possible should be given the chance to speak, and therefore I think that five minute speeches would probably see us right.
    Mr. Reid: I do not think that I have heard a more Micawberish speech than that which was made from the Conservative Front Bench this afternoon. It was both mean and grudging. It was a perfect example of the Poujadism and populism which marks the Tory Party north of the border. I urge hon. Members to note that the Tories propose that Members of the Scottish Assembly should be paid £3,100 a year.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That issue is not under consideration.
    Mr. Reid: That sum was mentioned in an intervention and it is on the record. The figure was stated by the Tory Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who spoke of paying half what the Members of this House receive.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Member should be clear in what he is saying. Neither the figure of £3,100, nor any other figure, was mentioned from this Front Bench.
    Mr. Reid: The figure of half the salary paid to Members of this House was mentioned from the Tory Front Bench, and it is important that that should be put on the record. That figure is less than the average Scottish wage, and it is less than the payment to councillors in Scotland.
    I want to tell a sad story which is germane to Members of this House. It is an internal matter. A number of years ago I wrote a story for a popular newspaper about a Member of this House who, when he was not dossing down in his private room, took a train on a warrant to the north of England, returning on a warrant the next morning. Now that I myself am a Member I regard that as a sad story. I do not want Members of the Scottish Assembly to be put in that sort of position, and on £3,100 a year they will be.
    Let us follow up the arguments of the Tory Front Bench. When challenged on this issue the Front Bench spokesman said that the Members of the Assembly should go out and "make money on the side". Those were the words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North. That sentiment is perfectly in keeping with the activities of his friends in another place who make plenty of money on the side, and unearned money at that.
    The problem about the Scottish Assembly is that this House is attempting to hedge the Assembly in from the start. Underlying this debate is a great fear that somehow the Members who sit on Calton Hill could earn more than the Members of this House, that somehow they could break through the £6,500 barrier. I do not believe that the Members of the Assembly would be as irres
    74
    ponsible as ever to seek more money than is paid to Members of the House of Commons. The problem is that Members of this House have been frightened to face this issue in the past and have paid themselves too little. This matter involves not only the salary of Members here and north of the border; it concerns also the amount of money that goes to Members' families.
    If the Members of the Assembly are paid, as the Tories propose, £3,100 a year, that will have three consequences. First, able young Scots simply will not be able to afford to go to the Assembly. The second is that the old "Mafia" in the west of Scotland will move in—the people with the small job on the side. Those are the men who earn a little money from local councils, who operate a public relations consultancy, a public affairs business and so on. The third consequence is that on the Tory side the squirearchy will feel that it should take part. Those are the people who will have a private income from their estates. It will mean that the old, the retired and the infirm will be sitting on Calton Hill. That is quite clearly wrong. There is no point in having an Assembly on Calton Hill if it is Glasgow corporation writ large.
    Mr. Percy Grieve: Is the hon. Member not muddying the waters of the discussion in debating how much the Members of the Scottish Assembly should be paid? Is not the issue before the House who is to decide what they should be paid?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his support.
    Mr. Reid: I think that the issue I am raising is highly germane to this debate since so many hon. Members have been grudging in their attitude to Assembly pay from the start. They have made clear by implication that whatever happens the Members of the Assembly will get less than Members of this House. The issue is germane, too, when one considers salaries currently being paid in Europe. Clearly they have a bearing on what will be paid in Edinburgh. When we travel to Strasbourg we find that Members of the German Lander, the Federal sub-parliaments, earn £12,000 to £15,000 a year plus up to £20,000 of expenses. It will be difficult for Members of the Scottish Assembly

    75
    who are dealing with matters which are both devolved and of European competence to live within that sort of wages league.
    The basic problem is one of hypocrisy. This House is perfectly prepared to vote notional pension rights for Members, but never to take the reality of Members' pay straight on the nose. I hope that that will not happen north of the border. I hope that north of the border SNP policy in this matter will be given greater credence. I hope that instead of Members of the Assembly voting their own salaries the whole matter will be put out to tender to professional "head hunters". The basic question "What are Members worth? What do they do. Whom do they represent?" should be asked.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot pursue that line of argument.
    Mr. Reid: A professional report should be produced. That matter should be within the competence of the Assembly. Members' salaries should be tied to a Civil Service grade so that they do not go through the indignity of having to vote their own pay rises. I believe that Members of this House should be paid about £12,500, and that Members of the Assembly should receive about £8,500.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not to have a discussion on the level of salaries.
    Mr. Reid: I mentioned that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it has been touched on before.
    Unless this matter is left to the Members of the Assembly a black joke could be perpetrated in Scotland. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke of Members moonlighting. There is a real danger that unless the Assembly has some degree of control over this matter Members will moonlight in Edinburgh as they moonlight here. There should be two tiers of salary—for those who are full-time and those who are not—and that is also an appropriate matter for the Assembly to decide. If the Assembly does not decide these matters we shall discover that, given a predetermined, lower-than-Westminster salary level, the Assembly Member for Drumnadrochit,
    76
    aged 73 and having kept his nose clean, will be told that he can go along to the Assembly and collect his money. On the other side will be the Tory squirearchy.
    The Assembly presents a new opportunity to look at the salary and allowances which elected representatives in the United Kingdom should be paid. Maybe if that is done north of the border it will have beneficial repercussions for this House.
    Mr. James Sillars: I shall take only a few seconds and try to remain in order.
    The Secretary of State referred to a temporary arrangement whereby he or his successor would fix the first salaries before the Assembly—if the Bill went through as it left this House—decided the level of remuneration. In effect, the Secretary of State, who is ultimately controlled by this House, will have the major influence on the level of salaries subsequently set by the Assembly. What he described as a temporary arrangement will in all probability be the permanent setting of the norm by which the Assembly's own determination is ultimately judged by the Assembly itself and the Scottish electorate.
    Outside the important principle whether the Assembly has tax-raising powers, I do not know what all the kerfuffle has been about today. That role of the Secretary of State will be absolutely crucial in determining the parameters within which the Assembly will be able to operate in fixing salaries.
    One or two of us have been trade union officials and we know that once a norm is fixed in the workers' minds and those of the general public, that is the criterion for judging everything else. Thus, both points of view expressed today were met in the Bill as it left this House. This House will have an influence on the level of salaries and the Government's point will be met, that the Assembly will be able to fix its own salaries after the first determination. It is therefore logical to reject the Lords amendment.
    Mr. John Stokes: I apologise to the Minister for not having been here earlier.
    The issue before us is whether we should fix the salaries of the new Assembly here or allow its Members to do

    77
    it. I do not want an Assembly at all, but if we are to have one it must have sensible rules. It is difficult to decide what is best without knowing how the Assembly will work, how many weeks it will sit and how much time its Members will give to it. For instance if, as I hope, they do not sit more than occasionally and briefly, they might be paid an attendance allowance instead of a salary, as is given to their Lordships and to local councillors. If there is to be a salary, it surely should not be fixed by reference to the absurdly low salaries that we pay ourselves.
    If there is to be another criterion, it would be absurd in this United Kingdom to have one set of salaries here, which we fixed ourselves, and another in what was in some ways a rival assembly. Many hon. Members will take it hard if this Assembly pays its Members more than our levels. Allowances are easier to fix, but salaries and especially pensions present difliculties. It seems wrong for the Assembly to fix salary levels because, unlike this House, it will have no tax-raising powers. Whatever Labour Members say, the electorate in Scotland will therefore have no redress if the Assembly decides to vote its Members extravagant salaries.
    For all these reasons it is wise and cautious to support the amendment. Once again, on this messy, complex and dangerous Bill, we are in a gigantic muddle, trying to legislate for the unknown. It is only reasonable and prudent to put as many curbs as possible on the activities of a new, untried and wholly experimental Assembly.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call on the next speaker, I would remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches are to begin at ten minutes to six, giving each Front Bench speaker five minutes. I would therefore ask the hon. Member whom I call to resume his seat by that time. Mr. Dewar.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden): I shall certainly observe that ruling.
    This has been a diverting debate. I have discovered that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not know the composition of the
    78
    Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and he was in danger of inventing for it a new arbitration power.
    The Tory arguments have been puzzling. I have been a Member of Parliament off and on for about five years and I still do not know whether this is a full-time or a part-time Chamber. If I were here for five centuries, I still should not know. I can say that Mr. X is a full-time Member and Mr. Y is a part-time Member, but there is no general rule. No doubt the same will apply to the Scottish Assembly.
    If I were a Member of the Assembly, responsible for legislation on housing, education, local government and roads, I could genuinely—not by Parkinson's law but in an attempt simply to make myself well-informed and effective—work full-time. If I were merely worried about housing problems in one part of my constituency—for example, Drumchapel—I could make myself a full-time Member of the Assembly. So it is false to talk in terms of full-time or part-time.
    The real point of this argument is whether it should be the Assembly or this House which determines the Assembly-mens' salaries. The Lords amendment was passed, in what not even their Lordships would describe as a crowded and tense House, by 23 votes to 20. Those arguments were not concerned with constitutional principles. The only point of constitutional principle advanced in this debate is that it would be wrong for the Assembly to fix its own salaries when it did not raise taxes. That is a peculiar argument, in a vacuum. It is an argument against the Assembly having any legislative or administrative powers. It strikes root and branch at the whole concept of an Assembly. It might be dealt with in our debate about taxation powers, but to say that the Assembly may decide on housing and wide sectors of Scottish life without having taxation powers but that it is peculiarly wrong when it comes to salaries is a non sequitur.
    The only other argument used in the Lords and here is about a matter of propriety and taste, that it is not very nice for people to settle their own salaries, that they will be embarrassed and ultimately not efficient, that they will err on the side of timidity for fear of public opinion. That argument was put forward especially by Lord Glenkinglas. He

    79
    said that if the Assembly set its own salaries, it would be spat upon for feathering its own nest. That is a little dramatic, but it is said that it will be difficult. However, to say that the Assembly cannot face up to these difficulties is a logical nonsense.
    That argument was combined with a totally incompatible one. Lord Ferrers for the Opposition said that his worry was not that they would be timid but that they would set European-style salaries totally out of step with Westminster. That also is a silly argument. There is the discipline of having to face the electorate and of the fact that the money will have to come from the block grant. We can trust the Scottish Assemblymen to recognise that if they go for broke on extravagant and glossy salaries, they will pay a price in terms of criticism and facing their electorate.
    If we are to have an Assembly—we are assuming that when we discuss this amendment—with a budget of £2,000 million a year, to say that it should not be trusted, or that it would be embarrassed, with the task of spending a few scores of thousands on the margin when deciding its own salaries is a strange and silly argument.
    I accept that it is not always pleasant to consider one's own remuneration. However, it is a nettle which has to be grasped, and I am quite clear that it would be better for the Assembly to do it than for it to be done second-hand in this Chamber.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: This has been a very interesting debate in which a great number of views have been expressed. We had the admission from the Liberal Party that one of its complaints concerned the lack of promotion prospects which inevitably stemmed from membership of that party. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite your hard words, there is no doubt that many hon. Members were discussing whether the salary for Assemblymen should be high or low, instead of deciding, as we should be in considering these amendments, whether it should be fixed by the House of Commons or by the Assembly itself.
    There are two issues on which we have to make up our minds in discussing these amendments. The first is the important
    80
    matter raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), which is the question of the initial salary which under clause 31 is decided by the Secretary of State and not subject to the approval of the House of Commons.
    One of the proposals in this set of amendments is that that initial salary, which has to be made as an estimate, without any knowledge of whether the Assembly will be part time or full time and without any indication of the likely work load, should be approved by this House. There can be little doubt that the Secretary of State should accept this first proposition of the Lords that, even if we are to leave the Assembly to work out the salary long term, at least the initial salary should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons as a whole.
    I hope therefore that if the Secretary of State cannot budge, despite the excellent arguments from this side of the House and despite some of those advanced from Government supporters, he will at least accept that his decision about the initial salary level should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons in the way in which most important decisions are. As the hon. Member for South Ayrshire rightly said, once this important determination has been made, any future salary changes will be based on it.
    The second issue, of course, is whether the salary in the longer term should be fixed by the Assembly or by the House of Commons. There were some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), who seemed to argue that this was a desperately important matter concerning the power, status and freedom of the Assembly. However, some of us feel that when we are setting up an Assembly which is a subservient Parliament of a kind, we should be creating major problems for our democracy if we had wildly differing salaries. An obvious difficulty would arise if the Assembly decided, for what might be very good reasons bearing in mind the salary levels in this House, to pay a higher salary to Assemblymen than we have in the House of Commons for Members of Parliament.
    We should create a very dangerous situation if, when we are sharing power

    81
    between Edinburgh and London, there were not some arrangement whereby the House of Commons ensured that there was a reasonable relationship between the two salaries. It is unfortunate that some people have interpreted this discussion as meaning that Westminster is the body which wants to be mean and to have very low salaries for the Assemblymen and that the Assembly is the body which wants to pay its Members extravagant salaries. We know from our own experience in this House that it is very difficult for an Assembly which fixes the salaries of its own Members to fix extravagant salaries.
    There is no indication that the Assembly, making its own decision, will pay itself extravagant salaries. The important question that we have to decide is whether it would help democracy in the United Kingdom as a whole if the House of Commons had no control and no say over the salaries paid to the Assemblymen.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was right when he said that we were moving into uncharted seas. Instead of one Parliament for Britain, we shall have Parliament here, other Parliaments of a sort in Edinburgh and Cardiff, a European Parliament, and the further complication of having a review of the allowances and possible salaries in local government which presumably will still be subject in the last resort to the Secretary of State.
    At a time when we in this House are reconsidering whether our own salaries are fixed in the right way and in a sensible way, it would be fair and reasonable to try to spell out some procedure whereby we could at least harmonise the relationship between the salaries paid in different Parliaments to different individuals. Unless we have the Lords amendments or some wording on these lines, it will not be possible for this to be done. Of course, it might be possible for the so-called Scottish Prime Minister and our own Government down here to get together and work out an amicable arrangement. In my view, however, it would be much better to provide for this in legislation.
    Those who oppose the Lords amendments make the mistake of assuming that
    82
    the House of Commons would be unreasonable and would allocate miserable salaries to the Assemblymen. We want a proper relationship between the two which takes account of the role, duties and responsibilities of Assemblymen. Therefore, I hope that we can accept the amendments proposed by the House of Lords. If the Government will not accept that we should have this relationship between the salaries in the two Parliaments, I hope that the Secretary of State will at least agree that the House of Commons as a whole should have some say in what the initial salary is to be.
    There has been a great deal of talk about whether the Assembly will be part time or full time. We do not know. It will depend a great deal on how the Assemblymen interpret their powers and responsibilities and how they use them. However, it would be a mistake to overestimate the amount of legislative and other power we are devolving to the Assembly. It would be a mistake to make the assumption that it will be a body which sits discussing laws and other matters all day and all year round. The decision of the Secretary of State about the initial salary will be a difficult one.
    However, bearing in mind all the possibilities of conflict inherent in this Bill and all the problems for the unity of Britain and the constitution which stem from this unworkable Bill, I hope that we shall not add to the problems by having disputes between the two bodies about the relative salary levels. The sensible course is to make sure that there is a reasonable salary for parliamentarians in both places bearing a proper relationship the one to the other. When we in this House consider the inequity of the arrangements which we have made ourselves for considering our salaries, I hope that in setting up the Assembly we shall have a proper relationship between the two jobs to ensure a fair rate in both London and Edinburgh.
    Mr. Millan: As you have reminded us on a number of occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this debate is about a comparatively narrow but extremely important issue. It concerns who shall decide the Assembly salaries, including those of the Ministers and the Scottish Secretary in the Assembly.

    83
    The House is interested in inquiring about the work load of the Assembly. I said in my opening remarks that that was a relevant factor to take into account in deciding the levels of salaries and allowances. However, it is not possible for me to make any pronouncement about the work load of the Assembly because that will be a matter for the Assembly itself. How often the Assembly sits, its hours of work, how far it feels that it should sit for a large part of the year or for a shorter part of the year than is typical in the House of Commons are all matters for the Assembly itself to decide in fixing its methods of working.
    Similarly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that it is slightly misleading to talk about a part-time or a fall-itme Member. It is a matter that we have never satisfactorily resolved for Members of the House of Commons, and it would be foolish of us to try to make a decision on the matters dealt with in these amendments on some estimation about whether the Assembly will be manned by full-time or part-time Members when this is the kind of question which we have never satisfactorily resolved for ourselves. I agree with my hon. Friend that some Members are likely to be full time and
    that some will be part time. This is the kind of factor which no doubt the Assembly will have in mind in fixing the salaries of its Members.
    I repeat what I said at the beginning of this debate. Both in principle and in practice, I believe that it is sensible for the Assembly to do this. I believe that it would be a potential source of conflict if we attempted to reserve this power here.
    Of course, for practical reasons, I have to fix the salaries in the first instance. But, as hon Members will note if they look at clause 31, that will be done only for the Members of the Assembly and not for the Scottish Secretaries and their assistants. That will be left completely to the Assembly to determine. That means that very early in the Assembly's operations it will have to—
    It being Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 269.

    Division No. 272

    AYES

    5.0 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Carmichael, Neil

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Anderson, Donald

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Dunn, James A.

    Archer, Peter

    Cartwright, John

    Dunnett, Jack

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Ashley, Jack

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Eadle, Alex

    Ashton, Joe

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Edge, Geoff

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Coleman, Donald

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Concannon, Rt Hon John

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    English, Michael

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Corbett, Robin

    Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)

    Bates, Alt

    Cowans, Harry

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Bean, R. E.

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Beith, A. J.

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Crawford, Douglas

    Faulds, Andrew

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cronin, John

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Flannery, Martin

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Cryer, Bob

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Boardman, H.

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Ford, Ben

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Forrester, John

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Dalyell, Tam

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Davidson, Arthur

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

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Bradley, Tom

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    Freud, Clement

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    George, Bruce

    Brown, Robert, C. (Newcastle W)

    Deakins, Eric

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Buchan, Norman

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Ginsburg, David

    Buchanan, Richard

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Golding, John

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Dempsey, James

    Gould, Bryan

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Dewar, Donald

    Gourlay, Harry

    Campbell, Ian

    Doig, Peter

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Dormand, J. D

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Cant. R. B.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Grocott, Bruce

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Madden, Max

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Magee, Bryan

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mallalleu, J. P. W.

    Sillars, James

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Marks, Kenneth

    Silverman, Julius

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Snape, Peter

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Meacher, Michael

    Spearing, Nigel

    Henderson, Douglas

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hooley, Frank

    Mikardo, Ian

    Stallard, A. W.

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Horam, John

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

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

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

    Stoddart, David

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Molloy, William

    Stott, Roger

    Huckfield, Les

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Strang, Gavin

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Summerskill, Hon. Dr Shirley

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Swain, Thomas

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Morton, George Martin

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Hunter, Adam

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Noble, Mike

    Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)

    Irving, Rt Hon s. (Dartford)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Thompson, George

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Ogden, Eric

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    O'Halloran Michael

    Thnrnpe Rt Hon Jeremy (N Davon)

    Janner, Greville

    Orbach, Maurice

    Thorpe, Stan(preston)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Tilley, John

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Ovenden, John

    Tomlinson, John

    John, Brynmor

    Padley, Walter

    Tomney, Frank

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Torney, Tom

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Pardoe, John

    Urwin, T. W.

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Park, George

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Parker, John

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Parry, Robert

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Walker, Terry (Kingswocd)

    Judd, Frank

    Pendry, Tom

    Ward, Michael

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Penhaligon, David

    Watkins, David

    Kelley, Richard

    Perry, Ernest

    Watkinson, John

    Kerr, Russell

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Watt, Hamish

    Kilfedder, James

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Weetch, Ken

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Radice, Giles

    Weitzman, David

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Lambie, David

    Reld, George

    Welsh, Andrew

    Lamborn, Harry

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Lamond, James

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    White, James (Pollok)

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Whitlock, William

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Lltterick, Tom

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Luard, Evan

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Roper, John

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Rose, Paul B.

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    MacCormick, Iain

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Ryman, John

    Woodall, Alec

    McElhone, Frank

    Sandeison, Neville

    Woof, Robert

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    McKay, Allen

    Sever, John

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mr. James Tinn and

    McNamara, Kevin

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Mr. Ted Graham.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Biggs-Davlson, John

    Budgen, Nick

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Blaker, Peter

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Alison, Michael

    Body, Richard

    Burden, F. A.

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Boscawen. Hon Robert

    Butler. Adam (Bosworth)

    Arnold, Tom

    Bottomley, Peter

    Carlisle, Mark

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Awdry, Daniel

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Channon, Paul

    Baker, Kenneth

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Churchill, W. S.

    Banks, Robert

    Brittan, Leon

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Bell, Ronald

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Brooke. Peter

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Brotherton, Michael

    Clegg, Walter

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Cockcroft, John

    Benyon, W.

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Cope, John

    Bitten, John

    Buck, Antony

    Cormack, Patrick

    Corrie, John

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Costain, A. P.

    Jopling, Michael

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Crouch, David

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Rhodes James, R.

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Kimball, Marcus

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Drayson, Burnaby

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Durant, Tony

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knox, David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lamont, Norman

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Emery, Peter

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Lawson, Nigel

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Farr, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Fell, Anthony

    Lloyd, Ian

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Loveridge, John

    Scott, Nicholas

    Fisher Sir Nigel

    Luce, Richard

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Shelton WilIiam (Streatham)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    MacGregor, John

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

    Shepherd, Colin

    Forman, Nigel

    Macmilian, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Shersby, Michael Silvester Fred

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f d)

    McNair-WIISOn, M. (Newbury)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Sims, Roger

    Fox, Marcus

    Madel, David

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fry, Peter

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

    Marten, Nell

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Mates, Michael

    Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Mather, Carol

    Speed, Keith

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Maude, Angus

    Spence, John

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Mawby, Ray

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stainton, Keith

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Goodhew, Victor

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stanley, John

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Gorst, John

    Mills, Peter

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stokes, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Stradling Thomas, J

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Moate, Roger

    Tapsell, Peter

    Grieve, Percy

    Molyneaux, James

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Monro, Hector

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Grist, Ian

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Tebbit, Norman

    Grylls, Michael

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Temple-Morris, Pefer

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Evrell)

    Morgan, Geraint

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Trotter, Neville

    Hannam, John

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Mudd, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neave, Airey

    Wakeham, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Nelson, Anthony

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Neubert, Michael

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Newton, Tony

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Normanton, Tom

    Wall, Patrick

    Hicks, Robert

    Nott, John

    Walters, Dennis

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Warren, Kenneth

    Hodgson, Robin

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Weather ill. Bernard

    Holland, Philip

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Wells, John

    Hordern, Peter

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Percival, Ian

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Hunt John (Bromley)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Younger, Hon George

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    James, David

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, and

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

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Mr. Jim Lester.

    Jessel, Toby

    Raison, Timothy

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.
    Lords amendments nos. 64 to 68 disagreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 69 to 80 agreed to.

  New Clause "D"

    PROTECTION OF SPECIAL INTERESTS OF ORKNEYS AND SHETLANDS
    Lords amendment: No. 81, in page 19, line 26, at end insert new clause "D"—
    ("D. Where it appears to the Secretary of State that—

    (a) any provision of a Bill passed by the Assembly; or

    (b) any action proposed to be taken by or on behalf of a Scottish Secretary; or

    (c) any instrument made by a Scottish Secretary under any Act of Parliament or Scottish Assembly Act;

    would or might cause substantial detriment to the special social or economic needs and interests of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands or any or their inhabitants or to the status of their councils, sections 35, 36 and 37 of this Act shall apply respectively as they would apply if that provision, action or instrument were such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of section 35 or, as the case may be, 36 or 37.")
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Milan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments nos. 105 and 107.
    Mr. Milan: This amendment deals with the question of Orkney and Shetland. Although this is a short debate, I should briefly give the background.
    As the Bill left this House, subsection (3) of clause 80 stated that in the event of the majority of the people in either Orkney or Shetland or both voting in the referendum against the implementation of the Act, there would be an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay before the House the draft of an Order in Council in effect excluding those areas from the implementation of the Act and providing also for the establishment of a commission to recommend changes in the government of Orkney and/or Shetland.
    On Third Reading, I made it clear that I believed that provision to be a mistake. In particular, I thought that it would be detrimental to Orkney and Shetland if, following the referendum, devolution were to go ahead but they were to be excluded, even if only for a temporary period. I
    90
    believed that it would be not a short temporary period but a long one. For a whole lot of administrative and other reasons, as well as for wider reasons, I thought that such a situation would be considerably disadvantageous to the people of Orkney and Shetland.
    Subsequently, I had discussions with the islands councils, and, of course, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), whose amendment it was that I criticised during the passage of the Bill through the House, was involved. The aim was to see whether we could get a provision in the Bill specially relating to Orkney and Shetland which would be acceptable to the Government and to the islands councils as representing the people of Orkney and Shetland. This we have managed to do in terms which now appear as Lords amendments nos. 81, 105 and 107.
    In approaching this matter, I had accepted all along that there were genuine apprehensions in Orkney and Shetland that the establishment of a Scottish Assembly could act to their detriment. There were a number of different aspects. For example, there were the questions of oil-related activity and the harbour provisions in the county council Acts. There was also a number of other matters about which the people of the islands felt certain apprehensions. I made clear at the time, and still take the view, that some of those apprehensions are ill founded. Nevertheless, they are genuine, as I readily admit, and as I said on Third Reading.
    In the circumstances, I accepted that we should have to write, and ought to write, special provisions into the Bill. There are now two special provisions written into the Bill by amendments moved by the Government in another place. They appear in amendments nos. 81 and 105. At the same time, amendment no. 107 takes out the particular bit of clause 80 which, as I have said, I felt was undesirable and would be likely in its application—assuming, that is, that devolution were to go ahead and the people in Orkney and Shetland voted against it —to be detrimental to the people of Orkney and Shetland.
    Amendment no. 81 writes in a new clause after clause 37 providing for certain override powers in relation specifically to Orkney and Shetland. What it

    91
    says is that where it appears to the Secretary of State that a Bill passed by the Assembly, or any action to be taken on behalf of a Scottish Secretary, or any instrument made by him under any Act of Parliament or Scottish Assembly Act,
    "would or might cause substantial detriment to the special social or economic needs and interests of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands".
    the override provisions which are expressed in general terms in the Bill shall apply to the particular provisions as they apply in the general override powers of the Bill, and the Secretary of State will be able to take action to safeguard the special social or economic needs and interests of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland islands.
    I believe that this is a very significant increase in the safeguards for Orkney and Shetland written into the Bill. As well as being accepted by the other place, it has been welcomed by the islands council on behalf of the people in the islands as giving them the kind of special protection which they have always wanted to be written into the Bill in their special circumstances.
    Mr. Dalyell: Assuming good faith in this matter, which I do, how is it possible, with the best will in the world, to bind any successor in this matter? One Government cannot bind another. That is the difficulty here.
    Mr. Milian: As I understand the position, this power will depend on the Secretary of State. Many other things depend on the Secretary of State. This was explained in the most explicit terms in the meetings that I had with the Shetland islands council and the Orkney islands council. They supported the amendment following the meetings that I had with them. That was the view they took. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I made the effect of the amendment absolutely clear in the meetings that I had in Orkney and Shetland.
    Mr. George Cunningham: The Secretary of State has said, I think, a couple of times —I refer to the Shetlands and not Orkney —that what he is doing has the approval of the Shetlands islands council. Will he say whether it has the unanimous appro-
    92
    val of the Shetland islands council? If not, will he give some indication whether it is a very narrow majority?
    Mr. Milian: It has not the unanimous approval of either council, and my hon. Friend, who has been following this, already knows that. There are not many things which pass through this House with unanimous approval. I am saying that the two councils, which were elected as recently as May of this year, have approved these amendments, after discussions that I have had with them.
    Amendment no. 105 provides for the establishment of a commission to look at the government of the Orkney and Shetland islands. This is to meet what are obviously real apprehensions from the longer-term point of view about the operation of the Scottish Assembly in relation to Orkney and Shetland. By the first amendment we have written certain provisions into the Bill which will apply when the Assembly is in operation. At the same time, we are taking on the obligation under the second amendment to establish a commission which will look at the government of the Orkneys and Shetlands from a longer-term point of view.
    What we are doing here has two particular aspects. There is the immediate aspect of the override powers which will provide protections as soon as the Bill is in operation. There is also the longer-term aspect of looking at the government of Orkney and Shetland which is provided for by the establishment of the commission under Amendment No. 105.
    There is, therefore, an obligation, if the first commencement order is made under the Act, and the Assembly is to be established, for the Secretary of State, within three months of the making of that first order, to establish a commission to look at the government of Orkney and Shetland and to recommend such changes as may be desirable. In making its recommendations, as the amendment says,
    "the commission shall have regard, among other things, to the special social and economic needs and interests of the Islands".
    It goes on, making the position absolutely clear and explicit, to say that any recommendations from that commission
    "may include recommendations for making changes in this Act, including changes in the constitution and powers of the Assembly."

    93
    The matter will fall, therefore, within the competence of the recommendations of the commission.
    The Shetland council had itself taken the step of asking the people in Shetland to vote on whether they wanted a commission of this nature. The people have voted quite overwhelming for that, and I have no doubt that a similar test of opinion in Orkney would have produced the same result. This provision for the establishment of a commission has the approval of the council in Orkney and has the approval also of the council in Shetland.
    The place at which these amendments have to be decided, of course, is here in the House of Commons. We have to make the judgment whether these provisions are sensible. I believe that they are. I believe that they provide a settlement to an argument which has continued during the course of the Bill in a way which is acceptable to the representatives of the people of the islands. I know that it is acceptable to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
    It is a matter for the House to decide, but I suggest that an agreement of this sort, and amendments of this sort, which have the support of the people in the islands themselves, ought to be seriously considered by this House and ought also to have the approval of this House. That is why I am recommending that we agree with these amendments.
    Mr. J. Grimond: When the Scotland Bill was first introduced, I set out to achieve two aims for Orkney and Shetland. The first was that there should be safeguards for the special position and interests of the islands.
    Among the most important of these was, first, that the special Acts and provisions relating to oil and its revenues should be safeguarded. Second, that the position of the Shetland and Orkney islands councils, as independent all-purpose authorities, should be maintained. Thirdly, there was our concern over prospects for fishing. Fourthly, I wanted to ensure that we should have better treatment over freight charges and fares, and transport generally. Lastly, we wished to ensure that our separate tradition, way of life and history—including the unique nature of Shetland knitwear, dependent
    94
    upon crofting—should also be safe-guarded.
    I have always said that the problems of transport and freight charges for the basic industries were just as important as the constitutional position of the islands. My original amendment to the Bill, dealing with these and other related matters, was not reached and therefore was not passed, but the new amendment which the Secretary of State has explained, Amendment No. 81, was negotiated between him and the island authorities and myself. Then certain further changes to it were negotiated between the Minister of State and myself. These were accepted by the two island authorities, and ultimately they were written into the Bill by the Lords.
    The safeguards take the form of extending the Secretary of State's override powers, so that if it appears to him, or his successors, that any Bill, order or action of the Assembly, or the Scottish Executive, would be to the detriment of the needs and interests of Orkney or Shetland then the Secretary of State can use his powers under Clauses 35, 36 and 37 to call in the proposals of the Assembly, or of the Scottish Secretary, and in one case ask the House of Commons to agree to veto such proposals or in the other to forbid the proposed action. What is important is that the Secretary of State's powers will extend to any attempt to alter the status of the island authorities.
    6.30 p.m.
    These amendments may not be ideal. I myself should have preferred them to be more specific, although there are always difficulties about specifically stating in Acts of Parliament certain points without detracting from the generality. However, I should have preferred it had they been more specific. Their effectiveness will to some extent depend upon the Secretary of State, but under the previous amendment not passed by this House, and under all requests of the islands councils, we should equally have been dependent upon the Secretary of State.
    At one time the Shetland position was that it would like to remain under the Secretary of State for all purposes. Therefore, it hardly lies in the mouth of the islands council to say that we cannot rely

    95
    upon him. Further, although it will to some extent be a matter of what action the Secretary of State takes, he will be bound by the Act. If he fails to use his discretion he can be questioned in this place. I suppose that Adjournment debates, as well as the full panoply of parliamentary debate, could be brought to bear upon him.
    Another point is what the word "public" means in Clause 35. I have never been quite certain whether "against the public interest" refers simply to the public interest of Scotland or to the public interest of Great Britain. However, although improvements could perhaps be made in the drafting, there is no doubt that in their final form these amendments were accepted by the islands councils. Indeed, in my view, they were greatly improved during the course of negotiations with the two right hon. Members in charge of the Bill. Indeed, had they not been so improved I myself could not have recommended their acceptance.
    My other aim was to procure the setting up of a commission to examine the future government of Orkney and Shetland. For instance, I have been attracted by the possibility of going some way towards the position of the Isle of Man. An amendment along these lines was tabled in the Commons was passed and we are most grateful to hon. Members of all the major parties, except the nationalist parties, who voted for it. However, it had certain possible drawbacks. As the Secretary of State has said, it would have led to some interregnum. How difficult that would have been to get over is to some extent a matter of opinion. However, there is no doubt that it was valid to say that it would have led to some doubt about the administration of Orkney and Shetland while the commission sat.
    Secondly, the commission would have been set up only had Orkney and Shetland voted "No." If they were not to do so—and there is no certainty how they will vote—then there would be no commission. In fact, the original amendment tied the commission to a "No" vote. Thirdly, the setting up of the commission could have required a vote in Parliament. Therefore, it was just possible that, even if the islands did vote "No", no commission would have been set up. Now, at
    96
    any rate, we have the certainty of a commission, and that is some additional gain.
    Further, and most important, in the words of Amendment No. 105,
    "the commission shall have regard, among other things, to the special social and economic needs and interests of the Islands;"
    That is to say, it can range far beyond the mere constitutional position and look at such matters as treatment over transport, fishing and so forth, which are certainly included in the
    "social and economic needs…of the Islands:"
    As I have said, I regard that as being of considerable importance. In addition, the commission can even make a recommendation for changes in the powers of the Assembly. In fact, it has a very wide remit. I hope that it will use it to look at the various possibilities for the future government of the islands, including possibly the Isle of Man position.
    I therefore maintain that I have achieved a great deal of my original aims. The islands councils are satisfied, but are anxious to be assured that they will be consulted on the setting up of the commission, on the exact terms of its remit, and on its membership. So far as he is able, I hope that the Minister will give that assurance. The councils also attach importance to the fact that the commission will report back to the Secretary of State and this House. I take it that that, too, is certain.
    The arrangement, as it has come down from the other place, is a package deal. If any part of the package fails, we go back to the previous amendment. Orkney and Shetland would never have got these twin aims had we not passed the previous amendment. They now have the chance of producing their evidence to the commission about their future. It is hoped that through the commission a form of government will be achieved which will enable the islands to develop their unique characteristics as an island community.
    As island communities, Orkney and Shetland differ in history and tradition from the rest of Scotland. The islands are faced with the risk of oil developments and are badly handicapped by high transport costs and uncertainties over fishing. No other part of Scotand is in that position. Parliament has rightly

    97
    decided, and the Secretary of State has agreed, that the islands need special treatment. From now on I hope that they will continue to receive that treatment and that the amendments, as they are put into force, will give the islands the safeguards and the help to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Francis Pym: The first point to be made is one which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), namely, that the provisions in these amendments would not have been moved by the Government had it not been for this House agreeing to a previous amendment against the advice of the Government. Had it not been for the House of Commons forcing through that amendment, the kind of safeguard sought by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would not have been contemplated by the Government.
    Therefore, it must be said that these amendments make the Bill better than it otherwise would have been. Quite clearly there are special circumstances and factors relating to Orkney and Shetland. That is why we Conservatives supported the original amendment. Originally, those factors were not taken into account by the Secretary of State, as he himself has admitted. But he came to accept that the apprehensions felt in the islands were very real.
    In no way do I want to sound carping after what the Government have done, but I think that the amendments are on the vague side. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that he would have liked them to be more specific, and I agree with that view. Indeed, in a sense they are so vague as to be possibly of rather less value than they might at first appear. From contacts with Shetland islanders—and I have seen deputations from the islands—we know that they were consulted on several occasions. But it seems that they were put under quite considerable pressure to accept, or at any rate consider and decide upon, the amendments which are now before the House. I do not suppose for a moment that there was any misleading at all. I am not making that charge. But it is a fact that the Shetland islands council was put under very great pressure to agree. I hope that
    98
    it understands the limitation of what is now proposed.
    It seems to me that the islands are not offered a great deal under new clause D, which says:
    "Where it appears to the Secretary of State"
    —no one else, just him—
    "that…any provision…or any action… or any instrument…would or might cause substantial detriment to the special social or economic needs and interests of the Islands."
    That is pretty vague phraseology. I am not sure how much reliance can be placed upon it. One must say that, and hope that the Minister will say something more about it in his reply. Does it really give the islands the protection for which they were hoping? The Secretary of State must be convinced, first, that something is genuinely wrong and, what is more, he must be convinced that the enactment or provision or whatever is referred to is not in the public interest. This is the same wording as applies in the override powers which we debated earlier, but there is no clear definition of "public" and the judgment about it must be made by the Secretary of State.
    It seems to me that there is a potential for controversy, because the Secretary of State has to consider not only what is said in the clause—
    "substantial detriment to the special..needs and interests of the… islands"—
    but also that substantial detriment in relation to the whole of the rest of Scotland and other regions in Scotland. He must decide whether in the public interest what is proposed may be more detrimental to another part of Scotland or to the whole of Scotland than perhaps it would be to the Shetlands or the Orkneys.
    Mr. Dalyell: As a former Secretary of State, albeit for Northern Ireland, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the words "substantial detriment" mean precisely what the Secretary of State of the day thinks is politically expedient to him? Is not the interpretation of these words absolutely crucial? What Secretary of State will take on his own party in the Assembly on behalf of what is naturally a very small minority? Do not Shetlanders have to face up to these political facts?
    Mr. Pym: That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. The assurance, in so far as it can be said to be any assurance, is very vague. "Substantial detriment" is very difficult, if not impossible, to define. The phrase appears to relate to the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands. If the public interest comes into it, and if the consequence of not taking a particular action would cause substantial detriment to, say, the region of the Western Isles or to the Grampian region or to the rest of Scotland for any reason whatsoever, is not that an exceptionally difficult judgment to make? There is no absolute guarantee that, if there is to be substantial detriment on any common sense basis, the Secretary of State might still not take any action because in the public interest the consequences for other parts of Scotland would be equally detrimental.
    Mr. Grimond: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point and I wish that there could have been closer definition. However, it must be borne in mind that, had the Bill remained in the state in which it left the Commons, there would have been no safeguard at all: this is an additional clause.
    Mr. Pym: I entirely accept that, and I do not want to be carping about it. However, the House should not misunderstand the true nature of what it is asked to agree to.
    On new clause H—the longer-term proposal to establish a commission—I strongly support what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said about the consultation which should take place with the people of the islands about the establishment of the commission, about working out its terms of reference and, I suggest, about its membership. The Secretary of State has consulated the people of the islands and I am sure that he will continue to do that, but they will appreciate an undertaking from him given in the House today—as he says, the House must reach a conclusion on this—that he will consult the islanders both on the terms of reference of the commission and on its membership. That is particularly important in view of the almost shotgun circumstances in which finally the Shetland islands council had to come to a conclusion about whether to agree to what
    100
    the Government propose in these amendments.
    We shall not oppose these amendments, of course. They are certainlly an improvement on the Bill as originally drafted. We accept them on that basis. However, I think that they are of a very limited character.
    Mr. George Cunningham: I shall be extremely brief in order to ensure that others are able to get into the debate.
    I am sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) say that, of course, the Opposition will not be opposing these amendments. I absolutely understand the difficulties if a majority—note the word "majority"—of the Shetland islands council decide to favour these amendments: it is extremely difficult for Members of this House to say that we shall override that majority and nevertheless vote against the amendments.
    For reasons that I shall give, I should be prepared to do so. But it is absolutely clear that there is not a majority in the House for killing these amendments, and for myself I think it would be a waste of time, at 7 p.m. to go through the charade of a Division, but I am opposed to the amendments and would call a Division and vote against them if there were any chance whatever of a majority of the House going the same way.
    6.45 p.m.
    When these amendments passed in the House of Lords some misinformed newspapers carried the story the other day that the Government had made enormous concessions to the people of Orkney and Shetland. Of course, that is the very opposite of the case. The Government made no concessions whatever. The worst position from the Government's point of view was the amendment we made to the Bill—Amendment No. 149 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—when we had the Bill previously. Compared with that, anything else was preferable. That is why in the end, after having made some gestures and offers, the Government overcame all their objections of principle and practicality and gave the Shetlanders what they thought was necessary in order to obtain a majority within the Shetland islands council.

    101
    Let us remember something: amendment no. 149 was passed through the House not only by a large majority but at the specific and urgent and strongly-worded request of the Shetland islands council, a request which had been repeated in two Sessions. It was said at the time "We know that if this passes through the House there will be attempts to kill it later on and we hope that you will resist those attempts."
    It should also be said that at the time when all this was at its most active a referendum was held within Shetland to find whether the people of Shetland supported the activities of their Member of Parliament and of the islands council in endeavouring to safeguard the islands' interests. The means chosen by the Member and by the islands council at that time to safeguard the interests of Shetland were Amendment No. 149. It is, therefore, arguable that the Shetland islands council at the moment is in some ways not free to go against what received the backing of the referendum held on Shetland. There was an enormous poll and the proposal received an enormous majority. We must take that into account.
    That is the principal reason why, if there were to be a serious vote at 7 p.m., I personally would vote against these amendments, because I took that referendum to mean that the people of Shetland gave support to amendment No. 149, which is what the council and the Member of Parliament were at that time arguing for.
    It must be remembered also that the majority on the Shetland islands council in favour of going along with this compromise was extremely narrow. It is not the case that every member of the council wanted it. It is not the case that there was near unanimity. It is the case that the proposal was nearly defeated, and all the previous proposals were defeated by large majorities. So if people were going against the recommendations of a majority of the islands council they would be going in favour of practically 50 per cent. of the members of the islands council.
    I agree with the spokesman for the Opposition that the Shetlanders are placing their faith in safeguards that will turn out to be insubstantial. It is inconceivable that a Secretary of State would
    102
    easily bring himself to lay an order before the House to overcome something which had been decided by the Assembly or by a Scottish Secretary. What the Shetlanders are saying is "At your urgent demand we agree to go into devolution provided you safeguard us against the necessary and natural consequences of doing so." That is what they are asking us to do.
    There is no way that can happen. The Shetlanders either go into devolution and take the consequences or they do not. That choice they previously had. At the moment they are being misled, and perhaps they are misleading themselves, that this compromise is possible whereby they can go in under the Assembly but be protected against it. I do not believe that they can rely upon those safeguards and I am sorry that they allowed themselves to be persuaded that they should invite the House to make these changes to the very sensible proposal which we passed on 25th January.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: I am very perturbed about developments in this matter, in which I have a considerable interest. My interest in the issue began long before discussions on this Bill arose. We have heard about the discussions with the islands council which have approved the amendments. My understanding is that the amendments were approved by the narrowest possible majority, and it is important to remember that.
    We must also realise that the Orkney and Shetland Islands have a very high regard for their Member of Parliament. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was obviously in a dilemma. On the one hand, he had unique constituency considerations; on the other, he had a party commitment to the Government. Therefore, it is not surprising that he should say, as he did a moment ago, that the amendments before us represent a negotiated agreement. They are an effort to reconcile two different viewpoints. In my view, these viewpoints are irreconcilable.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is vital to retain safeguards, as far as possible, for a traditional way of life. But there is an oil reserve fund for which special legislation went through the House, and I wonder whether safeguards

    103
    exist for that. I can see no safeguard whatever in the amendments before us. Once the islands are in, the safeguards go. One cannot suddenly contract out of one's contracting in. That is true in many walks of life.
    There is an added difficulty if ever the Assembly is predominantly Scottish nationalist. This will produce many difficulties for oil development which we well know because we have been warned. We have been told time and again that it is Scottish oil, and therefore in these circumstances it is no more likely to be Shetland oil than United Kingdom oil. That would have a very substantial impact on the reserve fund and the legislation that has been put through the House.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has already pointed out clearly that there is a problem over the exact meaning of the words "substantial detriment", and the question of who is to be judge of that. It is perfectly clear that no Secretary of State would be likely to go against the wishes of his own party men in the Assembly.
    I make these remarks merely to put on the record my grave doubts whether the Shetland Islands wishes have been met and my equally grave doubts whether they will be met in the future.
    Mr. Milan: If I am to answer all the points that have been put to me in this debate I must rise now—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. The Minister requires the leave of the House to speak again because he moved the motion.
    Mr. Milan: All right, with the leave of the House—
    Miss Harvie Anderson: No.
    Mr. Milan: I do not mind at all if the leave is not granted. May I ask the leave of the House to speak again?
    I deal first with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I shall not try to predict what the commission might recommend for Orkney and Shetland. The right hon. Gentleman has his own views, and no doubt those views, and others, will be put to the commission.
    104
    The commission will have wide terms of reference by the very wording in the Bill. This point arose in my discussions with the islands councils. We have drafted amendment No. 105 in terms which, in a sense, almost write the terms of reference into the Bill. This is a very considerable protection. Obviously, I shall have to consider the terms of reference in detail later, but I would not want in any way to try to derogate from the statements that are written into the Bill.
    Obviously I cannot give a guarantee that the membership of the commission will be in the hands of the island authorities. I do not think the House will expect me to do that. However, I said when I met the islands councils that I had it in mind that membership would include people who had, or were likely to have, special knowledge of the islands communities and their problems. Obviously it will be a commission which will give a balanced recommendation at the end of the day. It would not suit the House or the Government to have on the commission people who were likely to come to only one particular point of view. Therefore, I shall certainly ensure that there is a balanced representation on the commission.
    Mr. Grimond: What consultation will there be over the remit and over membership?
    Mr. Millan: Certainly there will be consultation over the remit, and I am sure that the question of membership will come up. But on the membership question the right hon. Gentleman must accept that there is no suggestion that membership will be nominated by anyone other than the Secretary of State. I do not believe that there will be any serious difficulty here.
    I turn to the question of the override provision. Some hon. Members argued that the wording was rather vague. We have followed the wording in the Bill already on the override powers. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) mentioned that this was a power in the hands of the Secretary of State and that it depended on his judgment.
    Clause 35 and the following clauses also put powers in the hands of the Secretary of State. He is specifically mentioned there. These powers similarly require the Secretary of State to make a judgment.

    105
    Therefore, there is really no difference between Amendment No. 81 and the wording that is already in the Bill, dealing with the general override powers. In the nature of things, one must write these matters in fairly general terms.
    If anything, we have written the Orkney and Shetland override powers in more detail than the general override powers. We deal here with the question of
    "substantial detriment to the special social or economic needs and interests of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands."
    These words were amended in accordance with suggestions from the islands councils which obtained advice from their own agents. These words were put in because they meet the worries that the islanders had about the special social and economic needs of their people.
    Of course the public interest is involved and it would have been rather difficult to exclude it. Obviously these will be matters for judgment, but they are no more difficult than some other matters on the exercise of override powers which will be decided by the Secretary of State.
    I said earlier in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that no Government could commit another Government. By that I meant, first of all, the general proposition which is accepted on all matters in this House. Secondly, I meant that when one is depending on the actions of the Secretary of State one cannot be absolutely sure that every Secretary of State, given powers, will behave in exactly the same way in identical sets of circumstances. I say that in general terms, but the important aspect is the obligation on the Secretary of State to examine these matters, and there will be pressures on him to take a view favourable to Orkney and Shetland in certain circumstances.
    Those obligations are specifically written into the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, when the Bill left this place, although it contained something about the commission, it contained nothing about specific override powers on Orkney and Shetland. From that point of view this amendment is a considerable additional protection for the people of Orkney and Shetland.
    I believe that these amendments are desirable, and I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: I advise the people of Orkney and Shetland to give a resounding "No" in the referendum, because with the best will in the world—
    It being Seven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Lords amendment no. 81 agreed to.
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

  Clause 48

    LIMITATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FINANCED BY BORROWING
    Lords amendments: No. 82, in page 24, line 36, leave out
    ("the British Waterways Board or")
    Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Milian.]
    Question put forthwith:—
    The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 267.

    Cryer, Bob

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    Judd, Frank

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rooker, J. W.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Kelly, Richard

    Roper, John

    Deakins, Eric

    Kerr, Russell

    Rose, Paul B.

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Kilfedder, James

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Dempsey, James

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rowlands, Ted

    Dewar, Donald

    Lamble, David

    Ryman, John

    Doig, Peter

    Lamborn, Harry

    Sandalson, Neville

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lamond, James

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Sever, John

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lee, John

    Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Eadie, Alex

    Litterick, Tom

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Edge, Geoff

    Loyden, Eddie

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Luard, Evan

    Silverman, Julius

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

    English, Michael

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Stallard, A. W.

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    MacCormick, Iain

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Evans, John (Newton)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    McElhone, Frank

    Stoddart, David

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Stott, Roger

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Strang, Gavin

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McKay, Allen

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Flannery, Martin

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Swain, Thomas

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)

    Ford, Ben

    McNamara, Kevin

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Forrester, John

    Madel, David

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Magee, Bryan

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

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

    Mahon, Simon

    Thompson, George

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Freud, Clement

    Marks, Kenneth

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Tlerney, Sydney

    George, Bruce

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Tilley, John

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Tinn, James

    Ginsburg, David

    Meacher, Michael

    Tomlinson, John

    Golding, John

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Tomney, Frank

    Gould, Bryan

    Mikardo, Ian

    Torney, Tom

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Tuck, Raphael

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Molloy, William

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Ward, Michael

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Watkins, David

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Morton, George Martin

    Watkinson, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

    Weetch, Ken

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Weitzman, David

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Wellbeloved, James

    Henderson, Douglas

    Noble, Mike

    Welsh, Andrew

    Hooley, Frank

    Oakes, Gordon

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Ogden, Eric

    White, James (Pollok)

    Horam, John

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Whitehead, Phillip

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

    Orbach, Maurice

    Whitlock, William

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Ovenden, John

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Huckfield, Les

    Padley, Walter

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Pardoe, John

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Park, George

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Parker, John

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Hunter, Adam

    Parry, Robert

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Irving, Rt Hon s. (Dartford)

    Pendry, Tom

    Woodall, Alec

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Penhaligon, David

    Woof, Robert

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Perry, Ernest

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Janner, Greville

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Radice, Giles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Mr. Thomas Cox and

    John, Brynmor

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Mr. Ted Graham

    Johnson. James (Hull West)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment no. 83 disagreed to.
    Lords amendment no. 84 agreed to.

  New Clause "E"

    PROPOSALS FOR POWERS TO RAISE MONEYS
    Lords Amendments: No. 85, in page 29, line 9, at end insert new Clause "E"—
    ("E. If the Assembly decides that it wishes to make proposals that power should be conferred on the Assembly to raise by taxation moneys to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund, it may communicate such proposals to the Secretary of State who shall lay such proposals before both Houses of Parliament.")
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    I should make clear at the start of the debate that in considering how we react to the amendment we are not called upon to take a view whether it would be a good thing for the Scottish administration to have tax powers. We have had many debates on this topic, including a longish debate in Committee. It should be clearly understood that, with or without the new clause, the Bill neither confers tax powers nor creates a competence for the Assembly to confer them. We have to consider whether the Bill is improved by the inclusion of this declaratory clause. That is all it is.
    The Government have already made clear their view on tax powers. We believe that the main source of finance for the devolved services should be a block fund approved by this House, taking account of the relative needs for public expenditure in different parts of the United Kingdom. There is no question of confining the devolved administration to such revenues as they might be able to raise within Scotland by their own means. But the Government do not rule
    112
    out—and never have ruled out—the possibility of conferring powers on the devolved administration to raise limited additional revenue for optional additional expenditure by operation of a supplementary tax power.
    Nobody has so far identified an appropriate supplementary tax power within our present structure of taxes, but the Government have made clear that if the Scottish administration wish to have available a limited supplementary tax power and are ready to meet the administrative cost, we would be willing to consider their proposals sympathetically, as long as they do not relate to offshore oil. That was set out in the White Paper "Devolution: Financing Devolved Services". That is the background, and I now move on to the new clause.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the White Paper went further than the right hon. Gentleman described. It indicated that if the devolved Assembly desired to have tax powers—for example, income tax powers—the Government would be prepared to consider that, which is rather more than the limited powers that the Minister was talking about.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to what I was saying. He will find in Hansard tomorrow that in my last three or four sentences I reiterated precisely what was said in the White Paper. I said that the Government had made clear that they would consider proposals sympathetically, as long as they did not relate to offshore oil. That is an important caveat. It is included in the White Paper and I repeat it because it was not put in lightly.
    The objections to the new clause are concerned with its misleading nature and the misunderstanding it is likely to cause. It ignores the cogent objections set out in the White Paper to various specific tax powers. It does nothing to answer the objections. It implies rather that they do not exist. Nor do I think that it reflects the very important proviso contained in the White Paper regarding

    113
    supplementary taxes on offshore oil which I have just mentioned.
    Secondly, the new clause implies that the Assembly requires statutory authority to communicate proposals to the Government, whereas the devolved administration will, in fact, have ready access to the Government on any matter of common concern. The Government have always emphasised their intention to have regular and broadly-based consultations with the Scottish administration. On this question of taxation, we have underlined our readiness to consider specific proposals sympathetically.
    What is more—and this is the third objection we offer to the incorporation of this amendment in the Bill—the amendment presupposes a strangely formalistic relationship between the devolved administration and the Government. The Government would expect any viable possibilities for tax powers to emerge not from a formal resolution of the Assembly but from general discussions and public debate, not only in Scotland but in the country at large. The formal adoption of proposals by the Assembly and their formal communication to the Government is hardly likely to be the most helpful way of ensuring progress.
    Given the way in which the consideration of subjects is likely to proceed, it would not be appropriate, we think, to require the Secretary of State to lay proposals before both Houses regardless of the form in which they might be—tentative, partly worked out or fully developed. The development of policy in matters of this kind is rarely capable of regulation in such a precise manner. We believe that it would be much wiser if matters were handled in a more informal way.
    Finally, the amendment is, I think, misleading—
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: My right hon. Friend is surely not suggesting that creating a formal basis for such proposals eventually made would preclude all the informal positive and good-faith discussions to which he has referred? Surely it would be perfectly feasible for the Assembly to conduct those discussions along the lines indicated and then, should it find difficulty, to make proposals under this formal mechanism, which would at least give Parliament an opportunity to join in those wide-ranging,
    114
    good-humoured and well-based discussions.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has not been listening to what I have been saying, because I made it quite clear that the Government wanted the matter to be discussed in that way. Of course, it does not preclude it. Despite the scarcely veiled note of sarcasm in his intervention—and I think I have been very generous in saying it was only scarcely veiled—my hon. Friend indicated that he believed the discussions would take place in a constructive fashion. What is the need, then, for having another formal method of communication?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Certain hon. Ladies and Gentlemen are unable to hear what the Minister is saying. Perhaps he would address the Chair and then the difficulty would be overcome.
    Mr. Smith: I beg the House's pardon. I know that the hon. Ladies and Gentlemen will be very interested in what I am saying on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) seemed to imply that I was saying that it would not be possible for the Assembly to have informal powers. I think that it is reasonable to say that if we set up the formal means of communication that rather implies that it is impossible to do it in any other way.
    I do not know what the purpose of this amendment is. It was never very fully explained in the House of Lords what its purpose was. I follow the argument which has been put forward as to whether there should be tax powers. That is a clear argument, which we have been involved in before. But this is a declaratory clause which merely says that the Assembly should have a statutory opportunity to communicate suggestions to the Government who would then lay them before Parliament. Whether that is satisfied by putting them in the Library or in a White Paper or actually producing a Bill which is to be knocked down on Second Reading in this House, I am not clear. I am not arguing about the question of taxation powers. I say that it really does not make any sense to put this provision into the Bill.
    There is one danger, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh,

    115
    Central will agree. It would be quite wrong to give the impression that the Bill envisaged the granting of tax powers as part of the devolution proposals. The Bill should be quite clear whether there are tax powers. There should be no misunderstanding by the electorate, particularly in the context of the referendum, as to what the Bill means. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who might take a marginally different view from me on some of these matters, will at least agree that the facts should be known to the public and that there should be as little misrepresentation as possible.
    I have read an article in The Daily Telegraph, or some such other organ, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) who said that he would vote for this clause. I think his argument amounted to saying that he had to be very crude in the referendum and that he would try to mislead as much as he could. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central would have no part of that, I am sure. He represents the respectable part of the Labour "Vote No" campaign. [Interruption.] I notice with interest the tender regard which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has for my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. I am afraid that it is very difficult to defend my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, because he has already pleaded guilty in The Daily Telegraph to the charge which I was seeking to make. He makes quite clear there that he will have to reply with crude slogans. One of those crude slogans is evidently centred on this amendment.
    I do not think that the House should agree with this amendment—despite the entertainment it might cause for my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian—on the basis that there ought to be any misleading parts in the Bill. It is quite clear that we must reach a decision on tax powers. We have reached consistent decisions on that by fairly large majorities of this House. The House of Lords thought it wise to put in this declaratory provision. It was a fairly narrow vote in the other place. I believe that it was carried by only one vote. We should look at the amendment critically and sceptically because I do not think that it improves the Bill.
    Mr. Leon Brittan: In opening this debate, the Minister said that the House was not called upon to consider whether it was a good thing for the Scottish Assembly to have tax powers. I suggest that he tried to confine the debate to a rather narrower position than could conceivably be right. Indeed, the remainder of his argument was inconsistent with his opening assertion, because he went on to say that one of the complaints about what the House of Lords had done was that it had ignored the objection to the particular forms of tax referred to in the White Paper.
    In making that point, the Minister is going into the merits of the matter of tax proposals and not confining himself to the form of them. It is quite clear that the reality of the situation is that the House of Lords considered the question of tax-raising powers for the Scottish Assembly, was sympathetic to the concept of those powers and proposed this amendment—which does not go very far —as a compromise measure with two ends in view. The first idea was that this House should, once again, have the opportunity of returning to the matter. Secondly, the idea was to provide at least some mechanism whereby the question of tax raising could be considered and have a place, however modest, in the Bill.
    Plainly, if one took the view that it was quite inappropriate for the Scottish Assembly to have tax-raising powers in any circumstances at all, this amendment would be one which one would have to oppose fearlessly and firmly. If we take the view that the Assembly ought never to have tax-raising powers any proposal of this kind is to be rejected.
    We have to consider, therefore, the merits of the whole question of tax-raising powers for the Assembly before we can come to a view on this amendment. We have to recognise that in debating this amendment we are at the very centre of the problems and difficulties posed by the Scotland Bill as a whole.
    If the Assembly is to be created with the wide powers conferred on it by the Scotland Bill, with the creation in Scotland of a separate Government and bureaucracy, I suggest that in principle the case for granting that Assembly revenue-raising powers is extremely

    117
    strong. It is perfectly understandable that in another place a method should have been devised for going some way along that road, because if we create an Assembly with a bureaucracy and a separate Government, with a separate Executive as well as with legislative powers, and do not give it any kind of revenue-raising power we are creating a large and powerful body which is financially irresponsible.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brittan: In one moment. I want to finish developing this point. I shall then certainly give way. If we do that, we shall be acting in a way which is inconsistent with the position affecting the humblest local authority which can raise rates and its own resources. The Scottish Assembly will be able to raise its own resources only by borrowing money or, alternatively, by, as it were, stealing it from the local authorities by taking the money away from the rate support grant which it would otherwise pass on.
    Mr. Canavan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward quite a good argument for revenue-raising powers. Will he tell us how he voted the last time that this matter was discussed in the House?
    Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman need be under no illusion on that score if he looks at the Division lists. He need be under no illusion when he has finished hearing me either. I shall make the position quite clear by the end of my speech, if he will bear with me. There will be no air of mystery. He may agree or disagree with me, but I promise that he will not be mystified.
    If we are to create this type of Assembly, there is a strong argument for revenue-raising power. We have only to look at what Layfield said in his report on local authority financing. He stressed that, without some element of revenue raising, it was not possible to have a responsible body with a responsible set of powers.
    Mr. Dewar rose—
    Mr. Brittan: I shall not give way at the moment in view of the guillotine. I may give way at a later stage if I have
    118
    not clarified the point, but I suspect that I may do so.
    If, on the other hand, we envisage the creation of an Assembly with revenue-raising powers, we should in all fairness recognise that such tax powers should be for topping up the amount provided by the block grant, not for providing the bulk of the money. If we accept that the resources should be available on the basis of Scotland's needs, not of its revenue-raising capacities, we should face the fact that we are considering only a topping-up operation.
    We can disguise it by saying that we shall hand over to the Scottish Assembly certain revenues derived from certain national taxes en bloc. We can, if we are clever, complete the disguise, or attempt to do so, by seeking to hand over the revenues from those taxes which approximate roughly to the amount that on a needs basis we think the Assembly should have. But it is artificial to do that. If we operate on a needs basis, we shall essentially be involved with the problem of equalisation which all federal countries have to face. At the end of the day, whether we have a block grant or revenue assigned from particular taxes, the balance either way that goes to or from the federal constituent part is calculated on the basis of need.
    Therefore, although we have sympathy with the House of Lords' approach and recognise that for an Assembly with these powers to be responsible it must have some form of revenue-raising power, we must accept that, as long as we are still committed to the proposition that what Scotland has to spend on Scottish needs should be dependent on those needs— a proposition to which I think the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House are committed—any revenue-raising power should broadly be for topping up the money that is provided by whatever mechanism. If we accept that proposition, the whole issue assumes a somewhat lower profile than might otherwise be the case.
    If we confine ourselves solely to a block grant arrangement, then, as the Opposition have pointed out again and again, we shall create a situation with this type of Assembly, which is in not a federal but a unitary State, which is redolent of and is bound to lead to conflict between

    119
    the devolved Assembly and the Westminster Parliament.
    The game is given away in one of the Government's earlier White Papers "Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales". In paragraph 100 we are told:
    "No neat formula could be devised to produce fair shares for Scotland (and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland) in varying circumstances from year to year. The task involves judgments of great complexity and political sensitivity."
    Even allowing for the anodyne language in which White Papers are customarily phrased, that must count as the understatement of the century. We all know that if the block grant is the sole means of revenue and the Scottish Assembly decides to spend more on housing and less on education, if at the end of the year, or at the end of four years, when the Scottish Government, as it will be, comes to the Treasury and says "We need more money for education; the block grant as a total must go up because our schools are now falling below the standards in Northumbria, Cleveland, North Yorkshire and Sussex", and the Treasury mandarin turns round with a sweet smile and says to the plenipotentiary of the Scottish Government "I am very sorry. You may have worse schools in Peebles than in Northumberland, in Aberdeen than in Sussex, but you have marvellous housing and education", that mandarin will get a pretty dusty answer. Moreover, protracting it for four years will make the acrimony even more bitter.
    The opportunity for the Scottish Assembly to make political capital out of what will be represented and seen to be the parsimony of the British Treasury faced with increasing needs from Scotland which are not met by a block grant which no longer reflects the needs of Scotland has been stressed before, but it needs stressing again. The scheme that the Government are inviting the House to legislate and will be inviting the people of Scotland to enact does nothing to prevent that kind of conflict from arising and does nothing to resolve the conflict when it arises.
    As we have pointed out, it is not just a question of every deficiency in Scottish administration being laid at the door of
    120
    Whitehall. The fact is that if we go along this road, we shall not be able to avoid an English financial backlash. As a Member for a north-eastern constituency, I know that, faced with a situation in which the block grant is paid over to what appears for the first time to be a separate Government as opposed to being spent by the United Kingdom Government for one part of the United Kingdom, I shall not be able to keep my constituents silent. I shall not be able to prevent them from pointing out that roughly 25 per cent. more per capita is spent on Scotland than on England and that the Scots pay £50 per head less in taxes. I shall not be able to avoid dealing with objections of that kind. I can now, but only just. I can now say that the needs of the United Kingdom are met on a United Kingdom basis. But when the needs of the United Kingdom are seen visibly to be met on the basis of a politically motivated haggle between two separate Governments, the pressures from the English backlash will grow.
    That is why we say that an Assembly that is dependent on this means of financing will create a source of conflict. That is at the very heart of the Government's scheme, and that is one of the things to which we most object. The financing of the Assembly is one of the central areas of conflict in the Bill and one of the main reasons for the Opposition not supporting an Assembly of this character. There is no means of solving this dilemma. The problems of conflict with England exist under the Government's arrangements, but they will not disappear even if revenue-raising power is given. As I pointed out—and I saw ministerial nods of assent at least to that part of my remarks—the block grant will still represent the bulk of the resources of the Assembly and the Executive, and the revenue raising at best can be only a topping-up operation.
    So if one went along that road there would remain the arguments about the proper size of the block grant in relation to the needs of Scotland. The Assembly would have to cover those needs with the block grant and use any revenue-raising powers it had only for special purposes. It is only in that way that the basic policy and philosophy of meeting Scotland's needs would be met.

    121
    There is therefore no solution to this problem within a scheme of this kind. In any event, no viable proposals have been put forward for revenue-raising powers. I find the arguments in the Government's White Paper convincing at least to the extent that they amount to a challenge to the advocates of revenue-raising powers to put forward a scheme that on the one hand is sufficient to raise a substantial amount of money which would give the Assembly some genuine extra discretion but on the other hand would not be extremely costly to administer in relation to the money raised. So far no one has responded to that challenge. The question was raised by the Liberal Party, I understand, in its discussions with the Government, but there has been no credible answer to it.
    As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, his old mentor Lord Kaldor addressed his mind to the problem but was unable, even with his wealth of experience of imposing taxes on countries all over the world, to find an answer that made sense in relation to the needs of Scotland and the structure of the Assembly and Executive proposed in the Bill.
    If someone has an answer to the problem and believes that there is a way of squaring the circle and of providing revenue-raising powers, that answer should be put into the Bill. That is why I greatly sympathise with the logical position taken in the House of Lords and recognise that if one is to create an Assembly such as this it makes no sense not to give it any kind of powers.
    Mr. Reid: Since there are oil resources worth about £200,000 million in Scottish waters, what percentage of the United Kingdom tax take does that represent over the next 10 years? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman looked at the question of mineral rights in the light of States' rights in Canada and the United States? When he speaks of his constituents, is he referring to them as British or English?
    Mr. Brittan: I am talking about the people who have the right to vote in the constituency of Cleveland and Whitby. There may be mysteries surrounding other matters, but there is none about who my constituents are. The hon. Gentleman's analogies with States of the United
    122
    States are false. We are repeatedly told by the Government, sometimes in short terms, that the Bill is not a federal Bill and that they are against federalism. If one had to consider solutions applied in a federal context one would have to consider a whole range of other matters. Therefore the hon. Gentleman provides no solution to the problem.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Government's position bears little scrutiny because they have given a ludicrous pledge which amounts to an admission of total failure. For various political reasons not unrelated to the Lib-Lab pact, they felt it necessary to make sympathetic noises, saying that if devolved administrations wished to have a limited supplementary taxing power and were ready to meet its administrative costs, the Government would be willing sympathetically to consider that in relation to anything but offshore oil.
    I cannot recall a wetter statement than that in a Government White Paper. I should have thought that any Government would listen to any proposal by a responsible elected body of this kind, and that statement adds little when reproduced in a White Paper. If the Government are to include wet, anodyne, politically motivated and meaningless statements of that kind in their White Paper they must not be surprised if the House of Lords passes an amendment of which analogous criticisms can be made. Therefore the Government are the authors of their own misfortune. There is no point in having such a pledge in the White Paper, and there is no point in having an anodyne opportunity to put forward proposals in an Act.
    Mr. John Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the White Paper as being wet, politically motivated and anodyne, and then said that there were analogous criticisms of the House of Lords amendment. Where is the political motivation in the amendment from the House of Lords?
    Mr. Brittan: I am not in a position to answer that, but I am dealing with the amendment in a way which I should have thought made it quite clear that, whatever the sponsors of the amendment may have had in mind, we do not share their view.
    Mr. Dalyell: I think that I can answer the Minister of State's question. The motivation came from people who are far more sympathetic to him than to me, and I think particularly of Lord Home who has been a great supporter of devolution.
    Mr. John Smith: Yes, but he is wet.
    Mr. Dalyell: The point is that the amendment was supported by those who are pro-devolution—I may have adjectives which I would not repeat—like Lord Home who want an Assembly, and I do not, but who think that if the Assembly is financially irresponsible, even from their point of view, it will not be a success.
    Mr. Brittan: I think that we can all stick to our own adjectives, but I say to the Minister of State that any adjective that he chooses to apply, particularly to distinguished former Prime Ministers ought not to be applied from a sedentary position—
    Mr. John Smith rose—
    Mr. Brittan: I will not give way to allow the Minister to make an allegation of that kind. This is too serious for a sedentary interjection.
    Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that the point I was making was that he used three adjectives—wet, politically motivated and anodyne—in connection with the White Paper. I take no objection to that. He can abuse it as much as he likes. He then went on to say that he made analogous criticisms of the House of Lords amendment. He must face the fact that if he thinks that either the amendment or the people who composed it are wet, politically motivated and anodyne, he should say so. I do not think that they are. It was he who introduced these adjectives into our discussion.
    Mr. Brittan: That will not do. Characteristically the Minister of State is flailing around at random as he gets into difficulties in his argument. All I would say about adjectives is that as long as we have a free parliamentary assembly the Opposition have the privilege to use the adjectives they choose in respect of the people to whom they wish to apply them. The right hon. Gentleman was
    124
    guilty just now of saying something which on reflection I am sure he will recognise is not true. He said, I think, that he was not applying adjectives to anyone. I do not wish to prolong this part of the argument, but I clearly heard the right hon. Gentleman refer to a former Prime Minister by means of a particular adjective.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by taking more time from a guillotined debate to discuss such a matter—
    Mr. Smith rose—
    Mr. Brittan: I will not give way.
    Mr. Smith: It is not true.
    Mr. Brittan: I will proceed to deal with the rest of the argument—
    Mr. Smith rose—
    Mr. Brittan: I will not give way: I have made that clear. These are serious issues and I have tried to make a serious speech, with which the Minister may or may not agree. No useful purpose is served by prolonging this aspect of the argument.
    The Government's so-called pledge in the White Paper is not worth the paper it is written on. That is what has caused the right hon. Gentleman to get so het up—because the truth sometimes hurts. The pledge may have been given for political purposes. One may be tempted to follow the line of the hon. Member for West Lothian and seek to include in the Bill something to enable one in a referendum campaign to discredit the Bill by saying, "The Assembly may have revenue-raising powers; there is already a proposal that it should have such powers. Do you want it to have the powers to put up taxes above those applying to England?" But we should not take such a fundamentally irresponsible attitude.
    Therefore, just as it is not right for a meaningless declaration to appear in a White Paper, similarly there is no place for it in an Act of Parliament. Above all, we should seek to avoid conflict where possible. The Lords amendment merely requires the Secretary of State to lay

    125
    proposals before Parliament. It does not even, strictly, ensure a debate on those proposals, but that is the most that it would ensure. If there were any support for proposals by the Scottish Assembly without the amendment it is inconceivable that they would not be debated in this House. If there were so little support for such proposals that there was no effective demand for a debate, a provision in the Bill which appeared to demand a debate would add yet another opportunity for conflict when, as we have said so often, there are enough to be getting on with.
    We do not favour an Assembly which sets up a whole separate government, with a bureaucracy, for Scotland as the Bill does, with the tax-raising powers which would logically and necessarily follow. But even if one favoured such an Assembly, the amendment has not solved the problem of what such powers should be. At the very most, it provides an imperfect mechanism for raising this whole issue in a manner at best superfluous and at worst likely to lead to further conflict on top of the great amount of possible conflict which is already embedded in the heart of the Bill. It is for that reason that I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.
    Mr. George Robertson: It is surprising that this debate, which was to last for about 75 minutes, was preceded by a debate in which lengthy periods were devoted to speculating whether the Scottish Assembly would be part-time or full-time. If we take those lengthy speeches as an indication of the subject matter which will be considered by the Assembly, it is virtually guaranteed that it will meet for the maximum time available.
    However, the hypothetical nature of some speeches may be out of perspective and outside the context of devolution. As the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said, we are talking about opportunities for conflict. Those opportunities are hypothesised from a number of conceivable circumstances. The argument is then extended into areas in which, it is said, conflict is not just possible but will be made inevitable by the creation of the Assembly.
    126
    I have been a Member of this House for six weeks tomorrow. Anyone coming into this institution and considering its apparatus and facilities and the powers and constitution within which it operates could speculate for many hours on the opportunities for conflict which are apparent here. We exist as an institution within an unwritten constitution because of good will on both sides and within the country. To suppose that similar good will would not exist in the Scottish Assembly begs an enormous number of questions.
    We exist in unbelievable circumstances, without any constraints, apparently without any need for a written constitution, yet we have the arrogance to assume that conflicts, dangers and possibilities of all kinds will arise simply because we create a legislature in Scotland.
    Part of the problem in debating the Lords amendments is that we must comprehend not only their precise language but also the motivation behind them. We have learned, only at the end of the hon. and learned Member's speech, that the Opposition would not support Lords Amendment No. 85. That is something of a surprise to those of us who have taken the trouble to plough through the lengthy Lords debates on this matter, especially when we see that practically the whole of the Opposition Front Bench voted for the amendment.
    It is important also to note that the amendment was carried by a majority of one. What is intriguing and will inevitably give rise to comment in the debates which follow on the constitution and the composition of the other place in the future running of this country is that if one discounts the hereditary peers for that vote, as well as for a large number of others, a radically different result is clear. Instead of a majority of one for the amendment, it would have been defeated by 27 votes.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hill-head): In making that calculation, was the hon. Gentleman counting as nonhereditary peers hereditary peers of first creation, or was he not counting them?
    Mr. Robertson: On this and a number of other Lords amendments, I calculated that those hereditary peers who were in

    127
    the Chamber for the first time should be counted as life peers, as being created in their own right, and that those hereditary peers who were there because they were now life peers, again the next time around, were also to be taken as life peers. The majority was still 27 votes against the amendment.
    In any event, we are here considering an amendment which says something but which really says nothing at all. It is interesting that the Opposition in this Chamber now so clearly disagree with the views of the Opposition in the other Chamber. I believe very strongly that the Scottish Assembly should have tax-raising powers. I believe that it will be weakened seriously in the long term if it is denied tax-raising powers. It can be strengthened effectively as a legislative Assembly in the future only if it has the power to levy taxes and to take responsibility for those taxes. But, having said that, I disagree very strongly with Lords Amendment No. 85. Apparently it says that there is a simple formula for establishing a tax-based system.
    After this debate, should this amendment be agreed to—which clearly will not happen—it will be suggested that there was some mechanism which usefully could be brought into operation and which would allow taxation to be levied.
    Mr. Reid: The hon. Member agrees very strongly with tax-raising powers for the Scottish Assembly. What sort of tax-raising powers has he in mind?
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Member will allow me to finish, I shall try to establish that I and a large number of other people in Scotland, if asked which tax-raising powers could be levied bearing in mind the restraints we have placed upon ourselves, would find it very difficult to say. I believe strongly that it is the Assembly itself which eventually will have to take the initiative in this matter. I do not believe that establishing formulae which are not formulae but which give the appearance that there is a short route through which suggestions can go is the right answer.
    Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 still leaves the major initiative in terms of revenue-raising power with Westminster. How-
    128
    ever, at some stage I think that the Assembly itself will have to face the prospect of levying the taxes and taking responsibility for doing so. At this stage, however, given the constraints which most people agree are already there about introducing a tax system, we shall have to content ourselves with looking to the future for that.
    Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend may be a fairly new Member of Parliament, but he is as experienced as any of us in this argument because he occupied important and pivotal positions in the discussions in Scotland. Therefore, it is fair to ask him to ponder how it is that after four or five long years, with his experience and mine, given the resources of the Treasury, the Privy Council Office, the Scottish Council of the Labour Party and heaven knows who else, with a public request from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to economists up and down the length of the kingdom to come up with something, not one practical proposal has emerged? How can the Assembly think of a practical proposal when the rest of us, some of whom have had great motivations for doing so, have failed?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend attempts to suggest that no one has come up with any suggestions. In fact, large numbers of people have come up with an even larger number of suggestions for levying taxes. The Scottish National Party, for example, is full of suggestions. Various permutations are invented every day.
    However, at the moment the discussion is taking place in a vacuum. The Scottish Assembly does not yet exist. If any suggestion is to be considered seriously, it has to be a tax proposal which fits into the constraints of the United Kingdom with which we agree and which I believe the Assembly will agree. But it is one that the Assembly will devise. It is one for which the Assembly will be able and willing to take responsibility. Only that form of tax system and not one imposed by this House prior to the Assembly being established will do the strengthening of the legislation which will be necessary at the end of the day.
    I do not believe that by going into a referendum and by pretending that here in Lords Amendment No. 85 we have

    129
    a formula which will allow the Assembly at some later stage to come up with an invention which will be thrown out by the House of Commons is the way to resolve this problem. I believe that there are possibilities for taxation and that they can be examined. The principle is clear cut, and I think that most people now agree with it. However, we have not got the formular exactly correct, and Lords Amendment No. 85 in no way goes near enough the formula which clearly at this stage will establish a basis for a strong, powerful and meaningful Assembly.
    Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: From the way that the debate has gone so far no one would think that we were operating under a guillotine. Many of us are trying to make our contributions to these debates. I promise to be very brief because in my view it is important in these debates that the opinions of as many hon. Members as possible are heard.
    Given that the House of Lords had this debate and made this amendment, we see demonstrated the serious way in which it has dealt with this Bill and sought to find means of improving it. The fact that this amendment is rejected by the Government should not lead anyone to denigrate the House of Lords for what it has tried to do.
    I do not intend to go over all the arguments, especially those put forward so eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), about the desirability of the Assembly having tax-raising powers. If the Assembly had tax-raising powers, I think it would be very much more responsible and very much more effective as a result.
    I believe that the Government probably are right in rejecting this Lords amendment because what it proposes does not stand up in practical terms to very much scrutiny. But that brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). How is it that in five years, despite all the Government's invitations, no one has come up with a solution? In my view, the reason does not lie in any blame that can be attached to the Bill, because I do not think that the Bill lends itself to solutions to problems of tax raising and so on.
    130
    The criticism is much more basic and fundamental, and I touched upon it in our debate in Committee. It is simply that the taxation system is so overcentralised that unless we are prepared to try to reform it in a radical way, it is impossible to break down and delegate or devolve taxation in any way. The hon. Member for West Lothian is right when he suggests that there is no answer to this question to be found in a Bill such as this. There cannot be. The answer can come only if we are prepared to look at our fiscal system and take away from it the centralisation which we have at present.
    I do not intend to take the argument any further. It is obvious to all of us. We know it from the way that PAYE works, and VAT has followed it. We have a highly centralised, top-heavy administration.
    I regret that we are unable to write into the Bill some tax-raising powers for the Scottish Assembly. I regret that the House of Lords, like the rest of us, has failed to come up with a practical workable solution. I hope that the Scottish Assembly works. I hope that parallel with the Assembly being set up, a future Conservative Government will take the opportunity of looking at the basis and structure of taxation to see whether we cannot break it down and introduce some decentralisation. At the end of the day, that will not only enable tax-raising powers to be given to the Scottish Assembly at a later stage; at the same time it will also solve some of those difficult problems in local government to which Layfield drew attention. If only it can be looked at in that way, I believe that we shall find an answer at the end of the day.
    Mr. Buchan: I am glad to be called to speak after the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) because frequently in the past in these discussions I have found myself in a great deal of agreement with him. He is perfectly right. The reason that we have not come up with a solution is not that there is not a solution but that no one is prepared to face up to the solution.
    It is perfectly feasible to have income tax, for example, applied in the Scotland context and applied by the Assembly,

    131
    within the topping-up concept, if it were not for the complexities of shifting it. I think that it will be expensive and administratively difficult. But it is a nonsense to say that it is not possible. Of course it is possible, and it is what I think should happen. I think that it is the fairest tax and the best. I shall deal more with that shortly.
    I make one point in passing. It is not simply because of over-centralisation of taxation. Part of the problem about income tax is not so much over-centralisation but the attempt to have dispersal of part of the functions of various Government offices in different places, which have then run in a cross-border direction and, sometimes with the best of intentions have produced this peculiar difficulty.
    Mr. Reid: Does the hon. Member accept that the Inland Revenue itself, giving evidence to Kilbrandon, said that it would be relatively easy to shift all income tax matters back to Scotland and that the net cost would be about £7 million, creating 2,000 jobs?
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member had better be very careful when he talks about creating jobs because his party's policy would strip Scotland of many thousands of civil servants' jobs which are done for the whole of the United Kingdom or for England and Wales. We should lose 5,000 jobs in the Post Office Savings Bank tomorrow with an independent Scotland, because 95 per cent. of the accounts are from England and Wales. The hon. Member cannot have his cake and eat it, even in Alloa and Clackmannan.
    The other tax is the sales tax. Why not have a sales tax? It would be fairly easy to apply. It is applied in the United States. The answer, again, is that it would be unpopular. No one would like it. There are taxations in various parts of the Federal Republic of Germany which, to my mind, certainly run as far counter to the EEC as a sales tax would in Scotland. I see no reason why that could not be a possible solution. The reason that it is not accepted is that it would be unpopular and everyone is scared to bring it forward.
    The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said that in this debate we were getting to the heart of the matter. He took 30
    132
    minutes to say anything at all. It was a most tedious speech and was not helpful. In the course of it, he neither clarified the historical fact whether the Conservative Party had supported tax-raising powers in the past, nor made clear in his last sentence whether he would abstain, as usual, on this occasion. I am not yet sure whether the hon. and learned Member will abstain or vote against. No doubt the passing of time will encourage him, if not to be wet, at least to act decisively for once.
    The real heart of the matter is that those of us who are concerned with this know that we are facing not only opportunities in an Assembly but great dangers, too. All of us are concerned that we remove the dangers. It is no use my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) saying that, after all, this place operates only on the basis of good will. It operates on two things.
    It operates first because we have had centuries of growth of custom and habit, and a modus vivendi has developed which we all accept. When one has a new creation, one does not have it at that period of time, and it is in that situation that the danger of a possible crack-up occurs. That is the first point.
    Secondly, I agree completely that if we were to write out the British constitution, it would look a very strange bird indeed and we could all shoot it down in flames. But the reason that it can exist and the reason for that good will is that there is an acceptance that the State as we now have it, the United Kingdom, should continue as a United Kingdom. But the problem and the dangers that we face in the Scottish Assembly lie in the belief that there is at least one political party that does not accept that concept of a United Kingdom.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) is nodding in agreement. This is a historical moment. The hon. Member agrees that his party does not accept the United Kingdom. This is the first time that SNP Members have admitted that they exist to break up the United Kingdom. Hitherto they have denied it. It is very interesting. I must thank the hon. Member for that first admission. I have taken two years to get it out, and, lo and behold, we get it out by accident.

    133
    The SNP is devoted to that principle. Therefore, the question of financial opportunities for the Assembly becomes important, because without finance-raising power we are facing an irresponsible Assembly.
    8.15 p.m.
    At present, if I argue the case for a new school in my constituency, I must accept that I have also to accept the consequences, which is more taxes or more rates. Only that is what makes councillors responsible. Only that makes the Government and Members of Parliament ultimately responsible—that we have to face up to the financial consequences of our own actions. Without finance-raising powers—and this is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, as I do, accepts this—that irresponsibility exists in which demands can be made, and the demands can be literally insatiable, because there is nothing to stop the demands being made and there is no means of satisfying them except at an unfair expense on the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dewar: Would not my hon. Friend accept that responsibility will be bred by choice and that one has to afford one's school at the expense of something else, and that choice, in fact, is responsibility? Does he accept that the logic of his argument is that as the direct grant slice of local government revenue increases, by definition local authorities must be getting more irresponsible by the day? That seems to be a very unfair way of looking at the matter.
    Mr. Buchan: There are two points to be made here. I accept, of course, that a great deal of responsibility comes from choice, if we have to decide between a road and a school. But in this case that choice is not present. It will be said "We want both the road and the school, and it is the people in London who are preventing us from having them." That is the whole problem. The restraint of choice in bringing responsibility applies only when the people who have to apply the choice and face up to the consequences of that choice are those who are taking the financial responsibility.
    I would love to be asked whether I wanted a road or a school when someone else was to pay for it. I would say "I
    134
    want both". Indeed, it will then become a duty upon the Assembly to ask for both. It will take a great deal of restraint on the part of the Assembly without that safeguard. That is why I think that one of the three pillars on which I gave my support for the Assembly is now missing without the financial aspect.
    It is for this reason that I am slightly chary about the answer given by my right hon. Friend. I am a little fed up with Governments dealing with amendments and saying "We want you to reject this amendment because it is not necessary" —one—"and because it does not achieve anything"—two. If it is not necessary, it does not seem a very important reason for removing it. I think that there is a greater danger, and that is that it might create the illustion that we have written in finance-raising powers. I accept that the Minister said that. That was his third point.
    But there is also a useful place for the declaratory in legislation. As a result of today's debate, if we leave that impression by not supporting the amendment—I cannot support it for the reasons given—we would be in a graver danger if we suggested that we would, therefore, stop the quest or the push to achieve finance-raising powers for the Assembly.
    My right hon. Friend was right in saying that there is nothing to stop this discussion going on in any case, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the initial attitude of the Assembly will tend to be "What can we get out of the present negotiating position on the block grant?", instead of saying "We have to get our heads together to see what solution to come up with."
    The only sensible thing, in some ways, that the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby said—he did not say much in half an hour—I will forgive him, it has gone completely from my mind. It was so difficult to ascertain the point that was concrete in his half an hour that it has completely slipped my mind.
    I should like to see going out from the House a message to say, first, that the finance-raising power is necessary for the Assembly; secondly, that it is not true and not correct to say that it cannot be achieved; thirdly, that the Assembly as well as the community must bend its

    135
    mind, to finding a solution; and, fourthly, that this House will be receptive to solutions when they come forward, and irrespective of the rejection of this particular amendment, the House will be prepared to discuss and examine closely what proposals come forward without the illusion that, because they are difficult, therefore solutions are impossible. It is the end of the line for all political thought if we say that, because there are difficulties, it is impossible. It is not, and it is time that we recognised that we have solutions.
    Mr. Grimond: I certainly do not intend to trample over the ground of taxation again. I am in favour of a type of federalism for Scotland. If we had agreed on that, we should have found this matter a great deal easier in many ways, and one of them would be the question of taxation.
    I agree that at present there is every possibility not only of conflict but of extremely unfortunate pressures being brought not so much on the Scottish Parliament as on the Scottish Government. The view is that they could be constantly pressing the United Kingdom Government for more money which they could not raise themselves and that they might well be tempted to raid the rate equalisation grant. I believe that the fact that the Executive and the Scottish Assembly will have no power over the economy or the nationalised industries is one of the most serious deficiencies in the Bill.
    I am rather puzzled about the Consevative Party's attitude. I understand that it is in favour of devolution of some sort and of taxing powers being given to the Scottish Assembly, whatever it may be, so I should have thought that the inevitable conclusion was that one must have some sort of federal system. However, I am not sure that that is the conclusion that the Conservative Party has come to.
    It is not only a question of establishing the Assembly. It is also extremely important to devolve taxing powers to local government—and here I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Nearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that taxation is far too centralised. I am therefore very much disposed to view this amendment rather favourably.
    136
    The argument against it, as I understand the Minister, is that it would create uncertainty. But I do not know that it would create any more uncertainty than most of the Bill does. That does not seem to me to be a convincing argument. From what he said, I understand also that the Government would be willing to give taxing powers if they could only think some up.
    Here I agree with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). If the Government really wanted to give taxing powers to the Assembly, there are all sort of taxes that they could give it. It would be very much easier if we had a proper federal structure, but I should be delighted if it could be done. To say that it cannot be done is rather like the situation before the war when people said "The country must be defended; are you going to buy Spitfires or Hurricanes?" It was the responsibility of the Government to decide whether to buy one or the other. It is not the business of the Opposition to tell them what to do in such circumstances. Therefore, it seems to me that if we are all agreed that taxing powers should be given to the Assembly we should find some way of doing it.
    Mr. Dalyell: Now that we are four years into this argument, the right hon. Gentleman says that taxing powers can be given even if we do not have a federal State, in which, I agree, it would be much easier. But he has access among his colleagues to Professor Peacock and others who think like him. Why have they not come up with something?
    Mr. Grimond: I cannot enlighten the hon. Gentleman why other people have not come up with proposals for taxing powers. My argument is that if I am put into the Government, I shall come up with a federal system that will have taxing powers, for I shall then have the Civil Service at my disposal and a lot of other help of that sort. I am not prepared to say exactly what the taxes should be.
    The other argument of the Minister of State against the amendment was that it would make no difference because the Assembly could put forward proposals. The answer to that, first, is that if the amendment makes no difference one might as well accept it. But I see that that argument will not be wholly convincing to everyone here.

    137
    In fact, I think that the amendment does make a certain amount of difference. It seems one thing to say, quite rightly, that the Executive can make proposals of a non-formal sort to the United Kingdom Government about taxing powers but that these proposals in the amendment would have to be done formally. They would do what the House would want done—that is to say, with the Civil Service at the disposal of Scotland, the proposals would have to be worked out and then laid before this House and debated. I do not say that that would be a very great advantage but there is more to be said for it than has been said so far.
    Secondly, by writing the amendment into the Bill we should at least firmly draw attention in the Bill to the awful hiatus of taxing powers. We should be drawing the attention of the Assembly to this great failure of the Bill. It is agreed on both sides of the House to be a failure of the Bill, and at least we should be saying to the Assembly "You put forward proposals on this matter, which we have failed to deal with." At least such proposals must be seriously put. While I am not a great advocate of the amendment, I think that it does not deserve to be brushed aside quite so unanimously as it has been.
    Mr. Dewar: I agree that it would be possible to have taxation powers for the Scottish Assembly. It is not absolutely impossible. When looking at the various proposals for direct or indirect taxation we see that it is a question where the balance of convenience lies. Are they too expensive to collect? Are they too clumsy? Would they lead to difficulty in the internal economy of the United Kingdom? I must confess—although I say it with sorrow, but less than some other hon. Members—that I have come to the conclusion that all the schemes brought to my notice have substantial objections in terms of practicality or expense or of in-gathering.
    While I would not close my mind to the possibility of taxing powers for the Assembly, I have not been convinced by any of the proposals from the Liberal Party or from the Scottish National Party or anywhere else that we have found the key to the problem. I do not say that with quite the same sorrow as most hon.
    138
    Members have shown who have spoken in the debate, because I am a slightly unusual figure in the devolution controversy. I strongly believe in the Assembly, its usefulness and its ability to improve the government of Great Britain. But I do not couple that position with a determination that in some way the whole operation is flawed or in danger of being destroyed because no taxation powers are attached to it.
    A great deal of ingenuity has been exercised in both Houses of Parliament. The theory that seems to have been taken up by most people is that if one is to have representation taxation must go with it. Indeed, there were suggestions that without the taxation powers we shall be seeing in Scottish harbours the Boston Tea Party in reverse. That was suggested by more than one noble Lord in another place, and I must confess I could not understand the relevance. But that was how strongly they felt on the issue.
    I do not accept that that is the position. After all, the Scottish taxpayer will still be paying his taxes to one part of the sovereign Parliament—that is the House of Commons and the United Kingdom Administration—and he will have representation both in the House of Commons and in the Assembly. It is not a case of people being taxed and not represented. Indeed, as opponents of the Bill are constantly pointing out, there is perhaps too much representation to go with the taxation and not too little.
    I cannot see any reason why, if in general political terms there is a strong case for it, there is some sort of constitutional heresy in suggesting that the money should be collected at the United Kingdom level—by the Westminster tier of Government—and that a tranche should then be cut out of it and given to the Assembly, which would administer it, spend it and legislate. There is nothing basically wrong in that situation, and I should be prepared to stay with it.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: The whole objection is not that the taxation will be raised at the Westminster level but that, by the nature of the tax raised at Westminster, it will be collected on a United Kingdom basis and thus, those elected in Scotland who may vote and decide on better services in Scotland will not be responsible

    139
    for going back to the electorate and explaining to the voters that they will have to pay for those better services.
    Mr. Dewar: I do not see the argument that, because one is not collecting the taxes oneself but has merely been given the job of spending the budget, one is in some way going to be irresponsible. It seems a quaint idea, which has been advanced again and again, that in some way a non-elected board can spend money and not be irresponsible, but as soon as people are elected one has to be raising taxes at that point and at that level of government. Let us take the analogy with local authorities, because it is a fair one.
    I put this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) but he did not get round to dealing with it. If those hon. Members who make this point are right, we are facing an extremely dangerous and alarming situation with local government. We all know that local authorities year after year are depending more and more on money raised by the central Government and less and less on the money they raise through their own form of taxation, the rates. Well over half the authorities—the figure would be up to 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. in the Highlands region—are not raising the money themselves but have it handed down to them by the central Government to spend.
    8.30 p.m.
    The wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West is a member of the Strathclyde regional council. I know the lady. Occasionally I may think that she is irresponsible, but I do not think that, by definition, she is getting more irresponsible year by year because she is raising less of her money herself and getting more and more of it handed down in the form of a budget. It is an argument which I do not accept.
    Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is wrong, if I may say so, and I am sorry that he made reference to a particular person. The trouble is that one knows how irresponsible the press can be. I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in his analogy with local government, for two reasons. First, local government has tax-raising powers, and ratable value, and this con-
    140
    tinues, even though it has been decreased. Secondly, it is the case that all local authorities continually seek more from central Government for more and more projects. Very many of the applications being made by local government are rejected by the central Government.
    The difficulty is that we are facing a polarised situation in which all the demands are coming from one section and all the rejections are being made by another body. It is the polarisation of the argument that is the danger here. There is no danger, even with my wife in Strathclyde, of that body announcing UDI.
    Mr. Dewar: I apologise if I embarrassed my hon. Friend. My comment was not meant in any way to be embarrassing. It was just an example that was to hand.
    I should like to sum up what I feel about this. I do not believe that the Scottish Assembly willl be irresponsible in the classic sense, because it is an elected body. It has an electorate to which it must answer and which can call it to account. I do not think that it will be irresponsible in the other sense, because it has choice as a discipline. At the end of the day it has to decide how to spend its money. It has to make itself clear as to its priorities. It has to answer to its electorate for those choices and those priorities. I do not believe, therefore, that it will be irresponsible in that broader sense, either.
    I do not rule out the possibility, at the end of the day, of having taxation powers. If new schemes are proposed, I shall certainly be prepared to look at them. I come down against the schemes which are on the table at the moment. I do not think that this is a fatal impediment to the success of the Assembly, which, I hope, will take wise decisions in the legislative field and wise decisions in the field of public expenditure in Scotland.
    I do not want to dwell on this, because I want to be brief, but it is interesting to look at the debates in the Lords. After all, the reason that the amendment is before us is that the Lords, and particularly Lord Vaizey, as well as Lord Harmar-Nicholls, produced proposals which they hoped would become practical suggestions for giving taxation powers to the Assembly. They all fell down, or were

    141
    withdrawn, or were not pressed, because it was realised that they were flawed.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: That is not so, with respect to my hon. Friend. Lord Vaizey, in the speech in which he withdrew the amendment, made it perfectly plain that his sole reason for withdrawing it was that it was trespassing on the prerogative of the House of Commons to put forward matters relating to taxation. It is quite wrong of my hon. Friend to pretend that the position was any different from that.
    Mr. Dewar: I thought that there were other reasons, and certainly many other objections were raised in the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) would certainly be voting against Lord Vaizey's suggestion, because Lord Vaizey was not arguing on the needs principle at all but was departing from it. He was suggesting that we should have a system whereby, if the Scottish Assembly decided to raise additional taxation which had to be borne by the Scottish people, it would, if it decided to reduce taxation, have it taken out of the block grant. If the total revenue available to the Scottish Assembly were not sufficient to meet the needs of the Scottish people, that would be just too bad. That was Lord Vaizey's argument, as I understand it, and it obviously would not meet with the approval of the hon. and learned Member, if I understood his speech earlier this evening.
    Perhaps the point that was made by Lord McCluskey ought to be repeated in this House. Suppose we take even 10 per cent. of the block grant at current rates, and assume that we are talking of about £200 million, we are looking then at about 15 per cent. of the estimated income tax take in Scotland, at 45 per cent. of the total rates take, and probably—although it would be very impractical to separate it out—at about 130 per cent. to 140 per cent. of corporation tax.
    To have a proper system at all, the top-up, in order to produce even 10 per cent. of the block grant, or something of that order, will have to be a very substantial impost upon the taxpayer of Scotland, if it is a form of direct taxation. For that reason, therefore, I do not think that it would be practical.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: It would be unpopular, too.
    Mr. Dewar: I think that in terms of current politics it would be impractical, and it would be undesirable, too, because it would lead to various distortions within the United Kingdom.
    In a sense, this Lords amendment is not of great practical significance but it is of some symbolic significance, and it is meant to be of some symbolic significance. As I have said, their Lordships could not produce a practical scheme, and they withdrew from the brink of actually writing something into the Bill. Instead, they said that they would put this provision in as a marker of future intent, as an incitement, as I see it, to try to keep in people's minds the intention that the Assembly is expected to produce such a scheme at some future date.
    In my view, we do not need any such marker. We are all aware that this will be a continuing subject for debate. It is one which, as I have said, I may pursue with less enthusiasm than some hon. Members may show, but we have the assurance of the Minister of State that the Government would be prepared to look at any scheme which was produced. As has been said, if a scheme is produced —if it is plausible and if it has the support of the Assembly—it is inconceivable that time would not be found, if only by the Opposition, if I may say so, to embarrass the Government by such a debate on the Floor of the House.
    It seems to me, therefore, that this is an exhortatory clause, and I disagree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West in that I do not like clauses of that nature. By and large, clauses in Bills ought to do something; they should change or lay down the law and not merely exhort or incite us towards a discussion at some future date. Because I do not like that kind of clause, I hope that it will be resisted by the House tonight.
    Mr. Reid: The last three speeches have demonstrated that there is a basic lack of political will in the House to allow the Scots people revenue-raising powers. All hon. Members know that if that will existed it could be done. They know that the Government of Alberta in Canada have basic mineral rights. States within

    143
    the USA have basic oil rights. Going back 50 years, hon. Members know very well that Northern Ireland got specific revenue-raising powers. Therefore, as I say, if the will existed to give the Assembly tax powers, it could be done.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) talked about the balance of convenience in terms of the Scots Assembly having revenue-raising powers. His real problem, as he knows very well, is that the Treasury is the enemy and, as long as we have Keynesian demand management throughout the United Kingdom, the people of Scotland will never get off the ground in terms of growth and the eradication of poverty.
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) gave us a nice warm woolly speech which dribbled away a bit. The most important centralist speech of all, I think, came from the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). It seems to me at times that the hon. Gentleman so adores talking about politics that he is inclined to miss the basic point. He castigated the SNP in terms of étatisme, as he so often does, but he is still the same Member who, I believe, has a certain warm attachment for the Basques as a nation without a state, and certainly he and his Left-wing friends in the Tribune Group are prepared to call for the smallest speck of an island in the Pacific to be given its independence and its rights in terms of its guano—that is, being given its basic resources and therefore home taxation powers.
    Mr. Buchan: First, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his opening comment. It is not true that the last three speeches showed a lack of political will. On the contrary, two out of the three—those by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and by myself—stressed precisely the will for that kind of taxation.
    Second, the members of the Tribune Group or I or anyone else who loves freedom has never denied the right of any people to have their independence if they choose. But nor do we deny the right of those who do not choose independence to say so. We give the Scottish people the complete right to choose independence if they want it. The hon. Gentleman must
    144
    give us the right to recommend that that is not the correct course. That is the difference between people who are suffering oppression and who have universally demanded independence and the myth which the hon. Gentleman creates about oppression in Scotland.
    Mr. Reid: If I were sitting on the Government side, I should be very concerned about the Scots people having taxation powers, because I think that that would be the way to try to stop the Scots going all the way to independence. What will happen in Edinburgh is that, once the Assembly is set up, the Scots people will find that they have been sold a pup, because the level of expectation has been raised out of all proportion to what the Assembly itself can deliver. The Scots people will then say "We have been told by a Government which promised the Scots people a "powerhouse" that the Scottish Assembly can do such-and-such on education, such-and-such on roads and such-and-such on other forms of expenditure". But they will find that the basic needs element is utterly determined by this House. Thereafter they will say "Since we have an Assembly, that Assembly should advance further, using Scottish resources, to full independence, because that is the only way we can get our country moving economically".
    That was the basic question which I put to the Tory Front Bench. I asked what percentage of United Kingdom tax-take would come from Scotland over the next 10 years, and how it would be spent. I got no answer whatever. It reminds me of the lines in Punch:
    "When Mr. De Valera,
    Changed Ireland's name to Eire,
    Britain did not change her name,
    She remained England just the same."
    That is the traditional English response in this House: Britain cannot change her name; she must remain England just the same. That is why Members argue that only through Keynesian demand management, and only by taking the United Kingdom economy as one global whole, can this country be kept on a common tack.
    I come back to the question of Left-wing Labour Members, and also Conservative Members, who believe in the sovereign rights of the United Kingdom. I want to take the point in terms of the Common Market. I find it rather curious

    145
    that if we sat in this Chamber with a Parliament in Brussels laying down levels of expenditure—"There is your block grant. England—Britain?—now go and spend it"—howls of protest would arise both from the Left wing and the Right wing about interference in sovereign British affairs. Of course, that is exactly what is happening to my country—Scotland—in terms of this Bill.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I thought that the hon. Gentleman supported the Common Market, so what is he belly-aching about?
    Mr. Reid: I support the Common Market simply because I do not believe in utter sovereignty. I think that each small country—I take Britain to be a small country—must put a bit of its sovereignty into the common pot. I believe that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) still thinks that the United Kingdom is in the same league as the Soviet Union, China and the United States. At this point in time, that view is rather absurd.
    I am sure that hon. Members will accept that right from the start the SNP has put forward a very simple form of dealing with this problem. We have gone back to something which the hon. Member for Garscadden has let slip away from his boyhood past. We have returned to what the founding members of the Labour Party—the ILP, the Maxtons, the Kirkwoods and the Keir Hardies—put forward in terms of relationships between the people of Scotland and the other nations of the United Kingdom. We have said, as in the Barr Bill, that there should be a Scots treasury taking all personal taxation, all royalties, all revenues in Scotland. These imposts should go into a common Scots pot. In terms of devolved services vis-a-vis continuing imperial services, be it defence or foreign affairs, let us find what the difference is and we shall then pay back the difference from a Scots treasury to a United Kingdom treasury. That strikes me as being a very reasonable way of doing things.
    I return to my basic point: if the political will existed, this House could put revenue-raising powers through. But we know what the difficulty on the Labour Benches is. In the 302 hours of debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill
    146
    and on the Scotland Bill, we have all heard the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West and from hon. Members from the north-east, Merseyside and Tyneside. They are frightened that Scotland will steal a march on the rest of the United Kingdom. They are frightened that by getting a cut of their own resources the people of Scotland will get a better deal than the people of Merseyside.
    I come back to the point which was put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. I look at this question in terms of a European whole. I should feel happier about the Labour Party if it held out its hand to its fellow Socialists in Belgium, Holland and Germany instead of sitting like curious, imperialist little moles. I should feel happier if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and his hon. Friends did not feel that abroad was bad. I am prepared to sink my country into a European identity. I wonder wheher he is prepared to lose his own basic imperialism.
    8.45 p.m.
    Finally, Scotland's basic problem is that in the Assembly we are being invited to rob Peter to pay Paul. The Scots people have been taught by the Labour Party that through the Assembly they will get better houses, better roads, better hospitals and better nursery schools, that Nirvana is coming. It is a con, because no new money at all is involved. The Labour Members of the Assembly are to be the new Scottish czars, because the whole thing is a con.
    I support the Assembly for the one reason: that it is the most that we can get from this House. I look forward to constitutional change when we move from the present Keynesian economic structure to the sort of structure which is found in Canada, in Germany and in the United States where there is resource-based expenditure for one's own people in one's own land. That is the way things are going, and it is right that Members of the Assembly—be they Labour, Tory, SNP or Liberal—should at least have the chance to devise their own economic structure.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words towards the end of this debate because it enables me to go back to the speech

    147
    of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) which I would rather do than follow the many different openings presented by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid).
    With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, I put it to him that he confused the concept of being sensible with that of being responsible. I have not the slightest doubt that those elected to the Scottish Assembly will be sensible, down-to-earth people with both feet on the ground and without their heads in the clouds. I am quite convinced that they will wish to make a go of it.
    Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Members of the Assembly are being put in a situation in which they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions. They are not responsible for the financial consequences of what they may propose for public services. That means that they are not responsible for ensuring that the programme that they put before the electorate has the financial counterpart to it.
    We are all familiar with what that means when we run for Westminster, and every local councillor is conscious of what it means when he runs for his local council, despite anything that my hon. Friend may say. Having been in local government, I can assure him that everybody in local government—however small the proportion that is raised from rates—is very conscious that public expenditure at local level can have a rating consequence which is electorally unpopular. Therefore, when local councillors or those at local level put forward a programme for an election which contains proposals for better public services they are conscious that they must be prepared to take the consequences, which is greater taxation or greater rates.
    It is also perfectly feasible for the other side—as it appears that the Tories will do at the next election—to put forward a programme for worse public services but on the basis that it will be possible to cut taxation and the rates and the money will be able to go into people's pockets. Both those things are perfectly feasible.
    However, the position in which we are putting Members of the Assembly does not match either of those situations. They
    148
    will not be responsible—I will not go into whether they will be irresponsible—for the financial consequences of the programme that they will be putting before the electorate. What the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire said was correct. Members of the Assembly will therefore be encouraged to bid up public expectations because it will be in the interests of every party to put forward a programme for the best public services because no party will be asked how it proposes to raise the taxation. We are going through that process to raise public expectations when the real crisis facing western democracy at present is one of rising expectations which we cannot satisfy.
    I do not believe that there is no solution to the problem, that there is no way in which we can find taxes. Indeed, I invite my hon. Friend to read the speech made by Lord McCluskey in response to the amendment moved by Lord HarmarNicholls. In the course of his reply Lord McCluskey admitted that the proposals met all the criteria which the Government had set forward in Cmnd. 6890—that is to say, that the tax proposed is supplementary, that it prescribed a limit to that tax, that it was additional to Westminster revenues and that the administrative costs would fall on the Assembly.
    Having admitted that the proposals met all the criteria set out in Cmnd. 6890, he nevertheless invited the House of Lords to reject the amendment because it would produce higher taxes in Scotland. The truth is that, while it is not impossible or impractical to find a tax which can be raised in Scotland, it will, of course, be desperately unpopular. It will inevitably produce taxes that are higher in Scotland. The whole point of public government and democracy is to put the proposition to people that they can have services, but as a consequence they will have to pay more in taxation.
    It has been suggested during this debate, and it was suggested several times in the House of Lords, that those who have pressed for tax-raising powers for the Assembly wish to use this argument to sink the Assembly in the referendum. I hope that that will not be suggested of me because I was in favour of tax-raising powers at a time when I was even prepared to support devolution. I might even say that I was in favour of tax-raising

    149
    powers before the Government were persuaded by the case for holding a referendum.
    The reason why I want to see tax-raising powers included is that I fear we are putting a false prospectus before the electorate. We are telling the electorate that we shall give them better public services through an Assembly but that it will not cost them a penny. That is irresponsibility in every sense of the word, and it will not solve the problem in any way. We shall merely postpone it until the very first clash between the Assembly and Westminster over the demand for an Assembly block grant which this House will not be prepared to meet. When that time comes in this House there will not be one hon. Member in this place who will not wish that we had given the Assembly tax-raising powers in the first place.
    Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I am very pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). Like him, I am inclined to vote for this amendment because I feel that unless there is such an amendment, however loosely drafted and unsatisfactory it may be, the prospectus at the time of the referendum will be false. People in Scotland will be led to believe that they are getting an Assembly which will cost them nothing. They will be told that they will have greater control of their own affairs, their own Assemblymen and all the apparatus that goes with them, but that it will not cost a bean.
    This is simply not true. The Assembly is bound to cost something. The great difficulty of Scottish Members, on either side of the House, in voting for this amendment is that it is extremely difficult politically for them to say in the referendum that they have voted for an Assembly that will involve additional taxation powers for the Scottish people.
    But it must come to that—that must be the end of the road. Just as in the eighteenth century the American colonials shouted that there must be no taxation without representation, the reverse is equally true. There can be no representation without taxation. There is no point in having this elected authority unless in the end it has a taxation power.
    Although the Minister of State has told us that he will entertain and is ready to
    150
    listen to proposals as to how those tax-raising powers should be implemented, without the Lords amendment there is not a single word in the Bill about tax-raising powers. It is far more likely that those campaigning in the referendum will make constant reference to schedule 2, paragraph 4(1) which says:
    "A provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it would impose, alter or abolish any tax"
    That must be the impression that will be given by those campaigning for the Assembly in the referendum, and I oppose that.
    I hope that when the Minister of State replies, he will answer a specific question on the allocation of the rate support grant through the block grant. My understanding is that that amounts to about £1,100 million. How will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Assembly passes on to the local authorities all that part of the block grant that is relevant to the rate support grant, and how will he stop the Assembly keeping a part of it for itself? He cannot do so, and that is one of the great fallacies in the Bill. The Assembly is bound to keep some of the money for itself. However, the position is not clear in the Bill. Therefore, I believe that the Lords amendment, however defective in some ways, should be supported.
    Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) put forward some sort of case for the amendment by saying that there should be some reference to taxation powers in the Bill. One has to go a little further and argue that there would be strong reasons for having this kind of provision in the Bill and that it would improve the Bill. Everybody has recognised that this Bill does not confer on the Assembly tax-raising powers. But the Lords Amendment does not solve the problem of taxation; it is merely of a declaratory kind. The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) may have his own views whether it is wet, anodyne or politically motivated.
    Let me make one thing clear. In my earlier reference to which he referred I was using a reference to a former Prime Minister as being a problem the hon. and learned Gentleman had to deal with rather than myself. I take this opportunity to make that clear because he did

    151
    not allow me to do so earlier. But I am afraid that it is one of the consequences of saying or implying—as clearly happened, as Hansard will show—that the amendment was wet, anodyne and politically motivated. One consequence is that it might be considered by some to be casting aspersions on those who moved the amendment in another place.
    Mr. Brittan: The Minister of State said that Lord Home was wet.
    Mr. Smith: It is a little much for the hon. and learned Gentleman to make that statement when he remembers that he refused to allow me to intervene earlier.
    Mr. Brittan: 1 let the Minister of State intervene twice.
    Mr. Smth: Let us get to the main point of the debate, which is much more interesting.
    It is difficult to talk about the subject of taxation in general without coming to the particular. We must have in mind the particular tax proposal that is being advocated. Most tax proposals have good and bad points. Many people have said "We are generally in favour of taxation powers, but we are against a sales tax or income tax". But they have to come forward as specific proposals.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that he favoured a sales tax.
    Mr. Buchan: I did not. I said that I favoured income tax.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend implied that it would be quite possible to have a sales tax. With great respect, I believe that he is wrong. It is not possible to do this within the context of the EEC, and what happens in West Germany does not provide a solution to the problem. My hon. Friend said that he favoured an income tax. I can follow that suggestion, and in many ways it is the fairer proposal. But at the same time one must asked whether one could face the figure of £50 million but with a figure of £16 million in costs of collection. The cost of collection would amount to a figure of 32 per cent. as opposed to the
    152
    normal income tax collection system of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. in respect of PAYE.
    We must weigh these factors. It is not just the question whether it would be popular or unpopular. I, personally, would not be in favour of having the additional income tax at a cost of £16 million a year, having regard to what it would raise. That is a relevant and important consideration. On these occasions we have to examine particular points.
    Our tax system is not immutable. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) was right to say that many of our difficulties stem from the way in which we choose to collect tax, including the PAYE system. It may change in future, but with the present structure it is difficult to devise a genuine, sensible and reasonably efficient system of devolved taxation. Indeed, our present structure of taxation could hardly make the task more difficult.
    This amendment does not solve any of the problems which we have discussed many times in these debates. The House would be wise to reject declaratory or exhortatory amendments as put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who introduced a sound note of realism into the debate. Do we want to decorate the Bill with this sort of expression of opinion or sentiment which does not add anything to the powers of the Assembly or detract from those powers?
    It is because I do not believe that the amendment will help us and because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West agreed, it might be misleading, that I think that it would be unwise to include it in the Bill. It was only narrowly carried in another place, which is a factor that we are entitled to take into account.
    It being Nine o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 35.

    Division No. 273]

    AYES

    [7.0 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    carmichael, Neil

    Anderson, Donald

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Archer, Peter

    Boardman, H.

    Cartwright, John

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Booth Rt Hon Albert

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Ashley, Jack

    Boott royd, Miss Betty

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Ashton, Joe

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Atkinson, Norman

    Bradley, Tom

    Coleman, Donald

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Concannon, J. D.

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Buchan, Norman

    Corbett, Robin

    Bates, Alf

    Buchanan, Richard

    Cowans, Harry

    Bean, R. E.

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Craigen, Jim (Marrhill)

    Belth, A. J.

    Calleghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Crawford, Douglas

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Campbell, Ian

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Cronin, John

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cant, R. B

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Cryer, Bob

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    Judd, Frank

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rooker, J. W.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Kelly, Richard

    Roper, John

    Deakins, Eric

    Kerr, Russell

    Rose, Paul B.

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Kilfedder, James

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Dempsey, James

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rowlands, Ted

    Dewar, Donald

    Lamble, David

    Ryman, John

    Doig, Peter

    Lamborn, Harry

    Sandalson, Neville

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lamond, James

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Sever, John

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lee, John

    Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Eadie, Alex

    Litterick, Tom

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Edge, Geoff

    Loyden, Eddie

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Luard, Evan

    Silverman, Julius

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

    English, Michael

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Stallard, A. W.

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    MacCormick, Iain

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Evans, John (Newton)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    McElhone, Frank

    Stoddart, David

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Stott, Roger

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Strang, Gavin

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McKay, Allen

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Flannery, Martin

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Swain, Thomas

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)

    Ford, Ben

    McNamara, Kevin

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Forrester, John

    Madel, David

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Magee, Bryan

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

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

    Mahon, Simon

    Thompson, George

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Freud, Clement

    Marks, Kenneth

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Tlerney, Sydney

    George, Bruce

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Tilley, John

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Tinn, James

    Ginsburg, David

    Meacher, Michael

    Tomlinson, John

    Golding, John

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Tomney, Frank

    Gould, Bryan

    Mikardo, Ian

    Torney, Tom

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Tuck, Raphael

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Molloy, William

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Ward, Michael

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Watkins, David

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Morton, George Martin

    Watkinson, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

    Weetch, Ken

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Weitzman, David

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Wellbeloved, James

    Henderson, Douglas

    Noble, Mike

    Welsh, Andrew

    Hooley, Frank

    Oakes, Gordon

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Ogden, Eric

    White, James (Pollok)

    Horam, John

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Whitehead, Phillip

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

    Orbach, Maurice

    Whitlock, William

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Ovenden, John

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Huckfield, Les

    Padley, Walter

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Pardoe, John

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Park, George

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Parker, John

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Hunter, Adam

    Parry, Robert

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Irving, Rt Hon s. (Dartford)

    Pendry, Tom

    Woodall, Alec

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Penhaligon, David

    Woof, Robert

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Perry, Ernest

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Janner, Greville

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Radice, Giles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Mr. Thomas Cox and

    John, Brynmor

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Mr. Ted Graham

    Johnson. James (Hull West)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Alison, Michael

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Arnold, Tom

    Grieve, Percy

    Morgan, Geraint

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Awdry, Daniel

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Baker, Kenneth

    Grist, Ian

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Banks, Robert

    Grylls, Michael

    Morrison, Hon Paler (Chester)

    Bell, Ronald

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mudd, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Noave, Airey

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nelson, Anthony

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Hannam, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Benyon, W.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Newton, Tony

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Normanton, Tom

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Nott, John

    Blaker, Peter

    Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Body, Richard

    Hastings, Stephen

    Osborn, John

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hawkins, Paul

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Hicks, Robert

    Patkinson, Cecil

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Brittan, Leon

    Hodgson, Robin

    Percival, Ian

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Holland, Philip

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Brooke, Peter

    Hordern, Peter

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Brotherton, Michael

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Buck, Antony

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Budgen, Nick

    Hurd, Douglas

    Raison, Timothy

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rathbone, Tim

    Burden, F. A.

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Bullet, Adam (Bos worth)

    James, David

    Reea-Davies, W. R.

    Carlisle, Mark

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

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Jessel, Toby

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Channon, Paul

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Rhodes James, R.

    Churchill, W. S.

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Jopling, Michael

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Keberry, Sir Donald

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Clegg, Walter

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cockcroft, John

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Cope, John

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Cormack, Patrick

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Corrie, John

    Kilson, Sir Timothy

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Costain, A. P.

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Crowder. F. P.

    Knox, David

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lamont, Norman

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Lawson, Nigel

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Durant, Tony

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shepherd, Colin

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lloyd, Ian

    Shersby, Michael

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Loveridge, John

    Silvester, Fred

    Elliott, Sir William

    Luce, Richard

    Sims, Roger

    Emery, Peter

    McCrindle, Robert

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Maefarlane, Neil

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Falrgrieve, Russell

    MacGregor, John

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Farr, John

    MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

    Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

    Fell, Anthony

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Speed, Keith

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Spence, John

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Madel, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Stainton, Keith

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Marten, Nell

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Forman, Nigel

    Mates, Michael

    Stanley, John

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Mather, Carol

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Fox, Marcus

    Maude, Angus

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Fry, Peter

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Stokes, John

    Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.

    Mawby, Ray

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Tapsell, Peter

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Mills, Peter

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Moate, Roger

    Trotter, Neville

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Molyneaux, James

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Gorst, John

    Monro, Hector

    Vaughan, Dr Gerald

    Viggers, Peter

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Wells, John

    Younger, Hon George

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

    Whitney, Raymond

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wall, Patrick

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Sir George Young and

    Walters, Dennis

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilto

    Warren, Kenneth

    Division No. 274]

    AYES

    9.0 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Molloy, William

    Anderson, Donald

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Molyneaux, James

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    George, Bruce

    Morgan, Geralnt

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Ashley, Jack

    Golding, John

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

    Ashton, Joe

    Gould, Bryan

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morton, George Martin

    Atkinson, Norman

    Graham, Ted

    Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

    Bamelt, Guy (Greenwich)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Bean, R. E.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Newens, Stanley

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Hardy, Peter

    Noble, Mike

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Oakes, Gordon

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Ogden, Eric

    Blenklnsop, Arthur

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Boardman, H.

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Orbach, Maurice

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Heifer, Eric S.

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Hooley, Frank

    Ovenden, John

    Bottomley, RI Hon Arthur

    Horam, John

    Palmer, Arthur

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

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

    Park, George

    Bradley, Tom

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Parker, John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Huckfleld, Les

    Parry, Robert

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Pendry, Tom

    Buchanan, Richard

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Perry, Ernest

    Budgen, Nick

    Hunter, Adam

    Prico, C. (Lewlsham W)

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Callaghan, Jim (Middieton & P)

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Radlce, Giles

    Campbell, Ian

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Cant, R. B.

    Janner, Greville

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Cartwright John

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Clemltson, Ivor

    John, Brynmor

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Cohen, Stanley

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Coleman, Donald

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Concannon, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Rocker, J. W.

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Roper, John

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Judd, Frank

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Cronin, John

    Kelly, Richard

    Ryman, John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kerr, Russell

    Sandeilson, Neville

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Sandelson,Neville

    Cryer, Bob

    Klnnock, Neil

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Sever, John

    Davidson, Arthur

    Lamond, James

    Shaw, Arnold (ilford South)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Davles, Rt Hon Denzil

    Lee, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Davles, Ifor (Gower)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Deakins, Eric

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sllkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeda West)

    Litterick. Tom

    Silverman, Julius

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Loyden, Eddie

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dempsey, James

    Luard, Evan

    Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

    Dewar, Donald

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Snape, Peter

    Dolg, Peter

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Sprlggs, Leslie

    Dormand, J. D.

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Stallard, A. W.

    Drayson, Bumaby

    McCartney, Hugh

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Dunn, James A.

    McElhone, Frank

    Stoddart, David

    Dunnett, Jack

    McGuIre, Michael (Ince)

    Stott, Roger

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McKay, Allen

    Strang, Gavin

    Eadle, Alex

    MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor

    Summerskitl, Hon Dr Shirley

    Edge, Geoff

    Maelennan, Robert

    Swain, Thomas

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    McMillan, Tom (Giasgow C)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Madden, Max

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Magee, Bryan

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    English, Michael

    Mahon, Simon

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Mallalleu, J. P. W.

    Tlerney, Sydney

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Tilley, John

    Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Tomlinson, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Tomney, Frank

    Femyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Torney, Tom

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Meacher, Michael

    Tuck, Raphael

    Flannery, Martin

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Urwin, T. W.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mlkardo, Ian

    Vartey, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Forrester, John

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

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

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Ward, Michael

    Walkins, David

    Whitlock, William

    Woodall, Alec

    Watkinson, John

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Woof, Robert

    Weetch, Ken

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Weitzman, David

    Williams, Alan Lee (Homch'ch)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    White, James (Pollok)

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Mr. Alf Bates and

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Mr. James Tinn.

    NOES

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Beith, A. J.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

    Canavan, Dennis

    Kilfedder, James

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Lamble, David

    Thompson, George

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    MacCormick, Iain

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Crawford, Douglas

    Pardoe, John

    Watt, Hamish

    Dalyell, Tam

    Penhaligon, David

    Welsh, Andrew

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Reld, George

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Freud, Clement

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Rose, Paul B.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Henderson, Douglas

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Mr. Robin F. Cook and

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Sillars, James

    Mr. Russell Johnston.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  New Clause "F"

    VOTING OF SCOTTISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 86, in page 30, line 8, at end insert new Clause F:
    ("F.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, if, following the first meeting of the Scottish Assembly, a Bill to which this section applies has been passed by the House of Commons but there would not have been a majority in support of the Bill if there had been excluded from the members who voted in the division of that House on the question that the Bill be read the Third time all those representing parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, that Bill shall be deemed not to have been read the Third time unless after the next fourteen days on which that House has sat after the division took place that House confirms its decision that the Bill be read the Third time.
    (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not come into operation unless it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
    (3) This section applies to any Bill which does not relate to or concern Scotland or any part of Scotland.")
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Pym: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment in subsection (1) to leave out the first "Third" and to insert "Second".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss the following amendments to the Lords amendment:
    Leave out subsection (2).
    In subsection (3) at end add,
    "but would, if it had related to or concerned Scotland, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly".
    156
    We may also discuss Lords amendment no. 239.
    Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In tabling my amendment to Lords amendment no. 86 I should have made sure that the same amendment applied to the remainder of subsection (1) of this new clause where the word "Third" appears. May I therefore, ask you—in the event of my amendment being successful—to consider manuscript amendments to remove the other two references to the word "Third" and substitute the word "Second"?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has authorised me to say that in principle he is willing to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I should, however, point out that if the Question on the right hon. Member's first amendment is still being discussed when the guillotine falls at 11 o'clock, as soon as it has been decided the Chair will be obliged by the terms of the order which the House made on 4th July to proceed at once to the motion to agree or disagree with the Lords amendment itself, without putting any other intervening Question.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Pym: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot help but feel that in the circumstances I described —that is, against the possibility that that amendment might conceivably be won—the Minister of State might consider using his powers to move the manuscript amendments that I have suggested. I believe that would be the only way—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister does not have the power. The

    157
    only way to overcome that difficulty would be to finish the discussion on the first amendment before 11 o'clock.
    Mr. Pym: This Lords amendment is about the role of Members of this House, It strikes me as a strange procedural anomaly of Parliament that any amendment in the sense of this Lords amendment that might have been tabled either in Committee or on Report would have been ruled out of order as being outwith the terms of the Long Title of the Bill. Therefore, the result of the Lords putting in this amendment about the role of Members means that this is the first definitive amendment on the role of Members of Parliament that we have debated.
    The amendment seeks to deal to a very limited extent with what seems to most of us to be the worst structural feature of the Bill—the fact that, as now drafted, Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies can vote on those matters for England that neither English nor Scots Members of Parliament can vote on for Scotland. That central flaw in the whole Bill has been referred to more frequently perhaps than the weaknesses of taxation powers to which we have just been addressing ourselves.
    The Government have no answer to that central flaw. They have refused not only to face up to it but even to acknowledge it. They try to pretend that the problem does not exist. Yet, in fact, this flaw in the Bill will be the cause of its failure in practice if ever it comes into operation.
    One of the greatest tragedies of all, lifting our eyes above the details of the Bill, is that it appears all too clear that the people of Scotland are not aware of this defect. It seems that the Government, in their enthusiasm for the Bill, have swept this basic conundrum under the carpet. They have tried to put it out of sight. In the sense in which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) used the phrase in the last debate, I believe that in this respect, too, a false prospectus is being put before the people of Scotland if the Bill becomes an Act. The truth is that there is no answer to this central flaw.
    In the context of an Executive and a legislative Assembly for one of the partners of the United Kingdom only, there is no answer to this difficulty. As
    158
    long ago as December 1976, on the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Prime Minister said that it was wrong to contemplate and unacceptable that we should embark upon a course that was federal for one part of the United Kingdom and unitary for the rest. But that is precisely where we are at the moment.
    I have predicted before, and I repeat tonight, that the day on which the votes of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies decide a matter for England only—a matter with which English Members of Parliament do not agree—will be the day that this scheme breaks down with all the consequent disappointment and even frustration. Of course, it will be followed by an amendment to the Bill with all the agonising that will bring with it. It happened with Ireland, and we are making the same mistake today.
    Hon. Members may wax as eloquent as they like about the benefits that they think that devolution in principle will bring, but a particular system of devolution as structurally unsound as the Bill can lead only to disharmony and trouble in the end.
    I noticed that the Minister of State, in reply to the last debate, referred to the difficulties that were caused by particular suggestions for taxation powers. It is all very well to talk about it in general; it is when we come to the particular that it is difficult. I think that is exactly what the Government have done in the Bill, and they have not answered the question that it has raised.
    The amendment bears modestly on the structural unsoundness of the Bill. Indeed, the amendment is limited in scope. By no means is it an answer to the conundrum. There is no complete answer The amendment, however, provides a partial answer in the form of a political constraint. It gives the House the chance for second thoughts by means of a second vote not less than a fortnight later. The circumstances envisaged are that the Third Reading of a Bill not affecting Scotland has been passed by the House when it would not have been passed if the votes of the Scottish Members of Parliament had been excluded. In other words, that is precisely the circumstance of a breakdown of this whole scheme as I have described.

    159
    In order to seek to alleviate this unacceptable position the Lords propose to put into the Bill the requirement for a second vote after a fortnight. There is no suggestion in the amendment of any Members of Parliament not voting. There is no suggestion of the "in-and-out" proposal which I am sure the House would certainly reject. The Lords are proposing a pause for second thoughts and then another vote upon the same question. All Members of Parliament would vote on both occasions. If after that interval the result was the same, that decision would be final.
    This, of course, is an innovation in our procedure, but I do not think that it can be elevated into a great constitutional principle. The Government were proposing a second vote on the same question in this House in the circumstances covered by clause 72. That clause has now been dropped. As I understand it the Government will accept the Lords amendments to change the position by which certain decisions by the Lords could be overruled by a second vote in this House. However, the Government cannot be against the second vote in principle because they proposed one.
    The minimum interval of 14 days will provide a period for reflection and second thoughts upon the consequences and implications of forcing on to England, Wales or Northern Ireland something which each of those countries did not want and which was not proposed to be forced upon Scotland. The Government of the day would have to face up to the consequences of trying to overrule the votes of Members of Parliament representing non-Scottish seats by a vote of this House in precisely the same way as they would have to face up to the consequences of overruling the Scottish Assembly by a vote of the United Kingdom Members, which is provided for in the Bill.
    The Lords amendment, insisting on a cooling off period before final decision, has much good sense in it. I have certain detailed criticisms of the amendment which are the cause of my amendments. The first of those amendments relates to whether this procedure should occur on Second Reading or Third Reading. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I think it would be better if the process occurred on Second Reading before all the work
    160
    had been done on the Bill. It could be reasonably argued that after the House had spent weeks or months on a Bill, to arrive at Third Reading and, by the process I have described, put pressure on hon. Members to have second thoughts and perhaps to reject the Bill would be asking a great deal. It seems reasonable to ask the House to have second thoughts, in the particular and unusual circumstances covered by the amendment, on Second Reading, so that the issue is decided before we embark on all the detailed debate on the Bill.
    All my amendments are grouped together, so I should like to go on to the third which is designed to limit the scope of the Bill. As Lords amendment no. 86 stands, it applies to all Bills which could be described as nonScottish—that is to say those which cover issues which are devolved to Scotland and those areas which are not. It would be better if that procedure were confined to those matters which in Scotland are to be devolved.
    I can explain the point best by an example. It would not be right to use this procedure of requiring a second vote to deal with a Bill concerned with the police in England, because the police is not a devolved matter. Any Scottish Bill dealing with police in Scotland would be voted upon by all United Kingdom Members in this House, as it would for England.
    Because the same applies to an English police Bill, it seems reasonable that the narrowing of the Lords amendment should be constructed as my amendment proposes. In other words, it would be an absolutely fair basis. Any matter not devolved in Scotland would not be covered by this proposal, which would apply only to those areas which are devolved. Thus, the narrowing of the Lords' amendment is desirable and meets one possible criticism of the amendment as it stands.
    The second of the three amendments proposes to remove subsection (2) of new clause F. That procedure does not seem necessary. We can take a decision tonight whether to introduce this procedure. It is not of crucial importance, but the subsection seems unnecessary. I have in mind the thought that when this matter was debated in another place they were very conscious of not wanting to tell us how to

    161
    run our business. They thought that a subsection of this kind would be wise.
    It may be asked how one is to determine whether a Bill relates to or concerns Scotland, but I cannot think that that is a serious difficulty for the House, since we already have a system to enable Mr. Speaker to certify that a Bill relates exclusively to Scotland. As the Scotland Bill stands, every Bill dealing with a devolved matter will have to carry a statement that its provisions do not extend to Scotland, or it will be assumed that it does so extend, notwithstanding the Scotland Bill, and this Parliament will be assumed to be legislating for the whole United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Smith: Perhaps this is the best point to ask an important question about the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the Lords amendment. He said that there is no great difficulty deciding whether a Bill falls into the category to be caught by the amendment because we already certify Bills which go to the Scottish Grand Committee. But is it not true that that is a much simpler matter to decide than to ask, presumably, Mr. Speaker to decide whether a matter is or is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly, as the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the Lords amendment implies? Is it not a difficult task to give Mr. Speaker, a Committee, or the House itself to have to try to forecast whether a provision in the Bill would have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly had it been applied to Scotland?
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Pym: To the extent that that could be said to be true—and it is represented to be the case by the Minister of State—it demonstrates one of the arguments which we have been putting forward all along, which is that the division of powers does not have that degree of crystal clarity which the Minister tries to pretend so often that it has. If the division of powers is as clear as the Minister likes to make out, there should not be any difficulty. I agree that it is not quite as simple as what happens now. But what is suggested here and what is required here is not of itself so novel a procedure or so different a procedure from that which already takes place. If it is likely to be as difficult as the Minis-
    162
    ter now protests, he has some thinking to do about his answers to previous debates about the wonderfully clear way in which the powers are divided.
    The Opposition have been saying all along that the powers are not clearly divided. Every time that we have put that to the test, we have been defeated. However, I make the point because it seems relevant to the amendment that we are considering.
    I recognise that the amendment proposed here is an innovation of procedure. But I do not find it extraordinary constitutionally because it does not suggest that any Members of Parliament should not vote at all times on all matters. It provides the constraint of second thoughts, very much along the lines that the Government themselves proposed in relation to their original clause in the Bill requiring this House in certain circumstances to vote to overrule the Lords. I think that it is very wise that we should come this far, which is only a very modest step, towards meeting the basic defect in the Bill about the different roles that Members of Parliament will have.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. PymI am just about to bring my remarks to a conclusion. Many hon. Members wish to speak about this amendment which is the very first substantive amendment about the West Lothian question that this House has been allowed to debate.
    No one believes that this amendment answers the contradiction in the Bill, which is the fatal flaw in its structure—the fact that we are trying to legislate for federalism in one part of the United Kingdom and for a unitary system in the remainder. It does not do that. However, in certain circumstances it causes all hon. Members to have second thoughts about the wisdom of imposing upon one part of the United Kingdom by means of the votes of the whole of this House a decision that that part of the United Kingdom is not prepared to accept—in other words, over-ruling the verdict of the Members of Parliament representing that part of the United Kingdom. This amendment takes a very small step in that direction.

    163
    It may be argued that in almost all circumstances—perhaps in every circumstance—the second vote would be the same as the first. I doubt that very much. I know that the Minister of State does not agree with me, but I do not see why all Members of this House representing all parts of the United Kingdom should not express their opinions about an issue affecting only England and then find that, whereas the House had decided to take a certain decision on policy for England which the Members of Parliament representing only England did not want, everyone had second thoughts. Do we wish to insist upon that? I do not find that very objectionable. In my view, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable approach to the problem. I regard it as a modest alleviation of this structural flaw in the Bill. It is an amelioration of perhaps the most formidable difficulty of the whole Bill—the difficulty that in the opinion of the Opposition is bound inevitably to lead to the ultimate failure of the Bill, with all the subsequent frustration and bitterness that will result.
    On that basis, I urge the House to accept my amendments. I hope that in the reasonableness which in some respects the Government are showing, they may yet feel able to accept them and in this way alleviate one of the most formidable problems arising out of these proposals.
    Mr. John Smith: It would be appropriate if I put the Government's view at this stage, especially as we are dealing with an amendment to a Lords amendment.
    Frankly, I was extremely surprised that the Official Opposition should seem to be taking the line advocated by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). This was not one of the propositions that came from the official Opposition during our previous discussions. Despite the difficulties of the guillotine, which might have caused some difficulties for the Opposition, I do not think that any such proposition ever appeared in any form on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Pym: Does not the Minister of State realise that any amendment about the role of Members of Parliament was out of order? There was no possible way of our discussing it. That is a rather bad start as a response to my speech.
    Mr. Smith: It is not intended to be a response. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a very full response to what, with great respect to him, was a very bad argument.
    Surely if there were merit in this proposition—I make no more of it than this—it would have been mentioned at some stage during the many discussions that we have had about this matter. Indeed, we discussed this matter almost endlessly in Committee.
    But this proposition has come from another place. Those hon. Members who have read the debate in another place will have found that most of the noble Lords who spoke there said that they did not think that this particular amendment would work but they thought that there should be something in the Bill about it and that it should be brought before the Commons for consideration again. But it had very few friends as a practical piece of work, causing there to be a 14-day delay between the two Third Readings, as it was in the case of the Lords amendment.
    I accept that the right hon. Member has probably improved matters a little from the point of view of his argument by moving the delay to the Second Reading stage from the Third Reading stage. To the extent that thinking is still developing on these matters, it is interesting that that difference of view emerged between the noble Lords in another place who talked on this matter—most of them Conservatives, but not exclusively Conservatives—and the official Opposition here. It is, perhaps, indicating that we should allow considerably more time for further reflection, because I genuinely do not think that as a practical proposition there is very much merit in this suggestion.
    The Government are totally opposed to the proposal on the grounds of both principle and practice. We doubt very much whether the other place seriously wanted this amendment to be written into the Bill.
    When we asked, constantly, in another place about the practicality of it, because noble Lords frequently said "What is achieved if the same vote occurs after the fortnight's delay?", the response was usually "But we had better put something in the Bill, or make the Commons think again about it." The whole tenor

    165
    of the debate was "Have another debate about it", rather than a matter of people seriously advocating this as a practical proposition.
    It is very important for us to remember in all the debates on this subject that Parliament will remain sovereign, able to legislate on anything for the United Kingdom as a whole, or for any part of it, irrespective of the devolution of certain powers to a subordinate Assembly. We have had this argument before, but I believe it to be crucial in the discussion of the whole philosophy of devolution.
    Devolution involves the conferring of powers, the devolution of powers. It does not devolve sovereignty. Indeed, the Stormont Parliament was a classic example of that. It was abolished by this House, and that was a demonstration that sovereignty had not been devolved; only powers had been devolved.
    Even in the devolved fields in which powers are given to the Scottish Assembly, in addition to the inherent power to legislate, which does not depart from this Parliament, Parliament will directly control the use of the Government's reserve powers, that being subject to approval by Parliament. Even in matters not formally or directly touching Scotland, legislation for England and Wales—nearly 90 per cent. of the population—is bound to have some repercussions for the remaining 10 per cent. in a way that does not apply to anything like the same degree in the reverse direction. That is just a fact of life in the relationship between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Where I take serious issue with the right hon. Gentleman is in trying to draw a parallel with the Commons power to over-rule the Lords on resolutions on which the Government have agreed to accept an amendment. I remind the House of the situation. The Government originally proposed that if a resolution was passed through the House of Commons but the Lords disagreed with it, it would be open to the Commons to over-rule the Lords in that disagreement and thereby make sure that the Commons decision carried at the end of the day.
    As a result of the consideration in the Lords and the vote that took place, and having listened further to the arguments,
    166
    the Government are not pursuing that matter. The idea originated in the famous Parliament (No. 2) Bill. It was one of the proposals to change the relationship between the two Houses in dealing with resolutions. One of the factors that we have taken into account is that the Lords have very seldom exercised their right to disagree with a resolution. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the last occasion was one of the Rhodesian sanctions orders.
    It was in the light of all these considerations that we decided not to pursue that proposal. But that seems to be entirely different from this proposal, which looks at the role of certain Members of Parliament—Scottish Members in this House—and prescribes a rule whereby, if their influence has created a majority on Second Reading, there should be another method of dealing with the relationship between Commons and Lords. These are not propositions of anything like the same character. and therefore I do not think it proper for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have moved in principle along this road of having a second vote. We have done nothing of the kind. We have abandoned a proposal on resolutions whereby the Lords would not have been able to frustrate the decision of the Commons. That is quite a different matter. But, perhaps even more than in the theory of the matter, we are opposed to this proposal because we believe it to be totally impracticable.
    As far as I understand it, no one in the Lords agreed that there should be an in-and-out system of voting. That matter was considered by the Royal Commission and I understood that the Conservatives had always been clear about their opposition to in-and-out voting. Indeed, on one occasion when the matter was discussed on this Bill there was virtually universal agreement in the House that one could not distinguish easily between different categories of Members, with some Members serving as, in effect, second-class Members voting on one matter but not on another. A certain proposal was put forward by the Scottish National Party, but I think it arose from the fact that the SNP does not give tuppence for what happens at Westminster and it had nothing to do with

    167
    reasoning. But everyone else in the House was against it. Although some of the logic behind the right hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to point in that direction, I do not think that he would go as far as that.
    The proposal before the House attempts to circumvent the difficulties inherent in the concept of in-and-out voting, not by preventing the Scottish Members from voting on certain issues, but, where the Scottish votes have been significant in the English analogue of devolved matters, by making all Members of the House, including Scottish Members, vote twice to confirm, presumably, that they had not inadvertently strayed into the wrong Lobby on the first occasion, or to create a situation in which pressure was put on the Scottish Members to see whether they should reconsider their decision.
    It is almost as if there were to be a "sin bin"—another phrase that one could use instead of "cooling-off period"—into which the Scottish Members would be herded for 14 days in which they had to reflect whether they should vote the same way when the Second Reading, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, came up again.
    Is not that the basis of an in-and-out system of voting but without practical effect? What happens if Scottish Members decide that they are not changing their minds, if they decide, after careful consideration, that they were right the first time, and that they should adhere to their original decision? Will that situation help us very much if there is some sensitivity in the relationship between English and Scottish Members? Or will it hinder? I should have thought that it would cause far more problems than it could ever conceivably solve.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Pym: With regard to the Minister's interpretation of the debate in another place, we must bear in mind that a great deal of the hesitancy in the Lords was due to their Lordships' very right, proper and natural reluctance to suggest a particular procedure for this House. There were, of course, Lords of the Minister's party who were in support of the amendment.
    I do not accept the Minister's argument about the effect of a second vote and the
    168
    possibility that some Members representing Scottish constituencies might inadvertently have gone into the wrong Lobby. They may very well have voted as they wanted to vote on the first occasion, but since the result of the total vote, in the circumstances that we are considering, is that upon another part of the United Kingdom there is to be imposed, apparently, something with which the people themselves do not agree, is that not a reasonable basis on which to ask everybody to have second thoughts? If the second vote confirms the original view, so be it, but at least it is reasonable, I suggest, to say that the effect of doing it a second time is to avoid imposing upon England, Wales or Northern Ireland something which the people do not want. What is so wrong, what is so reprehensible, about asking for those second thoughts? Is not that a reasonable proposition to put to every Member of this House?
    Mr. Smith: Several questions arise from the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He referred initially to the debate in another place, and said, quite correctly, that there was a certain hesitancy in their Lordships recommending a procedure to the House of Commons. But their Lordships were pursued in argument, particularly by the Government spokesmen, as to what would be the practical difference. Most of the advocates of this type of proposition more or less conceded, in their responses, that there would not be much practical difference, but they argued that it was time the House of Commons had another look at this.
    Perhaps it is, and we are having another look at it, but the House has to decide whether this has very much behind it in the form of practical merit. It seems to me to have the sort of logic of inand-out voting but to stop short of having any effect whatsoever, because it is not preventing the Scottish Members from voting on those matters in a Bill which concern England.
    We are all agreed on that, but the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to let the logic of it take him to that conclusion. He stops there and asks for a demonstration of some kind, and dresses it up as a so-called cooling period. Let him put something into the Bill which indicates that the problem is being

    169
    tackled in a particular way. But the question is whether this is a sensible way of tackling it. I am afraid that, if we accepted this proposal, one of the results would be a situation in which it would be pointed up that the Scottish Members were the people who created the majority in a particular Division. The whole purpose is to point that up and then to say that there is a period during which presumably they ought to reconsider their decision. If they do not change their mind and adhere to the original decision, it makes no difference whatsoever, and no practical result of any sort has been achieved. I think it would be unfortunate for the House to consider having different categories of Members in voting on any legislation.
    I come to another central point of difficulty, which I touched on in a question which I asked the right hon. Gentleman. I did not pursue the matter because I knew that I should have the opportunity to speak very soon afterwards. It is the question of deciding, in terms of his amendment, which Bills would be caught by it. It is quite true that we claim that the Scotland Bill is well drafted in the sense that we have defined, as well as can be done, what is devolved and what is not devolved. Indeed, a great deal of the complication arises from this very necessity for precision. But we have never claimed that for all conceivable circumstances, looking to the future, it will always be crystal clear.
    The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that precisely because of that we have created the role for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
    If there would never be any doubt, what would be the point of creating the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to take that sort of decision? We accepted an argument, put forward at least partly by the Opposition, that it would be a good idea if these matters were decided by a legal body, that the powers of the Assembly should be decided by a judicial body rather than by the Secretary of State subject to the veto of Parliament.
    But, as I understood the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, it is suggested that we put the responsibility upon Mr. Speaker to decide what indirectly—or, indeed, very directly—is or is not within the competence of the Scottish As-
    170
    sembly. In my view, it would be most unfortunate to drag Mr. Speaker into what might then be a source of disagreement between the House of Commons and a Scottish Assembly.
    I say frankly that that part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition has not been developed. There are a number of possibilities. I suppose that there might be a Committee of the House or there might be a Committee of both Houses. It might be Mr. Speaker himself. One can think of all these things. But I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has thought much about that, and there certainly are grave difficulties in giving to Mr. Speaker what amounts to a decision upon vires.
    This is a quite different matter from the certification of Scottish Bills to go to the Scottish Grand Committee. First, that is only on the question whether they go to the Scottish Grand Committee. It is a procedure which very much depends upon the assent of the Opposition. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Opposition may quite easily block Bills from going to the Scottish Grand Committee by standing in their places, as they sometimes do, if they disagree. That is quite different from what is proposed in the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the Lords amendment.
    I make that not as a criticism of the Lords amendment, because the Lords did not go into that territory, no doubt quite deliberately, but the right hon. Gentleman has imported the concept into his amendment, and I say that it is a very dangerous course for the House of Commons to consider or to require its Speaker to fulfil.
    Mr. Brittan: Is not the Minister of State exaggerating somewhat in this respect? He talks about adjudication as to vires for all the world as though the decision of Mr. Speaker determined whether the Scottish Assembly could or could not do something, and he refers to conflict between the Scottish Assembly and this House. Surely none of that is apposite because, at worst, what happens is that there is another vote, and if Mr. Speaker has ruled in a certain direction and there is another vote, it is still up to the House to decide how to determine the issue.
    Therefore, is not the right hon. Gentleman ignoring that there is a basic similarity between the procedure as proposed

    171
    and the procedure operating at the moment, since the right hon. Gentleman has conceded that it does not very much matter at present how Mr. Speaker adjudicates because it is still up to the House of Commons to decide at the end of the day whether it wishes the procedure for Scottish Bills to be followed. By the same token, Mr. Speaker is not adjudicating on a legal matter in a final sense but is making merely a procedural ruling the effect of which the House may negate, if it wishes, by its second vote.
    Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is coming perilously close now to suggesting that this proposal does not amount to very much anyway. I am afraid that it does almost go as far as that. I invite him to look again at the terms of the amendment, because the proposal is to apply to
    "any Bill which does not relate to or concern Scotland or any part of Scotland but would, if it had related to or concerned Scotland, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly."
    So that question arises very directly. It is the very question which, presumably, Mr. Speaker would have to answer, and, if I may say so, in the absence of argument from both sides such as the Judicial Committee would have in deciding what was or was not within the competence. Mr. Speaker does not technically have to decide whether a matter is within the competence of the Assembly, but it amounts to the same thing, because he may well have complaints from Scottish Members that he has made the wrong ruling or is about to make the wrong ruling and that it is something which would not be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, so that prohibition would not then apply.
    It is not good enough to say that I am exaggerating. There is a genuine difficulty here, and it is one which the House of Commons must think about very carefully before making any changes in its procedure, which is what this amounts to. It would affect many Bills over many years. We must think far more carefully about it before passing this proposal or approving the Lords amendment now.
    Mr. Galbraith: Surely the last thing that Scottish Members of Parliament will do is object. They will be voting on
    172
    something in which their own constituents are not in the least interested.
    Mr. Smith: It is impossible to predict what would be the attitude of Members to Bills. But there could well be an occasion when they felt that they would be strongly marked out in a certain way. That is what the amendment would do. It would mark them out as in a sense different in that their votes have to be taken twice, as it were, before they have full effect in certain circumstances. They might well feel that it was important that it was used only in those circumstances where it could be absolutely clearly demonstrated that the criteria were fulfilled. We know that there might be certain circumstances in which it was not clear. I ask the House to consider carefully whether it would he wise to rush into this and to put this responsibility, without having considered it carefully and at length, upon Mr. Speaker.
    Quite frankly, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire probably added his amendment to the Lords amendment at a time when he had to think rather quickly about it. I do not blame him for that, because this matter was discussed at a fairly late stage in the proceedings in the House of Lords. The great difficulty about doing this is that such amendments may be ill considered. It must be remembered that this is a matter of considerable importance to the House of Commons as an institution.
    We quite legitimately fight each other about some other parts of the Bill, because there is a difference of political philosophy and outlook. That is entirely proper and it is what should happen in Parliament. However, this amendment goes a little wider and affects the practice of Parliament and the House of Commons on a wide range of issues. Philosophically, I fear that the amendment is unsoundly based. Even more than that, I feel that it is thoroughly impractical and I hope that the House will not agree to it.
    Mr. Pym: The Minister of State has been very reasonable and has waxed eloquent about some of the difficulties which might exist if this procedure were adopted. However, I do not honestly think that it can be said to be impractical, because all that is required is a second vote. In his criticism of the amendment,

    173
    and in the difficulties which he foresees in deciding whether Bills do or do not apply, ought he not also to consider the very serious consequence of the votes of this House imposing upon any one part of the United Kingdom a decision which the representatives of that part do not agree with? Is not that a far greater difficulty, on an altogether different scale, than any which he has raised in objection to this modest amendment, which merely suggests that people should think about the consequences of this House imposing upon one part of the United Kingdom something which it does not agree with.
    I do not think that the Minister of State has addressed himself to the consequences of that difficulty. It is all very well to say that this is difficult. But the basic problem which inspired this amendment is infinitely more serious than any problem which the amendment itself creates.
    Mr. Smith: Without being disrepectful, I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman would rather debate the general principle of the consequences of devolution, and voting as between Scottish and English Members, than to defend this particular proposal. But the fact it that it is this particular proposal which we are discussing and upon which we shall be voting. Therefore, we must be very careful that we get it right, if change we wish to make.
    We can argue about the general proposition. I have made my views quite clear. We must decide whether this amendment should be incorporated in the Bill. In his intervention the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire came close to admitting that there were serious difficulties about the amendment. From his own experience of the House of Commons, which goes back over a very long time, he must appreciate the great difficulty which the amendment would cause Mr. Speaker and others. I think that this would be a thoroughly bad step and I therefore hope that the House will not accept the amendment.
    Mr. Timothy Raison: The Minister of State is very good at attacking the minor details and criticising the faults, but he has persistently refused to face up to the great structural weakness in the Bill, and he has given another example of that tonight. Throughout what the Government have done, it is clear that they
    174
    have refused to recognise that there is this flaw. Admittedly, the Kilbrandon Report did not say all that much about it, but it at least devoted a couple of pages to the problem.
    It is an astonishing fact that in the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy" there was no reference at all to the West Lothian problem. Again, in the supplementary White Paper produced by the Government a few months later, there was also no reference to the West Lothian problem. That seems to be an amazing piece of mis-government on the part of the Minister of State and his colleagues. After all, time and time again this has turned out to be the fundamental weakness in the whole of this scheme.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was absolutely right when he said that the Government were trying to sweep this problem under the carpet. As I have said, the Minister of State is quite fluent at producing criticisms of this, that and the other, but he will not come up with a defence of what he knows to be an appalling flaw in the scheme.
    10.0 p.m.
    There is no need for me at this stage to state the unlimited scope for friction that this proposal offers. As we are treading an unknown path, it is possible that we shall see surprising results. One possibility put forward by my noble Friend Lord Duncan-Sandys in the other place was that the House of Lords will take the view that, as the Commons was prepared to legislate on the basis of an artificial majority—a majority of Scots Members when talking about English matters—it might well be justified in rejecting legislation on this score. Morally there is much to be said for that.
    Another possibility was, oddly enough, brought about by the Minister of State a few minutes ago when he reminded the House that this House will still, under the devolution scheme, have the power to legislate about anything it likes, whether it be a devolved matter or not. We have always known that the House will continue to be able to legislate about housing, education, and so on, in Scotland, but the assumption has been that this House will not choose to do so. However, if the House is pushed too far—and the Government are pushing it too far in their

    175
    scheme—the House may well take the opportunity, which will still be open to it, to legislate on devolved matters in Scotland.
    I can see that process beginning with Private Members' Bills. I visualise a Private Member saying "I have won a place in the Ballot. I will bring forward a Bill which will apply to Scotland just as much as to England." There is nothing to stop private Members from doing so: the powers will be there, as the Minister has just acknowledged.
    I do not pretend that that will be a satisfactory way of proceeding, because it makes a nonsense of the devolution scheme, but if Parliament is treated as the Government propose to treat Parliament there are likely to be odd results of that type.
    This debate is about a particular approach. I do not pretend that the scheme which is being put forward is perfect, but I believe that it is impossible to find a perfect scheme. This is our trouble. The essence is to give what has been described as a cooling-off period. I do not know whether it will work. I am not prepared to say that I believe that the cooling-off period will necessarily work. I have a good deal of sympathy with Baroness Bacon who said that she had spent a long time in this place and had never found Scottish Members as accommodating as that—in other words, she did not expect Scottish Members to go away and think about something for a fortnight and return with a different answer. She may well be right about that.
    I also have a good deal of sympathy with another Labour Peer—Lord Sefton—who in his maiden speech said that we should not try to amend a positively bad Bill. I should have liked to share that attitude, but the fact must be faced that it is so late in the proceedings that we cannot afford to take that curious view. I know that there are those who take that curious view and think that we should not touch the Bill at all, but I believe that, having reached this late stage in our proceedings, we should salvage something from it.
    It may well be that what was put forward in the other place represents the least
    176
    objectionable remedy to an almost insoluble problem. It was Lord Houghton of Sowerby who took that view. Tonight we must decide whether to try to salvage something out of this appalling wreck. I am not certain whether it is worth the attempt, though I think that on balance it is. Having reached this appalling pass, on balance I think it is probably worth backing the Lords in the scheme they have put forward. I do not feel strongly about whether we should do it by the Second Reading mechanism my right hon. Friend has proposed or by the Third Reading mechanism the other place has proposed, but in the circumstances I think it is right to support the other place in what it is trying to do.
    Mr. Dalyell: My colleagues may think that I have had more than my say in these debates, and because this is a guillotined debate I shall take only a couple of minutes.
    It is a matter of incredulity that at 9.31 p.m. on day 44 of our proceedings on this Bill there should be the kind of exchange that we heard between the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the Minister of State. I shall look into this very carefully because it seemed to me that the Minister of State was rushing to put the proverbial plug in the hole in the dam while letting the water rush in at another point in the structure.
    The truth of the matter is that this kind of arbitration on what affects Scotland and what does not lies at the root of the problem. I shall leave it at that. But some of us will look at the exchanges tonight very carefully.
    The Minister of State asked a rhetorical question. He asked what would happen if after 14 days the Members adhere to the vote. To some of us it becomes crystal clear that Members of Parliament are voting on matters for which they have literally no responsibility in the circumstances.
    The Minister of State then said that he was pointing out the difficulties and troubles. There is a deep division of opinion here because some of us think that it is very proper at an early stage to point out the precise difficulties and trouble, and to make them crystal clear. It is not a question of inadvertently straying into the wrong Lobby. It goes far deeper than that.

    177
    Lord Raglan made a remark in another place. He said:
    "If the proposal had been the other way around and Members from England should vote on certain matters affecting Scotland while Members from Scotland were excluded from voting on the same matters affecting England—"[Official Report, House of Lords, 16th May, 1978; Vol 392, c. 266.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows that he cannot quote anyone in another place except a Government Minister.
    Mr. Dalyell: In those circumstances, this measure would never have been entertained. That puts it in a realistic light.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) when he said that this matter had not had a proper debate. In fact, the West Lothian question, as it has been properly called, has lain like a cloud over practically every debate on this Bill. The matter has been discussed continually.
    I would say that it is a matter of practicality, as the Minister of State has said already. If this were a House of independent Members without party affiliation, a second vote in a fortnight might work. But this House has a very rigid party structure. If one goes into any Whips' office before a vote takes place and asks about the result of the vote, those Whips may not be able to tell the exact figures but they will tell the result and they will almost always be right.
    It is true that a dilemma exists, and from the very beginning of our debates I have recognised this fact. However, I do not agree that it improves matters to attempt what might be described as a clawback. That is really what this is. The resolution of difference must take place before the clash. Once the clash takes place, with all the build-up before hand, I do not believe that the situation is either reconcilable or recoverable.
    I do not believe that the amendments have about them the air of political reality. If one says to people that they have a second chance, it means only that they do not work at their first chance. For that reason I recommend my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
    178
    I say that, not because I dissent from the objectives of the amendment or because I believe that it is a bad or stupid thing for the Members of the other place to have sought this way out or for the major Opposition in the other place to have given support to it. The West Lothian question persists, and will persist. But in this critical area, I believe that only an institutional solution will provide a way out.
    Other people have suggested that there may be a way out through conventions. I doubt it, but I should be prepared to try it. However, what seems clear is that, lacking either of these approaches, to try to have two runs at the matter does not make things any better.
    Mr. William Ross: I understand the reluctance of another place to tell us how to conduct our business here. If the Lords were to develop some system under which they could divide the sheep from the goats, or the Scots from the English and Welsh, and if they were to suggest that it was a tightly drawn matter, they could have a second vote. But we know that the people in another place are not Scots, Irish or Welsh. They are all members of the British peerage. There was a time when there were Scots there, but I do not think that it would have made any difference.
    Mr. George Cunningham: There are Scots there.
    Mr. Ross: This test will apply only in a matter of contention. I cannot see anything being all that contentious in another place, although we all know that this has happened in the past. I can remember a Tory Government who received an amendment from the other place and who insisted on amending it and returning to a form of words that was even worse, and a provision which had never been discussed. I know that you will remember this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you and I were on opposite sides on that occasion.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am beginning to wonder whether a disclosure of that kind should be made, now that I am in the Chair.
    Mr. Ross: It used to be one of the guiding rules of the House that we did not put ex-Ministers in the Chair because

    179
    it would be rather embarrassing for their past to be quoted. I believe that practice was departed from by Winston Churchill when he became Prime Minister after the war. It is embarrassing, but it is not out of order to quote the matter. I can make that statement without fear of contradiction because I have looked up the matter.
    On that occasion I do not remember any English Member weeping and saying "Let us think again". If the votes of the Scots who voted in the House that night had been accepted, Strathclyde would not now be in existence. It was the English Members of the Tory Party, and some misguided Members of the Labour Party, who brought that about, but if all the Scottish votes had been taken together, Strathclyde would not now be in existence. Certain areas that went into the Glasgow district were put there by English votes.
    Mr. Cunningham: So?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is a Sudeten Scot and his interest in Scotland in terms of Scottish legislation has been recent and sudden. This may well be the last speech—at least I think that it will be the last speech—I shall be delivering in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] However, it will not be my last vote. During the greater part of that time, I have been in a majority within a minority. For a long time, every Scottish Grand Committee had to have added Members. When the Scottish Standing Committee was formed, it had to have added Members. At present, there are 16 Tory Members from Scotland, 39 Labour Members, two independent Labour Members, three Liberals and 11 SNP Members. This sort of situation has persisted for a long time.
    10.15 p.m.
    Between 1964 and 1970, when the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) sat on the Government Front Bench, he guided through a terrible Education Bill. He was in a minority in Scotland, but I do not remember the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) saying that it was wrong for a majority of English Members to do down Scotland.
    I have mentioned the Local Government Act. There was a Housing Act that
    180
    was anathematised in Scotland. That was put through not by Scottish Members but by English Members. Suddenly now, it is to be all wrong if some Scottish Members vote on matters of English legislation. If this principle is wrong, it was wrong for 50 years while there were Irish Members on the Government side voting on matters affecting Scotland and England.
    I do not remember any obsession from West Lothian about this matter. Let it not be thought that this Government were unaware of the problem. Our first White Paper said, effectively, that there would be no change in the number of Scottish Members at Westminster, and the question whether there should be a reduction in the number of hon. Members from Scotland is one of the real arguments in this matter.
    I take it ill from the Conservatives, who accepted, particularly in 1951, that the Tory majority that allowed them to form a Government came from Northern Ireland, that they should suddenly discover that it is wrong in principle for Scottish Members to vote on English matters. In the days when the Conservatives could count on the unfailing support of Northern Ireland Members, it was apparently all right for them to vote on these contentious issues.
    If we are prepared to reject the gnat, what about the camel of another place? What right has it to make itself the arbiter of the rules of this House or to sit in judgment on every Act passed by this House?
    Mr. Galbraith: In order to introduce a little common sense.
    Mr. Ross: It is not often that we see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) here and it is even more seldom that we hear him. I am sure the people of Hillhead will be glad to know that he has surfaced again.
    The structural weaknesses that have been referred to are not so little. Will the leave of the House have to be given in respect of matters that are purely Scottish? That may seem easy at the time, but there have been criticisms in the past simply because certain aspects of Scottish legislation have contained references to England. I remember a Mental Health Bill that was queried in that respect. There was nothing contentious

    181
    about the Bill and it eventually went through. We are able to do this sort of thing in many respects at present.
    One of the ways which the English Tories have used to get out of their difficulties is by lumping Scottish Bills along with English Bills. I remember a Town and Country Planning Bill in which at the end of every clause there was a Scottish application. It was considered by a large Committee which included only two Scottish Members, George Willis and myself. Hon. Members can imagine what sort of time we had. The present Lord Drumalbyn was the junior Minister, and was he sorry for himself!
    We shall still be legislating on Scottish matters in this House even if the Assembly is set up. There are many aspects of Scottish legislation which will remain. We shall get into considerable difficulties.
    There may be the question of the dual right. It is not for Mr. Speaker to decide this but for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was especially insisted upon that that Committee should decide what was ultra or intra vires. This is not a simple matter. For our proceedings in the Scottish Grand Committee all that is required is that 10 hon. Members should rise in the Chamber and the matter does not go to the Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will remember exercising that privilege more than once in this Parliament.
    What is the effectiveness of this provision proposed by another place? We are to have a Second Reading or a Third Reading and then we are to be asked to think again. It reminds me of a song I heard somewhere—I do not know whether
    182
    it has anything to do with Argentina—with people being sent home to think again. It is an exercise in futility to suggest that we should have another Second Reading.
    Incidentally, it is a wonder that the Lords did not say whether we should debate the matter or whether the Question was to be put forthwith. I suppose that someone will need to decide that. It will probably take us three or four days to decide whether to pass a regulation in respect of that. Is parliamentary time suddenly to become available?
    This is one of the silliest things that I have ever read as a solution to a problem. I admit that there is a serious problem. I have always said so. The hon. Member for Cathcart should be the last person to talk about the Scottish people not being aware of this. I have spoken about it to the people of Scotland. I can assure him that I was prepared to accept the implications of what happened in respect of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman cannot suddenly say, when the Northern Ireland Members acted in the way that they did, that he will deny this right to the Scots. The Second Reading proposal, to take place after a fortnight, is nonsense. Anyone who expects the Scots to change their mind within 10 parliamentary sitting days—
    Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind on anything since the clay he was born. This proposal is an exercise in futility and time-wasting and I hope that the House will reject it.
    Mr. Nick Budgen: It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in what is, sadly, perhaps his last speech in this Chamber. It is an irony that his last speech should be one in favour of devolution because for 30 years of his honourable parliamentary career he has been the implacable opponent of Scottish separatism. It is only recently that he has displayed, as he would no doubt argue, his intelligence and his concern for new ideas which has enabled him to accept this measure of devolution.
    I find it hard to support the proposals put forward by my Front Bench because there is some truth in the criticism that these are attempts to solve the insoluble. I shall vote for them, but I shall persist in the view that the West Lothian problem is insoluble. Having said that consistently throughout these 43 days, I must say that I have reflected upon the way in which previous difficulties between subordinate Parliaments have been resolved. I looked with interest at a book written by one of the greatest of Liberal Prime Ministers, Lord Rosebery, about one of the Tory Prime Ministers, the Younger Pitt. In that book, at page 193, Lord Rosebery spoke of the way in which the last Parliament in Ireland came to its unhappy end. He said:
    "Of the corruption by which the Union was carried something remains to be noted. It was, admittedly, wholesale and horrible. But it must in fairness be remembered that this was the only method known of carrying on Irish government; the only means of passing any measure through the Irish Parliament; that, so far from being an exceptional phase of politics, it was only three or four years of Irish administration rolled into one. No Irish patriot can regard the Union as other than the sale of his Parliament, justifiable or unjustifiable according to his politics; but, for an English minister of that day, the purchase of that Parliament was habitual and invariable. The quotations of the parliamentary market were as well known as the quotations of wheat and of sugar. It is scarcely possible to open a letter from an Irish Viceroy or an Irish Secretary of that time without finding a calculation for the hire, open and avowed, of some individual or influence; or some cynical offer by some hungry nobleman of his interest for a determined price. It was the ordinary daily life of Dublin Castle; it was the air which the Government breathed; the nourishment which alone enabled it to exist."
    Mr. George Cunningham: May we have the rest tomorrow?
    Mr. Budgen: This is a very moving passage. It demonstrates exactly the way in which in a previous age the essential conflict between this House and a subordinate Parliament was resolved. In those days it was resolved by corruption. At the end of that passage, Lord Rosebery said:
    "For a government which rules in disregard or defiance of Parliament must resort to bribery or resort to force."
    In relation to our dealings with Scotland, we have already had a threat of force from the Scottish National Party. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) interrupted me most helpfully in a previous speech. I was amazed. However, he has been good enough to supply me with the quotation. He spoke of a quotation in the Glasgow Herald of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) at a public meeting in 1955. That is, of course, a long time ago. But, no doubt, if there were conflict between this House and the Scottish Assembly, the hon. Gentleman would remember his remarks and act upon them. He said:
    "If there are any English men here tonight I say that if they have any sense they will get out of Scotland now, while the going is good. It may not be so good in a few years' time. They should get out while they are still in one piece."
    Mr. Douglas Henderson: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to bring to my attention something from a quarter of a century ago, which is quite a long time in my life. I want to make it clear that these are not my views, they are not the views of my party, and I repudiate them.
    Mr. Budgen: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's handsome remarks. I accept that he no longer holds those views. But I understand he admits that he did express those views. It may be that other people would adopt those views in the event of there being a conflict between this House and the Scottish Assembly. It may be that the Irish expedient will be the next one that we try. Here I refer to the most helpful views of a Labour intellectual, Paul Johnson, who wrote an extremely interesting article in The Sunday Telegraph dealing most helpfully—
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: A great intellectual paper.
    Mr. Budget: Yes. One of the advantages of our unwritten constitution is its flexibility. One of the most interesting and no doubt exciting innovations introduced by the Labour Government was the whole business of quangos. We have heard that under our flexible constitution there are now—as Paul Johnson says, it would be to the envy of Sir Robert Walpole—nearly 18,000 quango members who are appointed by Ministers of the Crown.
    10.30 p.m.
    We are told that in the year up to May 1977 Ministers made over 1,100 such appointments. Maybe that will be the way in which the West Lothian problem is resolved, at least initially. Let us hope that it will not be resolved by force or corruption. Perhaps initially it may be resolved by the widespread distribution of quangos. But in the end, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, and as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock no doubt argued so eloquently for 30 of his 32 distinguished years, this central conundrum will break relations between this House and the Scottish Assembly.
    It is the problem which will break and gnaw away at relations between this the sovereign Parliament and the subordinate Parliament which we are about to set up.
    Mr. Henderson: It is a tradition of this House that one always congratulates an hon. Member on his maiden speech. I am not sure what the formula is in relation to a valedictory speech which the righ hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) announced that he was delivering tonight. Listening to it, I had the uneasy feeling for the first time in my life that I wished he would continue making speeches because he seemed to be moving closer and closer to the position of my party. Perhaps given a little more time, this worrying event, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) describes it—although not as worrying as his moving to this Bench—might confront us.
    There are not so many occasions on which I find myself in a certain sympathy with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), but tonight is that almost unique occasion. I sympathise
    186
    with him in the sense that I, too, believe that this is the first time we have had an opportunity to come to a firm decision on the matter.
    The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that this matter had been a cloud over the whole proceedings—an admirable description of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—and that the matter had been referred to at various stages. But I understand the difficulty because I tabled an amendment requesting that this issue be dealt with in a particular way, that is, that Scottish Members in this House should not vote on matters which were analogous to devolved matters in the Scottish Assembly, but it was ruled out of order. In spite of great sympathy from the Chair, which hoped to find a way of having the matter discussed, there was no opportunity to take a decision on it. This is therefore the only opportunity we shall have to make any kind of a decision.
    The Minister of State made a rather naïve comment when he said that this matter would require a great deal more thought. I thought the Government would have given it a great deal more thought before introducing the legislation.
    Mr. John Smith: I meant that the amendment required a great deal more thought.
    Mr. Henderson: I do not want to misquote the Minister of State, but I understood him to say that the implications and possibilities of this matter required a great deal more thought.
    Mr. John Smith: What I was referring to—and it was quite clear—was the fact that the amendment had so many obvious defects.
    Mr. Henderson: Although the Minister pointed out defects in that amendment, he could suggest no solution to the central problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is none."] Perhaps that is right.
    I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian who said in an article in The Daily Telegraph today that the Bill was introduced not as a package of constitutional change for the better government of all the peoples of these islands but because of 11 Members on this Bench and the threat of others joining them. The missing link in this

    187
    package is an England Bill so that English matters can be dealt with properly in an English Assembly.
    It was in an attempt to provide a substitute for that Assembly that we tabled an amendment to provide that Scottish Members should cease to be Members of the House of Commons when it constituted itself into an English Assembly. That was done in a constructive spirit. Hon. Members pointed out defects in that amendment, but the defects in leaving this system as it is are much more serious. It is not fair or equitable that a Scottish majority should be able to impose a decision on English Members in respect of a matter on which they cannot vote in Scottish terms.
    For the Minister of State to retreat into this airy-fairy world of Dicey and the constitutional theoreticians and to talk about soverignty not being devolved and Parliament remaining sovereign is to live in cloud-cuckoo land. He surely cannot imagine that a Parliament in Scotland, with electoral legitimacy and responsible to its own electorate, will tolerate any interference from this House in matters which are properly its concern. I do not believe that members of the Minister's own party in the Assembly, or Conservatives, or Liberals—if there are any—or SNP members will tolerate that.
    It is not a party matter. It is an intensely patriotic Scottish matter: either we are given the responsibility to run these things or we are not. Consequently, to say that there is no need for any kind of change in the procedures of the House of Commons or in the power structure between Edinburgh and London as a result of this legislation because Parliament remains sovereign is so specious and naive that I am surpised the right hon. Gentleman put the argument forward.
    Then we came to the question whether Mr. Speaker could certify matters as appropriate for discussion in a particular way. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, in a masterly understatement, said that things would never be crystal clear under this legislation. The Government should have made things crystal clear when they put it forward, and we should know where we stand. I was always brought up to believe that this famed House of Commons was the cradle
    188
    of democracy, that its famed flexibility—
    Mr. Douglas Crawford: Do not forget the 40 per cent. rule.
    Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend reminds me of the 40 per cent. rule for voting in the referendum—
    Mr. Canavan: Crawford's 70 per cent. proof.
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is neither proven nor not proven: he is guilty every time.
    Can this House remain the same after a Scottish Assembly is established? I do not know that this is a valuable or valid way of tackling the problem, but I should have thought that this House, with all its experience, would have been able to adapt and to show some flexibility.
    Therefore, I cannot accept the Minister's view that the amendment places the House or Mr. Speaker or some Committee in an impossible position. If it is carried, it will be a powerful pressure on the Government to bring forward new proposals quickly to deal with this matter and to ensure that responsibility for English matters is as clearly defined as responsibility for Scottish and Welsh matters.
    If this amendment achieves anything, it is a period for reflection—sin bins, according to the Privy Council Office; but it is not that at all. It will put the spotlight on every vote in this House that is carried by a Scottish majority and imposed upon English people. I believe that that spotlight will bring an increasing political pressure to bear to ensure that a much more effective system is worked out.
    In the sense that I regard this as an interim measure which will highlight this difficulty and put pressure on whichever Government are in power at the time to take action on it, I recommend to my right hon and hon. Friends that we support the amendment in the Divison Lobby.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was kind enough to refer to my own term "false prospectus" in the preceding debate. It is quite appropriate that he should have begun in that way, because

    189
    we come in this debate to the other half of that false prospectus, namely, that we are offering the Scottish people the possibility of having devolution and a separate tier of government without any effect on their representation at Westminster.
    I do not believe that that can be sustained, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was perfectly correct to say that the real issue at stake in this debate was the number of Scottish Members at Westminster. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) disagrees, but that is the real issue at stake in this debate. Indeed, if my hon. Friend disagrees, he has only to refer to the reports of the Lords debates to discover that there was a very lengthy debate in the other place which focused on the representation of Scotland here. The noble lord, Lord Brown, accurately summed up the balance of opinion in that debate when he said that everybody agreed that the representation of Scotland was too large and should be cut and that the only matter about which they disagreed was whether this Bill was the appropriate legislation with which to do it.
    If we succeed in achieving devolution and set up an Assembly in Scotland, I do not believe that we shall also be successful in retaining 71 Members in this House. The effect of devolution will be to spotlight the fact that 71 Members representing Scottish seats will continue to come here and vote on matters pertaining solely to England.
    I might add that it is not good enough to pray in aid the position of the Northern Ireland Members. We all know that at the one time in history when those right hon. and hon. Members made the difference in the House of Commons—in the 1964–66 Parliament—they became the focus of attack and of a spotlight aimed at the fact that they were participating in decisions which were devolved in Northern Ireland. During that period, the point was raised time and time again. If it was a focus of attention then, when it involved only 12 right hon. and hon. Members, how much more can we expect when it is a matter of 107 Welsh and Scottish Members voting in England?
    Mr. Dewar: Will not my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is a total non sequitur to suggest that because devolution has come, we ought to reduce the number of Scottish Members at West-minister? After all, Scotland will still be represented here in terms of finance, foreign affairs and defence. It would be a tremendous injustice to say that because Scottish Members were no longer dealing with Scottish education at Westminster, it was right for Scotland to be underrepresented in these vital matters.
    Mr. Cook: I have no dispute with my hon. Friend. I am not pressing that we lose either Garscadden or Edinburgh, Central. I am in favour of all 71 of us coming here. What is more, I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend will be able to convince the electors of Garscadden that that should continue to be the case, as I shall be able to convince the electors of Edinburgh, Central. But I doubt whether we shall be able to go on convincing the electors of Cambridgeshire that this should remain the case, and, at the end of the day, they and others will have the largest number of votes in this House. This is where it comes under attack.
    Having said that, I find very little in this series of amendments to commend them. It is very noticeable, reading through the debate in the House of Lords, that very few noble lords found very much to commend this amendment. It is very striking that the other place has given us an amendment which deals with the West Lothian question in the House of Commons but which makes no suggestion about the fate of Scottish peers in the House of Lords. The sole effect of this amendment would be to introduce a delay in our proceedings. It would do nothing more.
    10.45 p.m.
    If Scottish Members have persuaded themselves to come to this House and to vote in a certain way on English matters, they will not change their mind because for 10 days afterwards they are subjected to remarks at Prime Minister's Question Time and they are subjected to a running commentary in the editorial of The Times. If we were that easily browbeaten, we ought not to have been elected and we ought not to be here.

    191
    Nor will there be agonised debates within the Whips' Office whether they can really ask the Scottish Members to come back and vote for a second time. I regret to say that men given to self-doubt do not get appointed to the Whips' office. It is most improbable that they will, in the course of those 10 days of agonised reflection, come to a different viewpoint on the use of the Scottish votes.
    The truth of the matter is that those 10 days would not be a cooling-off period during which we would quietly and calmly reflect on the propriety of Scottish Members voting on an issue. It would be a period in which the temperature would be heated up, as is generally the case with cooling-off periods. It would be a period in which the spotlight would be turned on the role of Scottish Members, but yet when it came to it, the same vote would be taken again.
    What we have in this amendment is the unfortunate achievement which highlights the invidious nature of the problem and does nothing to remedy the problem. Indeed, I think that if it had any practical effect at all, it would be precisely the effect touched on by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), which was also spelt out with brutal frankness by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, who said that this could become on occasion, the reason, the excuse, for the House of Lords to reject a Bill passed through the House of Commons. I am bound to say that if the effect of the amendment would be to create the House of Lords as a sort of English Assembly exercising an English veto on United Kingdom Bills, we really would have put ourselves in a very unfortunate and very unstable position.
    The truth of the matter is that if we went to solve this issue, we have to go much further than the amendment that is before us. I think that the noble Lord Lord Shinwell adequately summed up the difficulties with a particular vivid metaphor. During the debate in the other place, he said that we were on the horns of a dilemma and we were impaled on both of them.
    If we really want to solve this problem, it is not enough simply to change the voting pattern in this House, either by convention or by some technique re-
    192
    quiring us to have a replay of any vote that is particularly crucial or significant. It is not simply the voting that has to be changed. What has to be changed is the administration, because we all know that the real problem with the West Lothian question is that an administration for United Kingdom purposes might well lose its majority for English purposes. That is what would have happened, of course, in this Parliament. It might well happen in the course of the next Parliament. That is the nub of the difficulty.
    We shall escape the West Lothian question and resolve that difficulty only when we are prepared to countenance a separate Administration for England or for parts of England. That is the inevitable corollary of what we are proposing for Scotland in this Bill, and that is what is bound to flow from it if we go through with it.
    Mr. Grieve: We have had an Alice-in-Wonderland debate. The Alice-in-Wonderland quality proceeds from the fact that the Treasury Bench and the Minister of State have resolutely refused to face the reality of the problem with which the House is trying to deal tonight. The reality of the problem is that it would be quite intolerable for the people of England, the day after the passing of this measure into law, and in the days, weeks, months and years that succeed, to find that Scottish Members and/or Welsh Members have a voice in making decisions for England and that English Members have no voice in making comparable decisions in the same field for the people of Scotland and Wales.
    That is the dilemma. That is the problem. The Minister of State flippantly ignores it. He does not go to the root of the problem at all. As for the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), his speech bristled with fallacies. The Minister of State said that the classic way in which this problem had been resolved was the way in which it had been resolved in Northern Ireland. That way was that Northern Ireland was grossly under-represented in this House because the people of Northern Ireland, in their own Stormont, had control over a number of the major issues affecting their everyday lives.

    193
    Scotland under this Bill will remain grossly over-represented, as it has always been, because we cannot touch it. The Lords have tried to deal with the problem in the amendment. What we are doing, with the support of some hon. Members opposite, is to support the Lords amendment because it is a way of dealing with the problem, which will not go away and must be dealt with. For that reason, it has my support, and I shall also support the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) because they introduce a more realistic element into dealing with the problem by making it a Second Reading and not a Third Reading matter.
    I do not pretend for a moment that this is a perfect way of dealing with the problem. I do not believe that there is a perfect way of dealing with it. I have always resolutely been opposed to devolution altogether. I do not want the United Kingdom to be broken up in any way, and I believe that in this legislation lie the seeds of such a break-up. Those seeds lie in the conflict which will appear when the people of England see what they regard as interference by other peoples in matters in which they have not got comparable rights.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) was right in pinpointing the attitudes which will be taken by Her Majesty's subjects residing in England—that is the way I prefer to regard this—and the attitudes taken by Her Majesty's subjects residing in Scotland, who will have the right to control their affairs over a wide range whereas those residing in England will not have that right.
    This problem must be dealt with. It goes to the whole root of the legislation. For that reason, I shall support the Lords amendment. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland situation because the Government and the Minister of State are completely unrealistic in their approach. They are unrealistic because they approach the matter in what they believe to be political realism, in that they wish, through the Scottish Members, to keep their control of the House of Commons. The people of England will not tolerate that.
    Mr. George Cunningham: I think that the representative of an English consti-
    194
    tuency is entitled to say a word on this subject, more than on most others we have debated. It is rightly said that the proposal before us is not a perfect solution to the problem. It is not a solution. It does not come anywhere near to solving it. The problem is totally insoluble.
    I shall support the proposal tonight for only one reason—that the people of Scotland, in the course of the referendum campaign, are entitled to know that the difficulties that will be created by the Bill as it stands are insoluble. The proposal before us will do nothing to solve them or ameliorate them or do anything at all after devolution comes into effect, if it does. As I see it, its value is that perhaps the people of Scotland can be brought to understand what they do not, with respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), appreciate now, that there is an imbalance in the arrangements and that that imbalance will ensure the destruction in due course, as the Scottish National Party wants and trusts, of the devolution proposals.
    What will happen during the fortnight of the cooling-off period is this. English constituents will make representations to English Members of Parliament saying "If that is the way the thing is to work, we want you, as soon as you have a majority in the House for this view, to change it." It will have to wait for a Conservative majority, because in party terms it will be the Conservative Party that has the principal interest in making the change. As soon as there is a reasonable Conservative majority in this House, the situation will be changed and the result will either be that Scots Members are excluded from voting upon purely English matters or one of the other halfway houses that have been suggested.
    But none of those devices actually solves the problem. One has only to ask oneself, as has been said many times, what will happen after a general election when a majority of the English Members is Conservative and a majority of the British Members is Labour.
    There is no way out of the dilemma. The sooner the Scottish people realise that in the end they have to choose between independence or more or less the status quo, the sooner we shall have an honest choice made in Scotland. There

    195
    is no middle way, and the value of tonight's debate, and of the result, if we pass the amendment, will be to bring that home a little more realistically to the people of Scotland.
    Sir John Gilmour: The totality of what can be achieved by the Scottish Assembly will be determined entirely by the English Members. It is entirely in their power to decide what happens. I find myself at complete variance with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and many of my hon. Friends who have spoken this evening. I can say equally that there may be many things, for instance, in the field of education in England where, if a change is made, the amount of money involved will at once have repercussions on what happens to Scotland. I am absolutely opposed to any idea that as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament I should not vote on every matter which comes before the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. George Robertson: The noble Lords in another place, who spent quite some time considering the matter that they chose to call the West Lothian question, did so in the belief that they were considering the problems associated with groups of people voting on matters for which they would have no ultimate responsibility. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that that decision was taken by them in the other House, where none of them is responsible at any stage to any electorate for any of the decisions taken.
    It is all the more ironic, indeed, when we consider that the voting figures in that Division were 99 for the amendment and 72 against the amendment. If we remove from that vote the component of hereditary peers who apparently were drafted in for the occasion, the majority the other way would have been 37 votes—66 votes against the amendment and 29 votes in favour of the amendment. A lot of the noise being made on behalf of those who suggest that we should simply establish a principle of those not having the tight or having the responsibility not being
    196
    able to vote, seems to me a little different in the light of these facts.
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: What makes the hon. Gentleman think that the appointed Members of the Upper House are any better than the others?
    Mr. Robertson: They were at least appointed on the basis of the skills they have and not the skills that their fathers had. I will paraphrase the words of Lord Campbell, who, in a previous debate on another subject, asked where the Government would be without a second Chamber. There are two responses to that. One of them is self-evident. The second is to ask where that particular noble Lord would be without the second Chamber.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
    Mr. Robertson: What facts have been produced here?
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robertson: I will not give way. What has been produced—
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
    Mr. Robertson: The noble Lord Lord Houghton described this as being the worst—
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. It must be clear to the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is not giving way.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Feart.
    Mr. Robertson: I am still the Member of Parliament for Hamilton. Lord Shin-well supported it but opposed it, Lord Banks supported it but opposed it, and Lord Glenkinglas supported it but opposed it.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 288.

    Division No. 275]

    AYES

    [11.0 p.m.

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

    Mather, Carol

    Alison, Michael

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Maude, Angus

    Arnold, Tom

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Mawby, Ray

    Awdry, Daniel

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Hobin

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Baker, Kenneth

    Goodhart, Philip

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Banks, Robert

    Goodhew, Victor

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Bell, Ronald

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Mills, Peter

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gorst, John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Moate, Roger

    Benyon, W.

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Molyeneaux, James

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Grieve, Percy

    Monro, Hector

    Biffen, John

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Grist, Ian

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Blaker, Peter

    Grylls, Michael

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Body, Richard

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Morgan, Geraint

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Hannam, John

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mudd, David

    Brittan, Leon

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Neave, Airey

    BrocKlebank-FowIer, C.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nelson, Anthony

    Brooke, Peter

    Hastings, Stephen

    Neubert, Michael

    Brotherton, Michael

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Newton, Tony

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Normanton, Tom

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Nott, John

    Buck, Antony

    Henderson, Douglas

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Budgen, Nick

    Hicks, Robert

    Osborn, John

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Burden, F. A.

    Hodgson, Robin

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Holland, Philip

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hordern, Peter

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Channon, Paul

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Percival, Ian

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Clegg, Walter

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Cockcroft, John

    James, David

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

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

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Cope, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Raison, Timothy

    Cormack, Patrick

    Johneon Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Costain, A. P.

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Jopling, Michael

    Reid, George

    Crawford, Douglas

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Crouch, David

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Rhodes James, R.

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kilfedder, James

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Ridsdele, Julian

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Rifklnd, Malcolm

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Lamont, Norman

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Durant, Tony

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lawson, Nigel

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Elliott, Sir William

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Emery, Peter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    Lloyd, Ian

    Scott, Nicholas

    Eyre, Reginald

    Loveridge, John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Luce, Richard

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Farr, John

    MacCormick, Iain

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Fell, Anthony

    McCrindle, Robert

    Shepherd, Colin

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Shersby, Michael

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    MacGregor, John

    Sillars, James

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)

    Silvester, Fred

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Sims, Roger

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Forman, Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Madel, David

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Fox, Marcus

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Marten, Nell

    Speed, Keith

    Fry, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Spence, John

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Thompson, George

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Wells, John

    Stainton, Keith

    Trotter, Neville

    Welsh, Andrew

    Startbrook, Ivor

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Stanley, John

    Vaughan, Dr Gerald

    Whitney, Raymond

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Viggers, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wakeham, John

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stokes, John

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Tapsell, Peter

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

    Younger, Hon George

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Wall, Patrick

    Tebbit, Norman

    Walters, Dennis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Warren, Kenneth

    Mr. J. Stradling Thomas and

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Watt, Hamish

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Anderson, Donald

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunn, James A.

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dunnett, Jack

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Ashley, Jack

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Judd, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    Eadie, Alex

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Edge, Geoff

    Kelly, Richard

    Atkinson, Norman

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Kerr, Russell

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Lamble, David

    Bates, Alt

    English, Michael

    Lamborn, Harry

    Bean, R. E.

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Lamond, James

    Beith, A. J.

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Lee, John

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Flannery, Martin

    Litterick, Tom

    Boardman, H.

    Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Luard, Evan

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Bottomley Rt Hon Arthur

    Ford, Benn

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Forrester, John

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Bradley, Tom

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

    McDonald Dr Oonagh

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Freeson, Reginald

    McElhone, Frank

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Freud, Clement

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Buchan, Norman

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Buchanan, Richard

    George, Bruce

    Maclennan, Robert

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Gilbert, Dr John

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Middleton & P)

    Ginsburg. David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Campbell, Ian

    Golding, John

    Madden, Max

    Canavan, Dennis

    Gould, Bryan

    Magee, Bryan

    Cant, R. B.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mahon, Simon

    Carmichael, Neil

    Graham, Ted

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Cartwright, John

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Hardy, Peter

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol, S)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter (Wakefield)

    Meacher, Michael

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Coleman, Donald

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Mikardo, Ian

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Conlan, Bernard

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Hooley, Frank

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Cowans, Harry

    Horam, John

    Molloy, William

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

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

    Moonman, Eric

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Howell, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Cronin, John

    Huckfield, Les

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Moyle, Roland

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hunter, Adam

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Irvine. Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Murton, George

    Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Newens, Stanley

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Noble, Mike

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Deakins, Eric

    Janner, Greville

    Ogden, Eric

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    O'Halloran, Michael

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Orbach, Maurice

    Dempsey, James

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Dewar, Donald

    John, Brynmor

    Ovenden, John

    Doig, Peter

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Dormand, J. D.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Pardoe, John

    Park, George

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Urwin, Tom

    Parry, Robert

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Pendry, Tom

    Silverman, Julius

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Penhaligon, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Perry, Ernest

    Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

    Ward, Michael

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Snape, Peter

    Watkins, David

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Watkinson, John

    Radice, Giles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Weetch, Ken

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Weitzman, David

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Wellbeloved, James

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Michael (Fulham)

    White, James (Pollok)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Stoddard, David

    Whitehead, Philip

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Stott, Roger

    Whtlock, William

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Strang, Gavin

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Swain, Thomas

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Roper, John

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Woodall, Alec

    Rowlands, Ted

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Woof, Robert

    Ryman, John

    Tierney, Sydney

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Sandelson, Neville

    Filley, John

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tinn, James

    Sever, John

    Tomlinson, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Tomney, Frank

    Mr. James Hamilton arid

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Torney, Tom

    Mr. Frank R. White

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
    Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. John Smith.]
    Question put forthwith:—
    The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 286.

    Division No. 276]

    AYES

    [11.17 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Anderson, Donald

    Cohen, Stanley

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Archer, Peter

    Coleman, Donald

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Flannery, Martin

    Ashley, Jack

    Conlan, Bernard

    Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

    Ashton, Joe

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Corbett, Robin

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Atkinson, Norman

    Cowans, Harry

    Ford, Ben

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Forrester, John

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Bates, Alt

    Crawshaw, Richard

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

    Bean, R. E.

    Cronin, John

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Beith, A. J.

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Freud, Clement

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Cryer, Bob

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

    George, Bruce

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Davidson, Arthur

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bishop, E. S.

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Ginsburg, David

    Blenkintop, Arthur

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Golding, John

    Boardman, H.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Gould, Bryan

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Deakins, Eric

    Graham, Ted

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Dempsey, James

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Bradley, Tom

    Dewar, Donald

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Doig, Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon James

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Hardy, Peter

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Buchan, Norman

    Dunn, James A.

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Buchanan, Richard

    Dunnott, Jack

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Eadie, Alex

    Hooley, Frank

    Campbell, Ian

    Edge, Geoff

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Canavan, Dennis

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Horam, John

    Cant, R. B.

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

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

    Carmichael, Neil

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    English, Michael

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Cartwright, John

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Huckfield, Les

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Hunter, Adam

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Irvine, Fit Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Molloy, William

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Moonman, Eric

    Stallard, A. W.

    Janner, Greville

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Stoddart, David

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Morton, George

    Stott, Roger

    John, Brynmor

    Moyle, Rt HonRoland

    Strang, Gavin

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Summerskill, Hon. Dr Shirley

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Newens, Stanley

    Swain, Thomas

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Noble, Mike

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Jones. Barry (East Flint)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Ogden, Eric

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Judd, Frank

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Orbach, Maurice

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Kelley, Richard

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Kerr, Russell

    Ovenden, John

    Tierney, Sydney

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Palmer, Arthur

    Tilley, John

    Lambie, David

    Pardoe, John

    Tinn, James

    Lamborn, Harry

    Park, George

    Tomlinson, John

    Lamond, James

    Parry, Robert

    Tomney, Frank

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Torney, Tom

    Lee, John

    Pendry, Tom

    Urwin, T. W.

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Perry, Ernest

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Litterick, Tom

    Radice, Giles

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Ward, Michael

    Luard, Evan

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Watkins, David

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Watkinson, John

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Weetch, Ken

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Weitzman, David

    McCartney, Hugh

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Wellbeloved, James

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    McElhone, Frank

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    White, James (Pollok)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Whitlock, William

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Roper, John

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Rose, Paul B.

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Madden, Max

    Ryman, John

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Magee, Bryan

    Sandelson, Neville

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Mahon, Simon

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Sever, John

    Woodall, Alec

    Marks, Kenneth

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Woof, Robert

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Meacher, Michael

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Mr. Peter Snape and

    Mikardo, Ian

    Silverman. Julius

    Mr. Joseph Dean

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brotherton, Michael

    Dalyell, Tam

    Alison, Michael

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Arnold, Tom

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Buck, Antony

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Awdry, Daniel

    Budgen, Nick

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Bulmor, Esmond

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Baker, Kenneth

    Burden, F. A.

    Durant, Tony

    Banks, Robert

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bell, Ronald

    Carlisle. Mark

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Channon, Paul

    Elliott, Sir William

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Emery, Peter

    Benyon, W.

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    Biffen, John

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Clegg, Walter

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Blaker, Peter

    Cockcroft, John

    Farr, John

    Body, Richard

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Fell, Anthony

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Cope, John

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Bottomley, Peter

    Cormack, Patrick

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Costain, A. P.

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Crawford, Douglas

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Brittan, Leon

    Crouch, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Crowder, F. P.

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Brooke, Peter

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Fox, Marcus

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Loveridge, John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Fry, Peter

    Luce, Richard

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

    MacCormick, Iain

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    MacGregor, John

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Goodhart, Philip

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Goodhew, Victor

    Madel, David

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Gorst, John

    Marten, Neil

    Shepherd, Colin

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Mates, Michael

    Shersby, Michael

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Mather, Carol

    Silvester, Fred

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Maude, Angus

    Sims, Roger

    Grieve, Percy

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Mawby, Ray

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Grist, Ian

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Grylls, Michael

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Speed, Keith

    Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Spence, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mills, Peter

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Hannam, John

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Stainton, Keith

    Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Moate, Roger

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Molyneaux, James

    Stanley, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Monro, Hector

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Hawkins, Paul

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Stokes, John

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Morgan, Geraint

    Stradling, Thomas, J.

    Henderson, Douglas

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admral

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hicks, Robert

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Hodgson, Robin

    Mudd, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Holland, Philip

    Neave, Airey

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Hordern, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Neubert, Michael

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Newton, Tony

    Thompson, George

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Normanton, Tom

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Nott, John

    Trotter, Neville

    Hurd, Douglas

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Osborn, John

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Viggers, Peter

    James, David

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

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

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Wakeham, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Penhaligon, David

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

    Jopling, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Wall, Patrick

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Walters, Dennis

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Warren, Kenneth

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Watt, Hamish

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Kilfedder, James

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Wells, John

    Kimball, Marcus

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Welsh, Andrew

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Raison, Timothy

    Whitney, Raymond

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Knox, David

    Reid, George

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Lamont, Norman

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Rhodes, James R.

    Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Younger, Hon George

    Lawson, Nigel

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and

    Lloyd, Ian

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: In accordance with precedent, I vote in favour of the form of the Bill as it left this House; that is to say, against the Lords amendment. Accordingly, I cast my vote with the Ayes.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment no. 87 disagreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 88 to 96 agreed to.

  Clause 67

    TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
    Lords amendment: No. 97, in page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
    Mr. Milan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Lords amendments nos. 135, 165, 168, 216 and 231.
    Mr. Millan: All of these amendments deal with the devolution of forestry. The key amendment is Lords amendment no. 135. It would have the effect of reserving forestry to this House.
    The Government's proposal to devolve forestry matters was debated at some length in Committee in this House on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) which was defeated. A subsequent amendment in the other place, however, was carried by one vote. I recommend that the House should reverse that decision and put forestry as a devolved subject in the hands of the Scottish Assembly.
    I agree, of course, that this is not a completely simple matter, given the arrangements for the State-owned forests under the Forestry Commission. We are dealing both with the State-owned forests and private forestry interests. There are certain arrangements for private forestry involving various forms of Government assistance. This is not a simple matter in terms of devolution to the Assembly but we considered the matter with great care before deciding that forestry was a suitable subject—I regard it as particularly suitable—for devolution.
    We looked at the scope for devolution in the analogous subjects of planning, land use and the countryside, which are devolved subjects, recreation, rural development and tourism. We also had regard to the links with agriculture, but there were special reasons for taking agriculture as a reserved matter. In that context the question of our relationship with the Community, which does not apply to the same degree in forestry, has been taken into account.
    208
    Forestry is a matter of great importance to the rural areas of Scotland, and if one disregarded all the various complications one's natural instinct would be to say that forestry was the kind of subject which intrinsically ought to be devolved. Forestry is proportionately a good deal more important in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. It excites a certain amount of interest, and even controversy in Scotland. It is a matter which, without the complications, one would expect to fall naturally within the powers of the Scottish Assembly.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the position between Scotland and England in forestry is fundamentally important on many grounds? There are three main grounds on which I must ask the Minister whether he agrees with me. The first is future acreage for the forestry State ownership, because in England I understand there is very little to be done. Second—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are working under a guillotine. The hon. Lady must make her intervention brief.
    Mrs. Ewing: There are three situations in which things are very different. Future acreage is one. The second is that in England timber is not really a crop, whereas in Scotland it is. The third is land acquisition, where there is great scope in Scotland, but which is almost at an end in England.
    Mr. Millan: I would not necessarily agree with the hon. Lady on the holdings points. I am agreeing with her to the extent—I thought that I had already made this clear—that forestry is considerably more important proportionately in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Ewing: That is saying nothing.
    Mr. Millan: I think that it is saying a great deal. I should have thought that anyone knowing something of Forestry Commission matters in Scotland would believe that this is the kind of subject which is very suitable for devolution. However, we must also take account of the fact that we have built up through the Forestry Commission a particular kind of State enterprise which encompasses the whole of the United Kingdom and which

    209
    is responsible at the minute not to one Minister but to three—the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and the Minister of Agriculture.
    It is important that we maintain the integrity of the Forestry Commission, but the Bill does that by providing in Schedule 10 that the Assembly will not be able to abolish the Commission as the instrument of forestry policies in Scotland or transfer any of its main activities to a new body. Therefore, the integrity of the Commission is preserved and it will serve as a common source of expert advice on forestry matters to the Government, to the Scottish administration and to the Welsh Assembly. There are other reservations in the Bill which are important when considering the whole problem of forestry.
    First, there is no devolution relating to the fiscal treatment of forestry, which is of considerable importance to woodland owners and on which the Government have made certain concessions in recent Budgets. There is a strong case for maintaining the integrity of United Kingdom provision there. Second, there is no devolution in relation to plant health—that is analogous to a number of other things that we have done—which is important to the whole United Kingdom. Third, the Commission's research facilities, which are part of its central capability, will be maintained in a unified form.
    Within those reservations, there is considerable scope for the Assembly to take policy decisions, particularly as to the scope of planting, the amount of money to be invested in planting and the acreage to be planted and the rest in relation to Scotland which are perfectly suitable for devolution and where there is no particular reason that the Scottish Executive should take the same view as the Government in Westminster.
    That means that the Commission could adopt different priorities in Scotland, where it would be subject to the direction of the Minister, whereas in England it would be subject to the direction of the Minister of Agriculture. But that is not much different from the present regime, because the Commission already operates under the regime of tripartite responsibility I have described. As a matter of actual practical experience, a larger and
    210
    larger share of the Commission's planting activity has been taking place in Scotland in recent years.
    11.45 p.m.
    It might be possible to argue that in terms of the harvesting and marketing of timber, there is a good deal to be said for a unified policy in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. I find these arguments less than persuasive. Again, they are very much related to the management of the forestry estate in Scotland, and I see no reason why they should not be devolved as well. Nor do I believe that the arguments about the reservation of most of agricultural activity and policy point in the same direction for forestry. There are very different considerations involved, not the last of which are our relationships within the Community.
    Mr. Jasper More: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Forestry Commission is in favour of these devolution proposals?
    Mr. Millan: I do not think that I can do that. The Forestry Commission is an agency of the Government. But it is well known that there are people within the forestry industry in the United Kingdom, both in the State-owned section of the industry and in the private industry, who are not in favour of the devolution of forestry. The Forestry Commission is an agent of the Government. I do not believe that we ought to look upon the commission, on a matter of this nature, as being the determining factor in what this House does or what the Government do. It is a factor.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Millan: No. I have little time left to me. I imagine that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will want to say a few words before we come to a decision on this matter, and I am sure that his hon. Friends do not want to encourage me to speak until midnight.
    These matters of policy in relation to devolution are matters for this House and for the Government. They are not matters where we take the view of the Forestry Commission. Certainly they are not matters where we take the view of the private sector of forestry as determining our attitude.

    211
    I do not believe that the links between forestry and agriculture in administrative terms are such that it is necessary for both subjects in policy terms to be dealt with by the same administration. Of course, there will still have to be very close co-operation between those involved in the two activities of forestry and agriculture, but where the two activities impinge on one another most seriously is in relation to land use, and of course land use is a devolved responsibility of the Scottish Assembly and is not a reserved matter. Nor do I believe that some of the other arguments about the Assembly being urban-dominated and the rest are matters that should be taken into account.
    When we last debated this subject, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) said that he was in favour of it going to the Assembly because he did not believe that the Assembly could make a worse job of it than the House of Commons had made in past years or that the Assembly would take less interest in it than the House of Commons had done. With great respect to the House, there is a certain validity in that argument.
    I certainly believe that those who wish to see the development of a thriving forestry industry in Scotland, and I would count myself among them, would take the view that this House and successive Governments have necessarily contributed towards that aim. I would certainly take the view that the Assembly, with responsibility for forestry, has the opportunity, if it wishes to further the active development of forestry, of increasing the importance of forestry to the Scottish economy. My personal view is that I hope that the Assembly will do that, because I believe that forestry has great potential importance to the Scottish economy.
    As I say, if it were not for these various administrative complications to which a number of hon. Members have drawn attention in our previous debates, this would be the kind of subject which would strike one immediately as being peculiarly suited for devolution to the Assembly. That is the view that the Government have taken. It is for that reason that we are recommending that this House should disagree with their Lordships' amendment on forestry.
    Mr. George Younger: We are very grateful to the Secretary of State for his explanation, but I must point out that his idea of a fair debate on a subject as important as this, ever under a guillotine, is biased and one-sided. To take over 20 minutes and to leave nine minutes for everyone else in the House to make a point on this subject makes a travesty of the idea of having a debate at all. I hope that the Secretary of State will take it that we think that the time that he took was grossly excessive in these circumstances.
    I would urge the House to agree with the Lords in this amendment because I think that, even with the Secretary of State's explanation, it became clearer and clearer that the Government's arrangements for dealing with forestry after devolution are a dog's breakfast. As the Secretary of State described it, it was made perfectly clear that there are to be so many different eggs to make up this pudding that I very much doubt whether the forestry industry as a whole will be able to make good sense of it and to expand, as the Secretary of State said he wished it to do.
    This is one industry. It is a big industry. It is an important industry. It is an industry which could have a big role to play in import saving if it is allowed a decent future with a proper basis on which to work.
    Yet the Government, as part of the devolution policy, bring in a system, as the Secretary of State has described, whereby the tax policy for the industry, which is vital to the whole private sector, is determined by central Government, by this House and the Treasury, whereby the land use policy is to be decided by the Assembly in Scotland, whereby the policy on grants to growers of trees is to be decided by the Assembly, and whereby plant health considerations are to be decided by this House and the United Kingdom Government. Those dealings, such as they are, for the future, which will undoubtedly be more and more with the EEC, will be a matter for this House to consider.
    Then we have the truly Gilbertian situation of the Forestry Commission itself, which is to be a single entity charged with carrying on its business as

    213
    one Government organ, yet it is to have three different masters, one in England, one in Scotland and one in Wales. They will not even be three parallel bodies. Each one of those bodies has a completely different nature and completely different circumstances in which it works. One is the Government here and the House of Commons, one is the Scottish Assembly, and the other is the Welsh Assembly, which is quite different from the Scottish Assembly.
    I cannot think of a better recipe for putting any industry into a complete muddle. Yet the industry must work in one market. It is selling its products in one market, in one economy, under one general taxation system.
    People in the industry are competing, in many cases on a day-to-day basis, with competitors in other parts of the country, who may well be growing their trees and operating their business on a completely different basis from that of any particular producer.
    Then we have the strange contradiction of the Government's arguments when we look at their arguments for not treating agriculture in the same way. The Secretary of State has brushed aside the fact that forestry and agriculture have very close connections with each other as not being quite as important as many of us think. Yet many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been preaching for years that greater integration between forestry and agriculture is very important for both of these great industries. The crazy point is that when the Government themselves argue that agriculture should not be treated in this way, what do they say? They say that it is very difficult to make different arrangements for financing support systems in agriculture in different parts of the United Kingdom. Why is it so very difficult for the Government to do this in agriculture but very much to be advised, very sensible and very easy when it comes to dealing with forestry? I do not think that it makes any sense.
    Then there is the question of what the industry itself thinks about it. The Secretary of State was not able to deny, and nor can I, that the Forestry Commission is thought to be very much against this proposal. I am not privy to the inner counsels of the Commission but I am for-
    214
    tunate, as are other hon. Members, in having received the views of an extremely distinguished person, who is not only the ex-chairman of the Forestry Commission but a loyal supporter of the Labour Party, and has been for many years. Lord Taylor of Gryfe has written to Lord Dulverton making his views very clear. He says in the letter, which he has asked to be made public:
    "During my period of office as Chairman of the Forestry Commission I had the Headquarters removed to Edinburgh and it would now be a piece of nonsense to devolve forestry. It would add to the bureaucracy and it would make it increasingly difficult for the industry to deal with so many government bodies if the Assemblies of Wales and Scotland were added.
    I shall be pleased if you will make this view known to as many MPs as possible in the hope that the reasonable Amendment which you moved and which stood in my name"—
    in the House of Lords—
    "will be accepted by the Commons."
    Mr. Dalyell: Not only Lord Taylor of Gryfe but the general secretary of SOGAT, the trade union most involved, has written to us all, as have the paper and board employers.
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We can add to the list the Forestry Committee of Great Britain, which deals with the interests of the industry as a whole, and the Home-grown Timber Advisory Committee. They have all made their views clear. So in doing what they propose, the Government are not only making an arrangement which any unbiased observer sees at a glance to be a piece of nonsense, but they are doing it in the teeth of all the advice they have received from the industry, producers, customers and Forestry Commission members alike.
    The Government are being extremely ill advised, and I urge the House on this occasion, if on not many others, to agree that the only sensible thing to do is to recognise that the forestry industry is one with great potential which operates in one market and that it ought to operate under one system of support. What is the point of having three different sources of support for it—an Assembly in Scotland, an Assembly in Wales and the Government here—unless they are to have different policies? The right hon. Gentleman was open about that. Yet if all three are

    215
    to have continually diverging policies, how on earth are they to compete in the same market? The Government's method of dealing with the situation is a load of nonsense, and the Government would be well advised on this occasion to listen to the Lords. I urge the House to support the Lords amendment.
    Mr. John Parker: On this occasion I support the Lords amendment. It is a nonsense to try to separate agriculture from forestry. The two have been trying to unite and to plan together for years. If there were a case for devolving forestry, agriculture would be devolved as well. But there is not a case for devolving forestry and there is not a case for devolving agriculture. If we are to integrate them, we must keep them together.
    They must be kept under the United Kingdom Parliament because the United Kingdom Parliament must finally decide how big the forestry industry must be. At present, apart from food, timber is one of our biggest imports. We need to increase the acreage under timber in the years to come, and that can be done in a really constructive way only by the

    Division No. 277]

    AYES

    [12.00 m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Archer, Peter

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    English, Michael

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cohen, Stanley

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Ashley, Jack

    Coleman, Donald

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Ashton, Joe

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Faulds, Andrew

    Atkinson, David (Bournemouth E)

    Corbett, Robin

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Atkinson, Norman

    Cowans, Harry

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Flannery, Martin

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Bates, Alf

    Crawford, Douglas

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Bean, R. E.

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ford, Ben

    Beith, A. J.

    Cronin, John

    Forrester, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Crowther, J. S.

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Cryer, Bob

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

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Bishop, E. S.

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

    Freud. Clement

    Benkinsop, Arthur

    Davidson, Arthur

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Boardman, H.

    Dairies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    George, Bruce

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Boothroyd, Miss Batty

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Ginsburg, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Golding, John

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Deakins, Eric

    Gould, Bryan

    Bradley, Tom

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Graham, Ted

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Dempsey, James

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Dewar, Donald

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Buchan, Norman

    Doig, Peter

    Grocott, Bruce

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Dormand, J. D.

    Hardy, Peter

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter (Wakefield)

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Campbell, Ian

    Dunn, James A.

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Canavan, Dennis

    Dunnett, Jack

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Cant, R. B.

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Eadie, Alex

    Henderson, Douglas

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Edge, Geoff

    Hooley, Frank

    Cartwright, John

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Horam, John

    United Kingdom Parliament and Government. I hope that on this occasion the House will support the Lords amendment.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to follow the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), because he was responsible to a large extent for sending the Forestry Commission headquarters to my constituency. I say to the hon. Member and to all other hon. Members that it is only fair that they should know that many of those who work in the Forestry Commission headquarters are deeply unhappy at the prospect of being devolved. There is at present one accounting system, and they say that there will be an English accounting system, a Scottish accounting system and a Welsh accounting system—
    It being midnight, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.
    Question put:—That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes

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

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Spearing, Nigel

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hoyie, Doug (Nelson)

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Huckfield, Les

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Hughes. Roy (Newport)

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

    Stoddart, David

    Hunter, Adam

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Stott, Roger

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Morton, George

    Strang, Gavin

    Irving. Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Swain, Thomas

    Janner, Greville

    Newens, Stanley

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Noble, Mike

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Oakes, Gordon

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Ogden, Eric

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    John, Brynmor

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Ovenden, John

    Thompson, George

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Pardoe, John

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Park, George

    Tierney, Sydney

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Parry, Robert

    Tilley, John

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Tinn, James

    Judd, Frank

    Pendry, Tom

    Tomlinson, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Penhaligon, David

    Tornney, Frank

    Kelley, Richard

    Perry, Ernest

    Torney, Tom

    Killedder, James

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Kinnock, Neil

    Radice, Giles

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Lambie, David

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Reid, George

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Lamond, James

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Ward, Michael

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Watkins, David

    Lee, John

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Watkinson, John

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Watt, Hamish

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Weetch, Ken

    Loyden, Eddie

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Weitzman, David

    Luard, Evan

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Rooker, J. W.

    White, James (Pollok)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Roper, John

    Whitehead, Phillip

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Rose, Paul B.

    Whitlock, William

    McElhone, Frank

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    McKay, Allen (Penistons)

    Ryman, John

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Sever, John

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    McNarrvara, Kevin

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Madden, Max

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Magee, Bryan

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Woodall, Alec

    Mahon, Simon

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Woof, Robert

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Marks, Kenneth

    Sillars, James

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Silverman, Julius

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Skinner, Dennis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Meacher, Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Snape, Peter

    Mr. A. W. Stallard

    Mikardo, Ian

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Brittan, Leon

    Cope, John

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Alison, Michael

    Brooke, Peter

    Costain, A. P.

    Arnold, Tom

    Brotherton, Michael

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Crouch, David

    Awdry, Daniel

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Crowder, F. P.

    Baker, Kenneth

    Buchanan, Richard

    Dalyell, Tam

    Banks, Robert

    Buck, Antony

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Bell, Ronald

    Budgen, Nick

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Burden, F. A.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Drayson, Bumaby

    Benyon, W.

    Carlisle, Mark

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Biffen, John

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Durant, Tony

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Channon, Paul

    Dykes, Hugh

    Blaker, Peter

    Churchill, W. S.

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Body, Richard

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Bottomley, Peter

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

    Emery, Peter

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Clegg, Waiter

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Cockroft, John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Farr, John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Fell, Anthony

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Rhodes James, R.

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Lawson, Nigel

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Forman, Nigel

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Lloyd, Ian

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Fox, Marcus

    Loveridge, John

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Luce, Richard

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Fry, Peter

    McCrindle, Robert

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    MacGregor, John

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    MacKay, Andrew (Stechtord)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Famham)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Madel, David

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Marten, Neil

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mates, Michael

    Shepherd, Colin

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Mather, Carol

    Shersby, Michael

    Gorst, John

    Maude, Angus

    Silvester, Fred

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Sims, Roger

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Mawby, Ray

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Grieve, Percy

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

    Grist, Ian

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Speed, Keith

    Grylls, Michael

    Mills, Peter

    Spence, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Hamilton, Archibald (Eps'm & Ewell)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Moate, Roger

    Stainton, Keith

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Molloy, William

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hannam, John

    Molyneaux, James

    Stanley, John

    Harrison Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Monro, Hector

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Stokes, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Morgan, Geraint

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hawkins, Paul

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Hicks, Robert

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Hodgson, Robin

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Holland, Philip

    Mudd, David

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Hordern, Peter

    Neave, Airey

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Neubert, Michael

    Trotter, Neville

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Newton, Tony

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Normanton, Tom

    Vaughan, Or Gerard

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Nott, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Hurd, Douglas

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Osborn, John

    Wakeham, John

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    James, David

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

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

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Wall, Patrick

    Jessel, Toby

    Parker, John

    Walters, Dennis

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Warren, Kenneith

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Jopling, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Wells, John

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Whitney, Raymond

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Younger, Hon George

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Raison, Timothy

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rathbone, Tim

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Knox, David

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Sir George Young and

    Lamont, Norman

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Mr. Anthony Berry

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at midnight.
    Lords amendments nos. 98 to 100 agreed to.
    Lords amendment no.101 disagreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 102 to 108 agreed to.
    Lords amendments to be further considered this day.—[Mr. Millan.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)
12.15 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
This order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The main estimates for 1978–79 totalled £1,298,746,000 and were appropriated by the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 which was approved by the House on 6th March and, as the House will recall, the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was approved on 7th July, 1978.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen also will recall that in seeking the House's approval of the No. 2 Appropriation Order I advised the House that recent decisions to extend the meat industry employment scheme and also to introduce measures to aid milk producers made it necessary to seek further funds by way of an additional appropriation order.
As I explained to the House, it was not possible to provide for the scheme to aid milk producers in the No. 2 Appropriation Order because the decision relative to financing the scheme had not been taken until after the order had been laid. I also indicated that the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund could not finance both schemes until the autumn Supplementary Estimates were appropriated in November.
The order now before the House seeks the appropriation out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund of £33·4 million, for the service of class 1, vote 3, agricultural assistance schemes. This sum is not subject to cash limits.
Of the amount sought, £32·4 million is needed for the continuation to the end of March 1979 of payments under the meat industry employment scheme. The need for aid to Northern Ireland milk producers has also been brought about by the change from national to EEC support measures, from the 1st January of this year.
As the House will be aware from previous statements that I have made, returns
222
to milk producers in Northern Ireland have traditionally been lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, but until the end of 1977 any deficiency was made good through the operation of the milk guarantee scheme.
However, since 1st January that remedy has no longer been available and producers in Northern Ireland are at a disadvantage compared with those in Great Britain. This situation, coupled with the risks of irregular trade distortion between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, results from the differential green pound rates applying on the two sides of the border, and would have an adverse effect on the production and processing of milk in the Province.
The aid to the Northern Ireland milk industry is aimed therefore at reducing this disparity in incomes for producers in Northern Ireland. I regret that I cannot as yet forecast the full cost of this aid because it cannot be determined until certain technical aspects of the proposed aid are settled, and therefore a token provision of £1 million is being sought in this order.
I commend the order to the House.
12.20 a.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: We accepted the need for this further order during the last appropriation debate on 7th July, and I welcome what the Minister said. The reasons why this was not included in the Appropriation No. 2 Order were set out in a letter that the Minister kindly sent to me on 30th June. I am glad that he took the decision to introduce this order tonight.
One of the main objects of the order is to bring greater confidence and stability to both the milk industry and to milk and beef producers in Northern Ireland. We welcome this. Both matters have been welcomed unreservedly by interested parties in Northern Ireland, including the Ulster Farmers Union, which has been urging the Government over the last few years to provide a greater sense of security for dairy and beef farmers.
The Ulster Farmers Union recently put its views forcibly to some of my Conservative colleagues who visited its headquarters in Belfast in the past few weeks. We are looking forward to further discussions with them on the subject that the Minister has mentioned.

223
We acknowledge that milk producers in Northern Ireland must be assured of sufficient return on their investment to enable them to maintain production. They faced acute uncertainty as they approached the end of the United Kingdom arrangements for guaranteed milk prices on 1st January this year. It seems that that state of uncertainty has now been removed, at least for the immediate future, and we welcome this.
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as result of this scheme prices for milk in Northern Ireland will be broadly comparable with prices elsewhere in the United Kingdom? This is an important point. The subsidy for milk producers is also in line with recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Economic Council in a report on 23rd February. I commended the report on 6th March, because it
"establishes the overwhelming importance of removing the grave uncertainties afflicting the industry over recent years".—[Official Report, 6th March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 1111.]
The Minister, in replying to the debate, said that the report would be studied in detail. We are glad to see that some of its principal recommendations are being carried out.
However, the report went on to say that
"there should be continued pressure on the EEC Commission to take a more liberal and less restrictive attitude to the development of milk processing activities"
in Northern Ireland. Does the introduction of this scheme herald the birth of a more sympathetic attitude on the part of the EEC to this question, and will it diminish the feelings about this matter which are still widespread in Northern Ireland?
I mention this because, in announcing the introduction of the milk subsidy scheme, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that
"certain legal and procedural matters, including the making of Community legislation, remain to be tied up, and these unfortunately may take some time".
We understand that some detailed points remain to be settled and discussions are still going on in Brussels. When will these discussions be completed? Clearly, it is of the utmost importance for milk producers to know how long the scheme
224
will last and the full extent of financial assistance that will be available under it. Those are the questions I wish to ask on the order, which we welcome.
12.23 a.m.
Mr. Wm. Ross: In common with everybody involved in the farming industry of Northern Ireland, I welcome the order. It will protect not only the income of dairy farmers there but the livelihood and incomes of many people who work in the meat industry.
I understand why the Minister is unable to give precise details of this temporary scheme, which will be introduced by the EEC to protect milk producers in Northern Ireland. The Minister is very much aware that the word "temporary" occurs in my remarks. I fear that that word will not bring great comfort to milk producers. However, I very much welcome the sums that are being made available, and I only wish to reflect that it is due to the incapacity of the United Kingdom Government to control the United Kingdom's land frontier that these sums are necessary.
In the earlier appropriation debate I said that £33 million was left in the current financial account as Northern Ireland's share of the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC. Tonight we are talking about another £30 million-odd for the meat industry employment scheme, which is a further consequence of our membership of the EEC. That is by no means the end of the story. Considerable sums of United Kingdom money are going into agriculture and other aspects of life in Northern Ireland, purely as a result of the Government's failure to control the border and as a result of our membership of the Common Market.
The Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland knows that that is the position. He knows that as long as present circumstances exist, agriculture in Northern Ireland will be in a fairly precarious position. The fundamental problems are unresolved by the order, welcome though it is. I fear that we are talking not about a temporary sum but about a continuing sum, year after year, unless the Government are prepared to accept the fundamental restructuring of our agriculture that is inherent in our membership of the Common Market.

225
There is an allied problem that must be covered by the order, namely, grain imports into Northern Ireland. They are continuing under fairly severe difficulties in terms of prices, and I wonder whether this has been taken into account in the £33½ million that is before us. The problem has a fundamental effect on agricultural production which is not being met and which will, I fear, trouble us in the future.
12.26 a.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I intervene briefly, largely to commend the order. I have frequently pointed out that agriculture is the staple industry of Northern Ireland and many people's livelihoods are affected by that industry. The more prosperous it becomes, the better for the Province.
I accept what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, and I shall not go over the ground that he has covered. Agriculture in Northern Ireland needs all the help that it can get. It is in an extremely invidious situation, because we are all proud to be part of the United Kingdom, which is an industrial nation, and yet we are on the same sort of level, in relation to agriculture, as is the Irish Republic, which benefits from membership of the Common Market to a greater extent than does Northern Ireland. Our farmers suffer as a result of this difference.
There are other matters that should have been covered. I preface my remarks by recalling that last Wednesday we had in Northern Ireland the day that is affectionately and colloquially known as "The Twelfth". No one seems to be able to stop a number of Unionist politicians jumping on platforms to make speeches. I dislike that aspect of the day. These political speeches tend to whip people up into a fury. I saw spread across one Belfast paper a headline saying that militant action was needed to end direct rule. That was a report of a speech by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). I do not see any militancy here.
In Northern Ireland politicians can almost incite people to take action that they might subsequently regret, but in this Chamber there is an eerie silence. Ulster people do not have the opportunity to watch what is being said and done in their name. We had a Division here only about a week before "The Twelfth"
226
when the Government invited the House to approve the continuation of direct rule for a further 12 months. No one except the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and myself challenged the continuation of direct rule. That is a fact. Not all the eloquence nor all the language used in Northern Ireland can disprove that. It is time that the Ulster people realised that what is said in Northern Ireland is not always carried into effect in this Chamber.
I refer briefly to two other matters which I feel ought to be in the order. I have already drawn attention to what I described as the bad practice of the health boards in spending a higher proportion of their revenue in the final month of the financial year than in any other month. I mention this now because the Government ought to do something about it and should say something on the subject now. I tabled a number of Questions about it and was glad to see in the press a few days ago that evidence of this complaint has been collected by the Public Accounts Committee. It would have been useful to have that Committee's report before us tonight, but I understand that we shall have to wait a few days for that. I do not complain too much about that.
The four health and social security boards are, legally, merely an extension of the Department of Health and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. What have the health boards to do with the motion under consideration?
Mr. Kilfedder: The explanatory note to the order states that:
"This Order authorises the issue of a further sum out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1979 and appropriates that sum for a specified service in Northern Ireland."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What we are specifically discussing are the subjects of agricultural assistance schemes, food processing and marketing in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Kilfedder: But I contend, I think rightly, that I am entitled to discuss under this order—I cannot be restricted—what should be covered by the appropriation order. The Government may wish to restrict the debate to the subjects contained in the order but as a Back Bencher I am entitled to raise all other subjects.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I were to allow that situation to develop any hon. Member could get up and discuss anything under the sun. Apart from that, the hon. Member should keep strictly to what we are discussing. It is clear what that is.
Mr. Kilfedder: I wish to pursue this matter and to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am here as the hon. Member for Down, North, to pursue matters on behalf of the people of Down, North and all the people of Northern Ireland. I can pursue these matters, as has been done in the past, only by raising them on an appropriation order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are getting far too wide of the order. Last week we had a debate on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order, which would have enabled the hon. Member to raise these matters. I ask the hon. Member to stick to what we are discussing, namely class 1, vote 3
"For expenditure by the Department of Agriculture on agricultural assistance schemes, food processing and marketing."
Mr. Kilfedder: I contend that I am perftcely within order in raising any matter which comes under appropriation—any matter which ought to be in it, which might be in it, should be in it, is in it. I cannot, surely, be denied this right—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to respect the direction of the Chair. He will have to refer particularly to what we are discussing, which is class 1, vote 3, concerning a sum of £33,400,000. That is the sum granted for expenditure by the Department of Agriculture in respect of agricultural assistance schemes, food processing and marketing.
Mr. Kilfedder: As you well appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have the highest respect for the Chair and for the present occupant and his colleagues, but I think that I am entitled to pursue this matter. I want to make the point sincerely, before I sit down, that I am entitled to raise any matter—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Gentleman not to pursue what
228
he thinks he is entitled to pursue. I have given my ruling on what we are debating. I hope that he will respect it without any further argument.
Mr. Kilfedder: You say that I must respect your ruling without any further argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always respect the Chair. I wish to put further argument on this matter. Until I can raise it further, I shall have to accept the ruling of the Chair, but I accept it under protest. I do not believe that it is fair to people in Northern Ireland.
12.36 a.m.
Mr. Dunn: Questions have been put to me about the order. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) asked whether a decision on the milk aid scheme could be forecast with any degree of certainty. I regret that I cannot give him that information now, but I am assured that the matter should crystallise into a positive form. As events unfold, I shall keep him informed as well as I can.
The order relates basically to two subject matters. The first concerns the continuation of the meat industry employment scheme, which seeks to protect employment in the meat processing sector. If added advantages and bonuses have accrued on the way, they are fortuitous. The original intention was to maintain employment in that sector.
The second matter concerns provision for aid to milk producers. We intend to do all that we possibly can to see that a reasonable standard of income is guaranteed to milk producers. It can take place, in the first instance, only on the basis of one year's aid. That would have to be renewed by the House and with the agreement of our European partners. There are some technical difficulties still to be resolved. It is too early to make any pronouncements in that sector. Indeed, if I were to make any pronouncements on that subject tonight they could be counter-productive and might not be to the advantage of those who are concerned to attempt to serve the Province. I go no further than that. I hope that there will be support for the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

SCHOOL RECORDS (PARENTAL INSPECTION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
12.38 a.m.
Mr. Max Madden: Despite the hour, I should like to draw attention to the need to give all parents the right to inspect information about their children which is kept by most schools. The information, normally recorded on a strictly confidential basis, can be a most important influence in a child's progress from primary to secondary school, moving between schools and securing further and higher education or employment.
Where, the magazine of the Advisory Centre for Education, surveyed 93 local education authorities in 1975. It found that all the authorities kept records. However, only two guaranteed that parents could see them and 24 left this to the discretion of head teachers. The rest did not offer parents any rights to inspect their children's files.
If there is a case for some information to be kept, it follows that access to the information must be allowed for parents and older children. Such a right is a basic freedom. It would also be an important and necessary safeguard against the recording of wrong or wholly irrelevant information, which can often follow a child for years, creating all kinds of needless problems and anxieties.
The Where survey revealed the case of a boy who had once been accused of menacing and taking money from a younger boy. It was later found that the boy was entirely innocent. His father sought—and obtained—the assurance of the head teacher that any reference to the incident would not appear on the boy's record. However, later, the innocent boy and his brother moved to a new school. The brother was greatly upset when a teacher, having asked his name, said "Oh, you're the brother of the thief." The boy's record—and its mistakes—had moved with him.
Another example concerns an older girl with a pleasant, open nature, who soon found a job in a company branch office after leaving school at 16. A fortnight later the manager said that head office
230
was questioning her appointment. After receiving her report, it said that she ought never to have been recruited, and she was put on three months' probation. All the girl could assume was that the cause of the difficulty was that her report referred to a bad patch that she had experienced at school when she was 11, five years earlier.
One record card, seen by the National Council for Civil Liberties, followed a child through a number of years and included the following remarks:
"Mother says she's nervous and highly strung. I think this could be inherited from mother. A bit concerned over S's honesty—though as yet have no evidence"
and later
"Not convinced she always tells the complete truth: mum came round one evening and made one or two remarks that were not fully accurate".
As the NCCL said in its book, "Privacy: the Information Gatherers"
"Such pseudo-psychological comments"
—is S supposed to have inherited her mother's nervousness, or merely imitated it?—
"or the extraordinary assumption that a child should be blamed for a mother's inaccuracies should never be allowed to remain unchallenged in a permanent record".
Other teachers have been asked to indicate, on a scale of 1 to 10, how a child rates on a series of attributes, including honesty, leadership, truthfulness and sycophancy. Records normally start in primary school, although one authority in the Midlands introduced into selected infant schools a recording system involving more than 130 questions. Standard record cards kept by Calderdale local education authority, on junior children in my constituency, have sections headed: "Relevant Home Conditions", "Parental Attitude" and "Personality Attributes".
Marie Macey, lecturer in education at Bradford University, has tried, with considerable difficulty, to survey records kept by education authorities responsible for 10 million children. Writing in Where in May she mentions one county recording system which enabled some children, before the age of 5, to be officially labelled
"unreliable and a source of difficulties".
She commented
"LEAs have good reasons for denying even the existence of school cards; they have good

231
reasons for lying about their content and for refusing to supply sample cards to researchers. And given that the records referred to were blank ones, they have even better reasons for refusing parental access to a child's filled-in card! What they have neither reason nor justification for is the unthinking perpetuation of such a system. It is difficult to find any education rationale for much of the information required; it is even more difficult to excuse the recording of such information on social or 'human' grounds, since its potential for harm is self-evident".
Her article concluded that
"the issue of secrecy in school record-keeping is no trivial one, but has, in fact, far reaching implications and consequences for the individual, the family, school and society. The organisation of the British education system is such that no one appears to be 'accountable' to the public, so that the potential for misuse or abuse is inbuilt, just as trust and rights are excluded. It is not a complete exaggeration, either, to suggest that fear is a major component of such a system. Heads tend to refer to area/district officers whenever any 'problems' arise; similarly, local officers refer to the central area office at such times; teachers do not tell parents what is going on in schools for fear of personal and professional repercussions; parents refrain from asking too many 'awkward' questions either of schools or LEAs because they are afraid of adverse effects on their children. Everyone seems to live in fear of 'the system', yet quite who or what makes up this system seems to be a matter of considerable mystery."
I am pleased that the Department, in circular 14/77, asked LEAs to supply information, by 30th June, about record keeping, and that the Green Paper "Education in Schools" stressed the need for full regard to be paid to the rights of parents, teachers and pupils to know what material is recorded.
However, many, including the organisations that I have mentioned and the Campaign Against School Spying, believe that a statutory right of access for parents is necessary. It would ensure a national right of access for parents to standard records and any other material which may be seen—and may influence—a third party and which may convey incorrect or irrelevant information about a child.
The surveys to which I have referred are graphic and stark evidence of the abuse of the present system. I hope that the Minister will be able to underline the concern of her Department about this matter and to say that a clause will be inserted in an early education Bill to give parents a statutory right of access to this information. But before then there needs to be clear agreement among all
232
those responsible for education and the well-being of children about the information that is recorded. If the statutory right of inspection followed as a check against abuse and a safeguard against inaccurate and irrelevant information being recorded, it would be a useful reform. It would be widely welcomed by all parents, by many teachers who are concerned about the present situation and by a large number of children, particularly older children. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to express sympathy with such a reform even if she cannot announce firm action tonight.
12.49 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) for raising this topic tonight, because I know that it is a matter of considerable concern to many hon. Members and to many of their constituents. I am happy to be able to say something about it, because although I readily accept that there is genuine concern about some of the real problems raised by the keeping of records in schools, there is some unreal anxiety. People imagine that things are recorded which are usually not recorded and that they are used for purposes for which they are usually not used. So although I have every sympathy with the real anxiety of many parents, this is not as simple an issue as some people may imagine.
To begin with, I think there is general agreement among those who are involved in education in any way that school records of some kind should be kept not for the benefit of the teaching profession or for the benefit of any group of bureaucrats but for the benefit of the pupils. One of the factors that came out very clearly during our debate on the Green Paper and in many of our debates on education in the last few years was the anxiety among those concerned in education—this involves many parents—that there should be an accurate transmission of information, for example, between one school that a child attends and another, irrespective of whether it is a school from which a child transfers with a particular age of transfer or whether a child moves from one area to another.

233
There is considerable anxiety that at present not enough information about a child's progress and experience is accurately transferred from one school to another. This is a real anxiety, which has been expressed consistently and which, in a sense, is the other side of the argument that my hon. Friend quite rightly put.
Local authorities are statutorily obliged to provide this sort of accurate information about a child's academic record when the child transfers from one school to another, but even though they are obliged to do so by law, there is anxiety whether this is carried out properly. At present, there is no standard procedure for the keeping of school records or for the information there recorded, and local education authorities have complete discretion to decide what form the records take and, which concerns my hon. Friend as much, what access is available to those records and who shall have access to them.
There is probably a considerable variation of practice in terms of what is contained in records and also in terms of their confidentiality. I understand that most schools keep some sort of written record of each pupil's educational development, including information about any special factors which it is thought may affect the performance of that pupil. Usually, such records consist almost entirely of academic information which again is usually made available to parents in the term reports or annual reports which they receive on the progress of their children or which is explained at parents' evenings or in other forms of communication which exist between school and home. But, because there is no standard form, this information varies. Sometimes it will be purely objective data such as test scores or examination results or statements about progress in a scheme of reading or mathematics. But in probably the majority of records that purely statistical factual information will be supplemented by the teacher's own assessment of the pupil's progress both in general terms and also in relation to the teacher's assessment of the potential of the pupil.
Such records and assessments are a very important part of the assessment of a child's intellectual and educational development. As I said earlier, they are
234
important if a child is transferring from one school to another. Records of this kind also are usually used as a basis for academic references if a pupil applies for a job or for a place at a university or college. Because requests for references may be made some little time after a pupil has left the school concerned, secondary schools, for example, usually keep these records for five or six years after pupils have left their premises.
As I said just now, academic information is usually available for parents throughout a child's school career and to others in terms of references immediately afterwards or for a short period afterwards.
But it is acknowledged, I think, that a small number of records will also contain observations which the school thinks—and perhaps others might think—ought to be kept confidential to the school in the pupil's own best interests. It might be as simple as a reference to strains or difficulties in the pupil's home life or sometimes to suspicions that the pupil is being neglected or maltreated or is in some way at risk.
It is in cases of this kind that the issue of confidentiality arises, and it is particularly difficult to balance the general need, which my hon. Friend expressed and which I understand and have a great deal of sympathy with, for parents to have access to school records and to be able to see there is nothing on such records which they feel is inaccurate with the need sometimes for such records to be kept in the pupil's own interests perhaps to safeguard individual pupils. Sometimes there is, indeed, a need for teachers to take note of adverse circumstances in a pupil's home life, so that this can be treated and regarded with sympathy.
I realise that this is exactly the kind of case which gives some people pause and where they feel that parents should have a right to see records and to see what is recorded. But I think that there is a certain difficulty here in that it is obviously more difficult for teachers to feel willing to set down, for example, their concern that a child may be subject to non-accidental damage if they know that the parent involved may at any time have access to records stating such a fact. If this is not so, clearly there will be many who feel that the parent has such a right,

235
and that it is in the parent's and the child's interests that they should see that such queries have been made.
But I must tell my hon. Friend in all sincerity that it is my understanding, on the evidence that I have seen, comparatively small though it is, that it is more usually the rule that teachers are reluctant to suggest that a child has been subjected to non-accidental damage than the reverse, and that to my knowledge there are more cases of a teacher being unwilling either to commit his suspicions to paper or to convey them to colleagues than there are cases in which a teacher has wantonly put down such suspicions, which have caused damage or concern to the child or the parent, which have subsequently proved to be untrue.
Certainly in many cases that have come to public attention, a wish has been expressed, whether fairly or otherwise in the circumstances at the time, that teachers and others concerned with the care of a particular child should have been more ready to make known their suspicions.
Mr. Madden: Does not the Minister agree that most concern surrounds the often highly subjective view which is sometimes expressed by teachers about the personality of children, which seems to encroach into assessments of psychological factors which are entirely outside the competence or training of teachers to make? Is it not in this area where, perhaps, changes in the range of information which is recorded would serve a very useful purpose and would overcome much of the concern and the abuse which undoubtedly can exist in some of the record systems which are currently in operation?
Miss Jackson: Yes, I entirely accept my hon. Friend's contention on that point. I hope to come in a few moments to the case that he is putting. But many of the people who have put to the Department, in speech or in writing, the case that he is putting, of concern about the confidentiality of school records, have usually gone so far that they exclude anything other than the purest statistical recording. I accept entirely my hon. Friend's contention that there is a difference between the recording of academic information and of information such as a
236
query about non-accidental damage, and the sort of personality judgment of a child. Of course I accept that. As I said, I shall come to that matter.
I was making this point because the contention that my hon. Friend has just put forward is not usually the one that has been made to me, and I was anxious to get it on record that there is a very real difficulty which the teaching profession faces in cases of this kind.
My hon. Friend will forgive me for also drawing to his attention another difficulty which is arising more frequently these days. For example, if a couple are separated or divorced and there is a dispute about the custody of the child, the school needs to be aware of such a fact. In fact, often such a dispute comes to the attention of the school because there is a query about whether records should be available to one or to both parents. It is necessary for the staff concerned with that child to be aware of such a difficulty. But either one or both of the parents may object to such a fact being recorded on the child's formal record.
This is the sort of difficulty which members of the teaching profession are facing. They are genuine difficulties. They are not merely a matter of people standing on their professional dignity or being absurd about the need for confidentiality because they wish to have attention turned away from any deficient judgment that they might make. Therefore, I accept my hon. Friend's general contention that there are these two areas.
As my hon. Friend said in his speech —I am glad to see that he is aware of it —in a recent circular we have made some inquiries of local authorities about the practice in school record keeping. We are hopeful that we shall get something of use from local authorities about their practice today. We are also considering the question whether, depending on what we hear from local authorities about their current practice, we should give advice about whether there should be some sort of standard form of records, and whether there should be some guidelines as to what kind of information is recorded. We are looking at all of these questions and we are very anxious to see them resolved satisfactorily.
We have no interest in and no sympathy for seeing records maintained which are

237
used to the disadvantage of pupils or which may be used against them. Equally, we have no interest in seeing—because perhaps in the past in a minority of cases it has been misused—a system of genuinely needed education recording discarded.
We are trying to find a middle way between these two opposing points of view. We are hopeful of finding a degree of agreement about the kinds of record that are needed. We are certainly intent on insisting that authorities and teachers require high standards of accuracy in the maintenance of such records as a prime consideration, and we are hopeful that, in the near future, whether there is need for legislative action or not, we will be able to get some sort of agreement about what kinds of record are kept and also to whom they are available.
We have great sympathy with those who are concerned about this issue and are concerned that children should not be damaged by the maintenance of inaccurate records and that people who know the facts should be well informed about who should have access to the records. We are very sympathetic to that point of view.
We are also concerned that some children should not be harmed by the fact that their records are not available and
238
that information is not available to schools to which they have transferred. Much of the problem that we have been discussing is resolved and becomes unnecessary to discuss if in many of our schools there is an adequate system of pastoral care.
It seems to me that this is the way forward for many of these problems. If there is real continuity between one school and another and within schools among the teaching staffs, and if there is continuity of the staffs themselves, without the high turnover that we have seen in recent years, much of the need for written records that has been seen in the past will disappear.
Nevertheless, I think that there will always be some need for an objective assessment of what a child has been doing during its educational career. I accept my hon. Friend's argument about the necessity, nevertheless, for establishing to whom that record should be available. It is a matter that we are considering most sympathetically, and I hope that in the not-too-distant future we shall be able to say something that will satisfy my hon. Friend, if not perhaps all of those whose case he has been putting.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past One o'clock.

PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Bargain and Flash Offers
  Bargain and Flash Offers
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Non-ethical Proprietary Medicines
  Non-ethical Proprietary Medicines
  Price Commission Index
  Price Commission Index
  Food (Household Expenditure)
  Food (Household Expenditure)
  Monopolies and Mergers Policy
  Monopolies and Mergers Policy
  Cosmetics Regulations
  Cosmetics Regulations
  Departmental Cost
  Departmental Cost
  Price Code (Safeguard Clauses)
  Price Code (Safeguard Clauses)
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Repricing
  Repricing
  Footwear (Report)
  Footwear (Report)
  Central Transport Consultative Committee
  Central Transport Consultative Committee
  North Thames Gas Consumers' Council
  North Thames Gas Consumers' Council
  Hearing Aids (Code of Practice)
  Hearing Aids (Code of Practice)
  Product Liability
  Product Liability
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Unit Pricing
  Unit Pricing
  Bread Prices
  Bread Prices
  Office of Fair Trading
  Office of Fair Trading
  Licensed Premises (Rent)
  Licensed Premises (Rent)
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Legislation
  Legislation
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT (BONN MEETING)
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT (BONN MEETING)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (DUTIES)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (DUTIES)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Theatre Museum
  Theatre Museum
  Teachers (Special Schools)
  Teachers (Special Schools)
  Comprehensive Education (Nottinghamshire)
  Comprehensive Education (Nottinghamshire)
  Higher Education (Working Group's Report)
  Higher Education (Working Group's Report)
  Guinea (Student Exchanges)
  Guinea (Student Exchanges)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Citizens Overseas (Taxation)
  British Citizens Overseas (Taxation)
  Extradition (Malta)
  Extradition (Malta)
  Local Government Boundaries (St. Albans)
  Local Government Boundaries (St. Albans)
  Violent Crime (Suffolk)
  Violent Crime (Suffolk)
  Regional Television Programmes
  Regional Television Programmes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farming (Incomes and Productivity)
  Farming (Incomes and Productivity)
  Information Returns
  Information Returns
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
  Mackerel Fishing
  Mackerel Fishing
DEFENCE
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  United Nations (Peacekeeping Activities)
  United Nations (Peacekeeping Activities)
  Colonels (Salary and Retirement Pay)
  Colonels (Salary and Retirement Pay)
  Service Personnel (Resettlement)
  Service Personnel (Resettlement)
  Short Service Commissions (CBI Scheme)
  Short Service Commissions (CBI Scheme)
  Salary Scales
  Salary Scales
  Chinook Helicopter (Air Show Display)
  Chinook Helicopter (Air Show Display)
  Dartmoor Training (Inquiry)
  Dartmoor Training (Inquiry)
  Wellington Barracks
  Wellington Barracks
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Her Majesty's Ambassador, Washington
  Her Majesty's Ambassador, Washington
  Africa (Diplomatic Representation)
  Africa (Diplomatic Representation)
  USSR (Helsinki Treaty Monitoring Group)
  USSR (Helsinki Treaty Monitoring Group)
  Guinea
  Guinea
  Washington and New York Missions (Information Staff)
  Washington and New York Missions (Information Staff)
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Passports
  Passports
EMPLOYMENT
  Road Tankers (Dangerous Loads)
  Road Tankers (Dangerous Loads)
  Apprentices (Payment)
  Apprentices (Payment)
  Ipswich
  Ipswich
  Technicolour Ltd., Harmondsworth
  Technicolour Ltd., Harmondsworth
  Government Schemes
  Government Schemes
  Labour Attachés
  Labour Attachés
  Wages and Salaries
  Wages and Salaries
  Textile Workers (Redundancy Payments)
  Textile Workers (Redundancy Payments)
  Canvey Island (Hazardous Industrial Activities)
  Canvey Island (Hazardous Industrial Activities)
  Race and Sex Discrimination
  Race and Sex Discrimination
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
  Health and Safety (Railway Industry)
  Health and Safety (Railway Industry)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Health and Safety at Work Act (Offences)
  Health and Safety at Work Act (Offences)
  Road Tanker Explosion (Spain)
  Road Tanker Explosion (Spain)
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  European Community (United Kingdom Contract Agents)
  European Community (United Kingdom Contract Agents)
  Lancaster
  Lancaster
  Industrial Retraining Centres
  Industrial Retraining Centres
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' of Parliament Salaries
  Members' of Parliament Salaries
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Guinea
  Guinea
  St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla
  St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (BREMEN MEETING)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (BREMEN MEETING)
  CANVEY ISLAND
  CANVEY ISLAND
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
  TURKEY
  TURKEY
SCOTLAND
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Clyde Fisheries
  Clyde Fisheries
TRADE
  European Community
  European Community
  Company Records (Microfilm Copies)
  Company Records (Microfilm Copies)
  Trade Marks
  Trade Marks
  Top Salaries (British Airports Authority)
  Top Salaries (British Airports Authority)
  Aviation Security Levy
  Aviation Security Levy
  Heathrow and Sumburgh Airports (Aircraft Movements)
  Heathrow and Sumburgh Airports (Aircraft Movements)
  Top Salaries (British Airways)
  Top Salaries (British Airways)
  Imports (International Comparisons)
  Imports (International Comparisons)
  Japan
  Japan
  Airports Policy (Advisory Committee)
  Airports Policy (Advisory Committee)
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Technical Help for Exporters
  Technical Help for Exporters
CIVIL SERVICE
  Local Government Superannuation
  Local Government Superannuation
ENERGY
  State Corporations (Employed Persons)
  State Corporations (Employed Persons)
  Canvey Island (Hazardous Industrial Activities)
  Canvey Island (Hazardous Industrial Activities)
  Top Salaries (Atomic Energy Authority)
  Top Salaries (Atomic Energy Authority)
  Top Salaries (Area Electricity Boards)
  Top Salaries (Area Electricity Boards)
  Park Colliery, Staffordshire
  Park Colliery, Staffordshire
  Vale of Belvoir Coalfield
  Vale of Belvoir Coalfield
  Top Salaries (Central Electricity Generating Board)
  Top Salaries (Central Electricity Generating Board)
  Nationalised Coal Board (Redundancies)
  Nationalised Coal Board (Redundancies)
  Spoil Heaps (Reclaimed Land)
  Spoil Heaps (Reclaimed Land)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Widow's Allowance
  Widow's Allowance
  Diesel Fuels
  Diesel Fuels
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Taxation and Social Security Contributions
  Taxation and Social Security Contributions
  50p coins (Greater Manchester County)
  50p coins (Greater Manchester County)
  Balance of Payments (International Comparisons)
  Balance of Payments (International Comparisons)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Exchange Control (Overseas Footballers)
  Exchange Control (Overseas Footballers)
  British Citizens Overseas (Taxation)
  British Citizens Overseas (Taxation)
  Tax Clearance Certificates (Emigration)
  Tax Clearance Certificates (Emigration)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Government Debt
  Government Debt
  Tax Revenue (Northern Ireland)
  Tax Revenue (Northern Ireland)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  National Health Service (Staff)
  National Health Service (Staff)
WALES
  Mold-Ruthin Trunk Road
  Mold-Ruthin Trunk Road
  Advance Factory (Caernarvon)
  Advance Factory (Caernarvon)
  Egg Producers
  Egg Producers
  Bilingual Schools
  Bilingual Schools
  Colliery Tips
  Colliery Tips
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Grants and Subsidies (Lancashire)
  Housing Grants and Subsidies (Lancashire)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  New Towns (Property Occupation)
  New Towns (Property Occupation)
  Local Government Debt
  Local Government Debt
  Standard Rateable Value
  Standard Rateable Value
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Authorities (Staffs)
  Local Authorities (Staffs)
  Local Authority Accounts (Audits)
  Local Authority Accounts (Audits)
  Rates
  Rates
  Unoccupied Property (Rating)
  Unoccupied Property (Rating)
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Green Belt Land
  Green Belt Land
  Water Authorities (Revenue)
  Water Authorities (Revenue)
  Septic Tanks (Emptying Costs)
  Septic Tanks (Emptying Costs)
  Rate Fund Services
  Rate Fund Services
  Construction Output
  Construction Output
  Local Authority Expenditure (Loan Sanction)
  Local Authority Expenditure (Loan Sanction)
  Local Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Local Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Local Authorities (Housing Revenue Accounts)
  Local Authorities (Housing Revenue Accounts)
  Public Buildings (Disabled Persons' Access)
  Public Buildings (Disabled Persons' Access)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Local Authorities (Statutory Responsibilities)
  Local Authorities (Statutory Responsibilities)
  Ministerial Visits (Immigration Areas)
  Ministerial Visits (Immigration Areas)
  Domestic Rate Bill
  Domestic Rate Bill
  Home Insulation (Elderly Persons)
  Home Insulation (Elderly Persons)
  Public Lavatories
  Public Lavatories
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Canvey Island (Hazardous Industrial Activities)
  Canvey Island (Hazardous Industrial Activities)
  Parish Council Elections (Costs)
  Parish Council Elections (Costs)
  Housing Land (London)
  Housing Land (London)
  Building Regulations (Spiral Staircases)
  Building Regulations (Spiral Staircases)
  Greater London Council (House Sales)
  Greater London Council (House Sales)
  Ribble Estuary
  Ribble Estuary
  Somerset House (Fine Rooms)
  Somerset House (Fine Rooms)
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Child Benefit Centre, Tyne and Wear
  Child Benefit Centre, Tyne and Wear
  Local Authorities (Loan Sanctions)
  Local Authorities (Loan Sanctions)
  Hanley Telephone Exchange
  Hanley Telephone Exchange
  Water Supplies and Sewage Disposal
  Water Supplies and Sewage Disposal
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Certificates (Leek)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Leek)
  Lucas Aerospace
  Lucas Aerospace
  British Steel Corporation (Chairman)
  British Steel Corporation (Chairman)
  Chrysler UK Ltd.
  Chrysler UK Ltd.
  Top Salaries (Public Bodies)
  Top Salaries (Public Bodies)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Local Authorities (Returns)
  Local Authorities (Returns)
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Car Dealers and Garages
  Car Dealers and Garages
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  London Transport Users' Consultative Committee
  London Transport Users' Consultative Committee
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  National Health Service Staff (Wages and Working Conditions)
  National Health Service Staff (Wages and Working Conditions)
  Homoeopathic Medicine
  Homoeopathic Medicine
  Botleys Park Hospital
  Botleys Park Hospital
  Emphysema and Chronic Bronchitis
  Emphysema and Chronic Bronchitis
  Supplementary Benefit and Family Income Supplement Recipients
  Supplementary Benefit and Family Income Supplement Recipients
  Royal Marsden Hospital (Convicted Social Worker)
  Royal Marsden Hospital (Convicted Social Worker)
  Housewife's Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension
  Housewife's Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension
  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Acupuncture
  Acupuncture
  Community Homes (Secure Places)
  Community Homes (Secure Places)
  Brook Advisory Centres
  Brook Advisory Centres
  District Domestic Service Managers
  District Domestic Service Managers
  Huntington's Chorea
  Huntington's Chorea
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Policy)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Policy)
  Sheltered Employment (Television Programme)
  Sheltered Employment (Television Programme)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
TRANSPORT
  Road and Rail Accidents
  Road and Rail Accidents
  Canvey Island (Fire Risks)
  Canvey Island (Fire Risks)
  British Railways (Administration Costs)
  British Railways (Administration Costs)
  Driving Licence Applications (Medical Fitness)
  Driving Licence Applications (Medical Fitness)
  Nurses (Parking Facilities)
  Nurses (Parking Facilities)
  Road Vehicles (French Black List)
  Road Vehicles (French Black List)
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  North Devon Link Road (Inquiry)
  North Devon Link Road (Inquiry)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts

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

WELLINGTON BARRACKS: REHABILITATION
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and to apologise for the misprint on the Order Paper of 17th instead of 7th February.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when, in fulfilment of the undertaking given in this House on 7th February (Official Report, col. 925) by Lord Winterbottom, it is intended to start work on rehabilitating Wellington Barracks.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the contract providing for the rehabilitation of the facade block of Wellington Barracks has been let, and the site was handed over to the contractor on 3rd July. Noble Lords may also wish to know that
2
my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, is today making the following Statement in another place:
"I am pleased to announce that it has now been decided to proceed with the plans approved in 1972 to rebuild Wellington Barracks in its entirety. Work will proceed concurrently with the current contract to rehabilitate the façade block and will be spread over the years up to 1983–84."
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord not only for the manner, as is customary, but still more for the subject matter of that Answer.

PUBLIC SECTOR BOARDS: TSRB REPORT
2.38 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that, whereas senior civil servants received not only some part of the salaries recommended in Report No. 6 of the Top Salaries Review Body but have been treated for pension purposes as being entitled to

3
the full amounts recommended in that report from 1st January 1975, members of the boards of public sector bodies have received neither of these advantages; and whether they will now take steps to terminate this discrimination and treat these board members for pension and pay purposes during the period 1st January 1975 to 1st April 1978 on the same basis as civil servants were treated.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I am aware of the position the noble Lord describes. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to base pensions retrospectively on recommended salary levels that have never been accepted. However, the noble Lord will have noted from the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on 4th July 1978, that the Government propose to treat all the groups covered by TSRB 10 in a similar manner.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would clarify the somewhat mysterious concluding sentence of that Answer. Does it mean that the grievance of those members of the boards of nationalised industries, who were not promised, as were the civil servants, that their pension entitlement would be built up on the basis that they were receiving the full increases recommended by Report No. 6, has been taken away, or does it remain?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot go beyond what I have said. However, I believe that the acceptance of the Top Salaries Review Body Report No. 10, which no doubt noble Lords will have read, means that there will be considerable improvements which will be beneficial to all.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while accepting what the noble Lord said about the most recent and much more courageous decision of the Government compared with that of December 1974, may I ask him whether he is aware that he has left, certainly in my mind, the impression that members of nationalised industry boards who retired during the period between 1st January 1975 and 1st April 1978 will have retired on a
4
much lower pension than if they had been civil servants in the same salary bracket and on the same recommendation under that report?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I note carefully what the noble Lord has said. The difference between board members and other groups is that, in the case of the latter, the Government had accepted the salaries recommended by TSRB Report No. 6. For board members, it is obviously not now possible to make a forward commitment to those salaries, and it is contrary to pensions policy to calculate pensions on notional salaries which have not been drawn and to which there was no commitment at the time of retirement. I am sorry if that answer is not satisfactory.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, with respect, surely the disposition of entitlement to pensions, which are in respect of salaries not being drawn, has already been conceded in respect of Members of the House of Commons?
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is another matter.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a strange anomaly here? In the private sector, pensions have never been indexed to the extent that they are in the public sector. Now there is a division between two different kinds of public sector employees: those who are in the Civil Service and those who were—for example, in the case of the Atomic Energy Board and the Civil Aviation Authority—civil servants and who have now been transferred to Government authorities. It is this second group of employees who are now being handicapped by the idea that they cannot have their pensions related to notional salaries, as civil servants do. May I ask the noble Lord whether or not this is a strange and unfair anomaly between two sets of public servants, and ought not this matter to be put right at the earliest moment?
Lord PEART: My Lords, as I have said, the Boyle Report has led to the fulfilment of a promise to certain sections, particularly to those who work for public

5
bodies. I believe that what has happened has been accepted by the country. Even though the amounts are considerable, I think that the Government were right to do so, despite criticisms from certain quarters.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, could the noble Lord the Leader of the House explain what he means by "accepted by the country"? Most of the people in this country know nothing about it.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am surprised to hear the noble Lord say that, because I believe that the average person reads the daily Press and this matter has been considerably ventilated. There have been great arguments about it, and I believe that the Government have acted with courage.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to bear in mind and think carefully about the problem? I happened to be at the Board of Trade when the Civil Aviation Authority was hived off. It was a very considerable problem for a great many extremely good and useful civil servants as to whether they should stay with the Civil Service or move to the Civil Aviation Authority, which was what the Government at the time wanted. I should be sorry if they were penalised for having taken a decision which was in the country's interest, if it was not also in their interest.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have noted carefully what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps he could have a word with me about some of the details. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is genuine and sincere about this, because not only was he once a distinguished Member of Parliament and Minister but he was also a public servant with the Civil Aviation Authority. I take note of what he says, but he knows full well all the arguments that there have been on this. Nevertheless, I still believe that the acceptance of TSRB Report No. 10 is a step forward, despite all criticism.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if he looks up the records of the past, he will find undertakings that those who opted out of, or who were compulsorily hived of
6
from, the Civil Service would not be disadvantaged in any way whatever? Will the noble Lord look into this and make certain that if there are such undertakings they will be implemented?
Lord PEART: My Lords, it has been asked whether the board members who have recently retired will in fact catch up or whether they have been differentiated against. My reply is that any of those who are still serving will benefit from the Government's latest decision in TSRB 10. I believe generally that it is a step forward.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as various classes of public officials have received improvements in their emoluments, and as Members of the House of Commons are also to receive an increase in their pay, do the Government intend to improve the pay of certain other very hard-working and earnest public servants?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord means noble Lords in this House—at least I hope that is what he means. I am prepared to accept that, but this is a matter which I still think has to be considered very quickly.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the real anomaly is that the Civil Service has index-linked pensions and, like the vast majority of people in this country, I believe that this is the road to bankruptcy in an era of inflation?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is exaggerating; he usually does.

FIRST CLASS MAIL: RELIABILITY
2.46 p.m.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will direct the Chairman of the Post Office to take appropriate action to improve the extremely unsatisfactory and unreliable service of

7
the first class mail, as this is a matter of grave public concern.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. I understand the first class mail results over the past five years have in fact shown a steady improvement. The percentage of first class letters delivered by the next working day after collection has been as follows:—

1973–74

89 per cent.

1974–75

89 per cent.

1975–76

92 per cent.

1976–77

93 per cent.

1977–78

93 per cent.

Moreover, the Chairman of the Post Office, soon after taking office, pledged himself to make the service to customers as reliable as possible.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and for the statistics that he has kindly given us, I am sure that a great number of your Lordships will have found that the first class mail is still extremely irregular.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, do the noble Lord's statistics take into account the fact that weekend postings and collections are now very limited indeed and, if those facts are taken into account, does it not mean that there is in fact a much longer delay?—because, as the noble Lord has said, no letter posted on Friday, for instance, can be delivered the next day and the same applies to Saturday and also to Sunday. One wonders whether his statistics are not rather selective in producing what seems to be a good result.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, within the existing system, they are not selective. Whether noble Lords want Sunday collections is another question. I am speaking about the situation as it is at present.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that not only on those statistics but in comparison with most other nations in the Western world we have one of the best postal services in the world?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. When one thinks of certain other postal services one always says "Thank you" when one says one's prayers at night. It is not perfect, and no one has ever said that it is perfect.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that that is a matter for sympathy with the rest of the world?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that this morning, which is 17th July, I received a letter from the State of Texas dated 5th July and that our own postal services measure up much better than that?
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that there is one facility which the Post Office could provide?—that is, to take into account the feelings of those of us who have a few years behind us and not express weights to be carried in terms of grammes. Can this not be done in honest ounces, or have the Secretary-General of the Post Office Union and other Euro-fanatics taken complete control, which might perhaps account for the excellent service that we are getting?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a very complicated question. I do not really know a grain, a gramme or an ounce but, so long as I do not get surcharged, I am happy.

DISARMAMENT: UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL ASSEMBLY
2.49 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the conclusions reached at the United Nations Special Assembly on Disarmament.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, a

9
White Paper on the special session was published on 7th July and is available in the Library of the House. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons said on 6th July in another place, this is the first time that the world has agreed on a single document about disarmament. We welcome this, although we should have liked to see more in the Final Document about measures to curb nuclear proliferation and the world-wide build-up of conventional arms. We also welcome the agreement, on lines suggested by the United Kingdom, for reforming the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that it is astonishing that the media have given so little attention to this important occasion for the peace of the world? Are not members of the Government a little responsible for their failure in their speeches and statements to draw attention to its importance? Can Her Majesty's Government give an assurance that they will support the final document, which is a strategy for complete disarmament, in the restructured Geneva Conference of the Disarmament Committee, despite its inadequacies on nuclear and conventional arms?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I doubt whether there is any lack of discussion of the proposals, or indeed the discussions attending those proposals as they emanated from this country. My noble friend, among others, has taken good care that these matters have been fully discussed in this House. Of course, in this country we do not control the extent to which the public Press pays attention even to what my noble friend says, still less to what I say, about these important matters. I think there has been fair publicity for our proposals. Certainly in international circles it is the fact, as I think my noble friend knows, that the British proposals commanded very wide agreement indeed, not only among like-minded countries but also among neutral and non-aligned States—a very important proviso—and indeed, to some extent, in the Soviet Union and among its allies. In particular, there was wide agreement on the very important point about which my noble friend reminded the House—namely, the reconstruction of what we
10
have been calling rather cumbersomely so far the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament. That is to be renamed the Committee on Disarmament, is to continue to meet in Geneva, and is to be the negotiating body. It will be expanded as to its membership so that it becomes somewhat more representative and will be so arranged that the chairmanship rotates among members rather than being confined alternately to the United States and the Soviet Union. Moreover, it is very promising, as my noble friend implied, in that we now have high hopes that the French will become full members of this new committee, and indeed the door is wide open for the People's Republic of China in due course, when it suits it, to join this body. That will be the negotiating committee and that is important. The deliberative committee, the Commission on Disarmament, is to be revived; it has not met since 1965. Here again the United Kingdom took the lead in offering constructive suggestions.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his reply and hope that it will be reported in the Press.

POLICE PAY
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will repeat a Statement being made in another place on police pay.
CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL
  CIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION) BILL
  Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1ª.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (H.L.)
  WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
  2.55 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Special Report from the Select Committee on the Opposed Common Clauses of the Bills (H.L. 137). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will remember that I moved the Second Reading of these four county council Bills on 28th February last, and I explained then the procedure by which I proposed to deal with them. The need for a special procedure arose from the fact that there were clauses common to two or more Bills and that the only logical way to tackle these at the Committee stage was for them to be considered by one Committee. This Special Report to which I now draw attention has been made by the Select Committee on those common clauses which were opposed by Petitioners. The Committee was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, and its members were the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Westbury.
  May I at the very start of my remarks express my own gratitude to the Chairman and to the Committee for the work that they did and for producing this Special Report. They were faced with a formidable task. They were kept hard at work for 12 days and they did a very valuable job, for which I am sure the House will be most grateful. They pioneered the method of dealing with clauses common to several Bills, and obviously it involved them in a most complicated operation. Despite every effort by counsel, by agents and by Promoters, there are bound to be minor differences in the wording of common clauses as a result of special local circumstances, and this results in very complicated paperwork. The Committee themselves record that it was complex and time-consuming. However,
  12
  they conclude that the common clause procedure for considering future county council Bills of this sort is the best option in the absence of public general legislation. I am grateful for this recommendation, with which I fully agree.
  It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that the other Select Committee, which consists of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and myself, have now completed their task of examining the unopposed common clauses of the four Bills, and we would certainly agree with the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, that the process is complex and time-consuming, but also that it is the only sensible way to tackle this problem.
  I should also like to draw attention to the first Report from the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, which among their conclusions say that the common clauses exercise seems likely to save time in Committee and can usefully be continued. That Committee also recommend that if the modified committee procedure involving the consideration of more than one Bill by a Select Committee adopted this Session in respect of these four Bills proves to be successful, it should be used, when appropriate, for subsequent rationalisation Bills.
  May I also heartily endorse the recommendation in this Special Report that provisions of the sort the Committee were considering—that is, licensing and public entertainment clubs, as well as parking in private gardens—should be enacted by public general legislation. The same applies to many of the unopposed common clauses which were considered by my Committee; for example, especially those concerned with assistance to industry. These are powers appropriate to all local authorities and they are of national concern. They should be granted nationally rather than by Private Bill, and I hope the Government will seriously consider legislation to meet this need.
  I shall say nothing at this stage about the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but I should like to listen carefully to what is said by your Lordships on that matter and to say something towards the end of the debate about Private Bill procedure. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the Special Report from the Select Committee on the Opposed Common Clauses of the Bills (H.L. 137).—(Lord Aberdare.)
  3 p.m.
  Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG rose to move, as an Amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but considers that the Committee should not have refused to make certain of the Amendments asked for by the Promoters of the West Midlands County Council Bill as described in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Special Report and that accordingly these Amendments should be made to the Bill on Third Reading". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move my Amendment to the Motion. The House will be aware that this is an unusual procedure, but then this is an unusual circumstance. At the outset I should like to express my gratitude to those Members of the House and the Table for the advice and help that I have had in framing this Amendment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in moving the Special Report from the Select Committee on the opposed common clauses of these four major local authority Bills has explained why the Select Committee was set up and why it was decided to deal with these four Bills in this way. I should like to express my gratitude for the work that the Committee has done and my appreciation of its task. No one can study the Bills without being aware of the enormous amount of work entailed. I should very much like to lend my support for the continuation of such a procedure.
  I begin by saying how much I agree that what is needed is general legislation by the Government. It is a very serious matter that Section 262 of the Local Government Act obliges all new local authorities to revise their local Act provisions and to re-enact those provisions, or else, as I understand it, they will automatically be repealed either by 1979 or by 1984. It is that which is at the centre of our difficulties today.
  The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, useful as it is, did not go far enough, hence the House is confronted by these four Bills. I have not the slightest doubt that many other local authority Bills are to follow. It may be
  14
  helpful to the House if I fill in some of the background to the Bill that I wish to discuss. I am concerned this afternoon to talk principally about the West Midlands County Council Bill. It is not the particular matter of the West Midlands Bill, but the principles that guided the Committee and upon which local legislation is based, to which I wish to draw attention.
  It was agreed in the West Midlands County Council that the county council would promote a Bill on behalf of itself and of the districts—that is, the Birmingham City Council; the Coventry City Council; the Borough Council of Dudley; the Sandwell Borough Council; the Solihull Borough Council; the Walsall Borough Council and the Wolverhampton Borough Council. The Bill was deposited in November 1977 along with three other local authority Bills. The procedure for dealing with them was as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. The Committee was set up. All went well until the Committee, as I understand it, came to Parts VIII and IX of the Bill which form part of the common clauses. Part VIII is concerned with night cafés and entertainment clubs; Part IX is concerned with the licensing of public entertainment.
  In the course of consideration of those clauses, Birmingham City Council asked that the Bill, as originally deposited, be amended so as to exclude Birmingham from the provisions contained in Parts VIII and IX. The West Midlands County Council, the Promoters of the Bill, gave a specific undertaking to Birmingham City Council that it would seek the necessary Amendments. The case of Birmingham City Council was supported by all the other local authorities and by the Birmingham justices. There was, indeed, a unanimous decision by the local authorities on this point, and an Amendment, which had the effect of excluding Birmingham, was put down.
  In seeking to put their Amendments, the West Midlands County Council went through the procedural steps that were well precedented. I do not think that it ever occurred to it, or indeed to anyone among the local authorities, that the Committee of the House of Lords would depart from normal practice and not accept the Amendments that were asked

  15
  for. But in effect that is what happened. The argument put forward by the Opposed Bills Committee is well set out in its report in paragraph 10. It says:
  "To have enacted such legislation in the form proposed by the Promoters would have meant that the opportunity for rationalisation of local legislation afforded by the Local Government Act 1972 would have been lost".
  Again, at paragraph 21 it says:
  "One of the purposes of the common clauses exercise had been to achieve so far as possible uniformity in the form of clauses dealing with the same topic, and variations between such clauses defeated this objective to a certain extent".
  I can understand the concern of the Committee. Anyone familiar with local government—and there are a great many Members of your Lordships' House who have had extensive experience of local government—knows well that local provisions are a patchwork; they vary from one place to another, rightly or wrongly, because local people believe that their local provisions must meet their local needs. It is not a very tidy patchwork at that, and it could well have been thought that the 1972 Act ought to have tidied up all these local differences.
  Looking at all the "briefing" that I have been sent from the different local authorities this is certainly a complicated matter. It is for that reason that in so many respects one is grateful to the Opposed Bills Committee for taking us through so many of the common clauses and dealing with them so well. But the fact is that the Opposed Bills Committee, in taking the decision that it did not allow Birmingham to have functions that it did not seek, has, in fact, gone against one of the Standing Orders of procedure governing Private Acts. The effect of Standing Order 124A of the House is that a Promoter may come to Parliament and prove a need for the powers that he asks for. He may be allowed to do exactly what he asks for, or what he asks for with some amendment, or be not allowed what he asks for at all. What would not be foreseen by a Promoter is that Parliament would impose powers on him as though he had appeared before a committee and said that he did not want them, solely because those powers were included in the Bill as originally deposited.
  If, therefore, the recommendations of the Committee stand, local authorities, I
  16
  suspect, in the future will be put into some difficulties. If the rules are changed, as it were, in the middle of the game, no local authority will know for certain whether or not powers will be imposed upon it by a Committee. It may well be that there is a case for imposing powers on local authorities; but if so it should be done by general legislation which would be argued out, as public legislation always is, and not, I believe, by a Committee of the House. In the second place, I think that it will increase the work of the House because each authority will feel obliged to promote its own legislation.
  I believe that the Committee has not really understood the relationships between local authorities, when it says in paragraph 12:
  "This form of long title means that the subordinate councils concerned, rather than each promoting their own Private Bill, had collaborated with the parent county council".
  In local government legislation district councils are not subordinate to county councils; they are different, but they are equal. I think that it would be unfortunate if the agreement which had been reached between the West Midlands County and the districts were in any way to be upset because the districts were regarded as subordinate to the county. If this line is taken, I suspect that every district will seek to have its own local authority Bill, and there will not be the agreement among the districts and the counties that we have had in these cases.
  Finally, there are further dangers of this procedure which have been pointed out to me both by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils. If one takes this situation in reverse, what would local authorities do if it were to be suggested that none of them could have any powers unless there was uniformity among them? This might create enormous difficulties for a number of local authorities, particularly those wishing to act in concert. They reinforce the point that I have made that the imposition of functions on local authorities should really be by way of general legislation and not by way of private legislation. I believe that all of us who are interested in good local government would support this, because the whole of the procedures for dealing with public legislation are, of course,

  17
  quite different from those dealing with private legislation.
  I would not take up the time of the House if I did not consider that a very important matter of principle was at stake. I have not dwelt on the details of the case because, although they are important, they are not really the important issue, which is a constitutional one. I very much hope that the House will accept my Amendment. I think that in this way we can do what the local authorities would like, and I believe that we should be doing what the procedure of the House requires. I am bound to say to the House that it is a matter which I believe is so important that if necessary I would have to press the House to a Division on this point. I would not wish there to be any misunderstanding. I very much hope that that will not be necessary because I am sure that all of us taking part in the debate want, above all, to see good local government. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an Amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but considers that the Committee should not have refused to make certain of the Amendments asked for by the Promoters of the West Midlands County Council Bill as described in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Special Report and that accordingly these Amendments should be made to the Bill on Third Reading".—(Baroness Young.)
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the original Question was that this Motion be agreed to, since when an Amendment has been moved: "At end to insert" the words as printed on the Order Paper. The Question I now have to put is that this Amendment be agreed to.
  3.13 p.m.
  Lord HINTON of BANKSIDE: My Lords, I was chairman of the Committee which considered the opposed common clauses of these four Bills. I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has raised this question in the House. I think that most of my Committee knew—certainly I knew—that we were taking a decision on which there was a nice balance. I thought, and 1 still think, that we took the right decision. But when there is so nice a balance to be struck, it is right that the matter should
  18
  be debated in the House, if only to ensure that future Committees know exactly where they stand.
  The Committee was very conscious, as indeed it states in its report, of the principle that a power should be granted to the Promoter of a Private Bill only if he has proved a need for that power. But we were dealing with an unconventional problem, and in the case of the provisions to which the noble Baroness has referred your Committee felt that there were other strong considerations which should be taken into account.
  The Committee considered, as the noble Baroness said, four Bills of the Counties of Cheshire, Merseyside, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands. Three of those counties—namely, Merseyside, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands—are of a similar industrial nature. The fourth county, Cheshire, is, in the main, rural. Two of the three industrial countries and three of the divisions in the County of the West Midlands were willing to include in their powers the right of district councils to take over the licensing of certain entertainments: not to take them over immediately, but to take them over at some future date when change was thought to be desirable. I want to emphasise that the clauses recommended by your Committee do not in themselves make any difference whatever to the duties of the licensing justices. They only confer power to make change. Change is made only when such change is thought by the district councils to be desirable.
  Your Committee felt that if so many industrial districts in the jumbo-package of Bills which they considered thought that it was wise to include the powers that are in question in their Bills, there was a strong possibility that the metropolitan district of Birmingham, being of a similar character, might feel at some future date that it also needed those powers. If the power is not included in the present Bill, it would be necessary for the City of Birmingham to come back to Parliament with a private Bill at some future date, with all the work that that entails.
  Your Committee had before it the report from the Home Office which was to the effect that the Secretary of State intends, when a suitable opportunity occurs, to propose:

  19
  "the replacement of the existing patchwork of legislation on these subjects"
  with national legislation which would confer the licensing function on the district councils rather than on the licensing justices. The Department of the Home Office expressed the opinion that, in general, it would seem that issues of safety, amenity, nuisance and the like are more approporiate for local authorities to deal with than for the courts, and your Committee sympathised with that view.
  It was in connection with this proposed national legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in answer to a Starred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on 15th February this year, said:
  "My Lords, in the proposals for legislation on public music and dancing which the Home Office circulated to interested bodies in 1975 it was suggested that uniformity should he achieved by placing a responsibility for the issue of licences solely on the local authorities".
  The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, continued:
  "We are still disposed to regard this as the right course to take, but I cannot say … when"—
  and I emphasise that he said "when" and not "whether"—
  "there will be a suitable opportunity for such legislation".—[Official Report, 15/2/78; cols. 1442–3.]
  Your Committee recognised that there was no firm commitment by the Government to introduce legislation, but it was naturally influenced by the statements which I have mentioned. The Committee were conscious that every advantage should be taken of the "clean sweep" which was provided for in Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. This indeed has frequently been said in debates in this House. Accordingly, powers to deal with a common topic should be conferred by Parliament on the new local authorities and as uniformly and as coherently as is consistent with the characteristics of those districts in so far as they are common.
  Finally, in the Second Reading debate on the four counties Bills an indication—not, I emphasise, a direction but an indication—was given to your Committee that it ought to aim at reasonable uniformity. Your Committee respected and gave wholehearted support to this widely expressed desire for reasonable uniform
  20
  mity. Between now and 1984 Parliament has to enact upwards of 30 county council Bills. As has already been indicated this afternoon, it would have been better if general legislation along the lines of the Victorian "Clauses Bill" could have been enacted. But that was not done. Unless some uniform pattern can be established, separate consideration of more than 30 Private Bills will throw an almost impossible load on this House.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Young, drew attention to the fact that the action taken by the Committee might dissuade county councils from going forward with common legislation, and this was argued to the Committee. But, on the other hand, it was suggested to them that if the Committee allowed variation in clauses where there seemed to be little or no justification for variation, it might encourage county councils in the future to make such variation where variation was unnecessary.
  Consideration of the four county Bills was an attempt—and I think a successful attempt—to establish procedure which would lighten the load on Committees of the House. Unless Committees are permitted to imprint a stamp of uniformity on these Bills the load—not on me, because I shall be far too old to be worried by it—on younger Members of the House may become insupportable before 1984.
  In the light of these considerations, and for the other reasons given in the report, I hope that the House will agree that the Committee was right in refusing to make the Amendments asked for by the Promoters of the West Midlands County Council Bill which are the subject of the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. May I, in conclusion, pay tribute to those county councils, the Parliamentary agents and counsel who were able, with very hard work, to achieve in all cases other than that of the Metropolitan District of Birmingham, a sensible and wise uniformity.
  3.24 p.m.
  Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, in venturing to intervene in a debate in which practically every other speaker was a member of the Select Committee I feel rather like Daniel in the lions' den.

  21
  In venturing to criticise one of the paragraphs of the special report I feel even more like Daniel. This is paragraph 12. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already made the point that when, in the first line of this paragraph, the district councils are described as being subordinate, this is not strictly the case. Certainly it is the view of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that district councils, although different of course from county councils, are not to be regarded as subordinate.
  My main criticism is with the last sentence of paragraph 12, which reads:
  "When a county council promotes a Private Bill conferring powers on district councils, Private Bills Standing Order 124A requires each of the District Councils … to approve … the inclusion of the relevant provision in the Bill".
  That appears to say that the district council is bound to accept the Bill as promoted on its behalf by the county council. That is not the case, and it is only fair to say that the next paragraph goes some way to clarify the position. But the position is, I feel sure, that the matter is purely adoptive. A district council is only bound by the Bill in so far as it chooses to adopt it. This strikes a blow at the great aim towards uniformity and common clauses, because if it is a matter of adoption and the Bills are not universally adopted, to that extent the search for uniformity is a failure.
  I feel that the way to achieve this much desired uniformity and common clauses is by general legislation in the form of miscellaneous provisions Bills. I hope that a decision will shortly he come to on, first, whether to promote another miscellaneous provisions Bill, and secondly, if so, what is to be its scope. I had the honour to be one of the members of the second Select Committee which considered the South Glamorgan Bill. We spent a good deal of our time looking rather uneasily over our shoulder at the miscellaneous provisions Bill of that year, which was at the same time going through Parliament, to try to find out to what extent the matters which the Promoters were urging upon us were being dealt with in that miscellaneous provisions Bill. I should be sorry for the many Select Committees who are going to have to sit upon these Bills between now and 1984 if they have to go through this same experience of wondering to what extent
  22
  some miscellaneous provisions Bill in the field of general legislation is going to deal with the matters which the Promoters before the Committee are trying to urge upon them.
  3.28 p.m.
  Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that if our report stands in regard to Birmingham then the danger will arise that each district would be tempted to bring in separate Bills. I think I have broadly quoted the noble Baroness. I should like to make two points on that. First, if that were done we should never get through all the necessary local legislation by 1984 because if each district brings in a different Bill, God knows (I cannot count) how many Bills there would have to be! We simply could not do it. If the districts did behave in this way, they would be cutting their own throats because a lot of their Bills would not be reached at all. Secondly, on the analogy of our recommendation in our Committee, this danger could only arise if the district concerned changed its mind, as Birmingham did after depositing the Bill, in such a way as to bring its Bill out of line with all the other three deposited Bills.
  Our Committee's recommendation—which was unanimous in a very representative Committee of a cross-section of this House—concerning the Birmingham City Council sprang out of what we conceived to be our duty to achieve, as my noble friend Lord Hinton of Bankside said, the greatest possible uniformity, first throughout each area of each county council, and secondly between the county councils. This duty, though not laid on us specifically by instructions, seemed clearly to be implied by the procedure which we were instructed by this House to pursue. That procedure was, as everybody now knows, to consider the opposed common clauses in all four Bills together.
  It seems to me that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, did not sufficiently distinguish between Bills sent singly to a Committee and Bills sent all together—four in this case. Had any, or each, of these Bills come before the Committee singly in the ordinary way, then of course we should have applied the normal procedures under which a Promoter may withdraw or alter some

  23
  clause in the deposited Bill. However, they were not presented to us singly and one by one, as has always been the case, as I understand it, in all previous local authority Bills. They were put to us together, to be considered together; not considered singly. Therefore, it seemed to us to be a natural conclusion that we were to try to make them as uniform as possible.
  Secondly, the main purpose of these four Bills was to tidy up the overlapping, differing patchwork of local legislation, not of the normal variety, as the noble Baroness said, but of a special case. It resulted from the amalgamation brought about by local government reforms. Therefore, it was an extraordinary patchwork. It was not the normal patchwork of different districts having different provisions for particular matters. This was not that. This resulted from amalgamating bits and pieces in a great county council so that an unintentional patchwork had arisen. We therefore thought it was the natural conclusion that we should try to get each Bill as uniform as possible within itself. If the noble Baroness's Amendment were carried, both those ends would be frustrated.
  As my noble friend Lord Hinton of Bankside said, the Committee is not, in fact, seeking—as the noble Baroness implied, if she did not say so—to force anything on Birmingham. If the Amendment is rejected it would only mean that Birmingham would still have an opportunity if it wished, and only if it wished, to avail itself at some future date of the power to transfer licensing of the activities concerned from the licensing justice to the Birmingham council. There is no compulsion upon it to do this if this Amendment is defeated. It remains perfectly free, if it wishes, not to do these things that are said to have been forced upon it.
  Furthermore, if Birmingham should change its mind again, as it changed its mind once before in this matter—whether elections or anything else occurs—it could then do so without the need to introduce a new Private Bill. If, on the other hand, the Amendment were carried, and Birmingham still changed its mind and introduced a new Bill, this would put an unnecessary charge upon the ratepayers. It would put a quite unnecessary
  24
  burden of expenditure of time and energy upon your Lordships' House. In view of all these considerations, and of others such as those raised by Lord Hinton, and, I do not doubt, by other noble friends of mine on the Committee who will be speaking, I still hope that, in spite of what she said, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will see the wisdom of withdrawing her Amendment. If not, I hope that your Lordships will reject it.
  3.35 p.m.
  Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, as a Member of the Select Committee on the four county Bills, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, who is our Chairman. It was, and remains, inevitable that a quantity of detailed legislation should follow in the wake of the Local Government Act 1972. But in enacting such legislation it seems only logical that what is a tidying-up operation should be consistent and, unless a very strong case can be made to the contrary, any legislation should, so far as possible, be uniform throughout England and Wales.
  Committing all four Bills to the same Committee was unprecedented, but the object of doing so was clearly to avoid unnecessary discrepancies between the Bills. The Committee realised that it was creating something of a precedent. I venture to think that a good precedent was set by dealing with all four Bills at once. Is it too much to hope that in the future we shall adhere to that precedent so far as possible? I can see no rationale, no common sense, in making differences in detail where clauses of different Bills deal with the same matter. It is only logical that consistent treatment be applied in a uniform manner, unless, as I have said, some very serious reason could be adduced for doing otherwise. I have still not heard of any such reason. I should like to take this opportunity of recording my personal gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, for being so excellent a Chairman—always patient, kind and helpful.
  3.37 p.m.
  The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I cannot cap that expression of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, but I should certainly like to echo it. It was marvellous to be intellectually

  25
  stretched by him, as I think we all were. It was marvellous to have his kindly wisdom, which guided us through a long and very complicated Committee stage. I think that we might, as members of the Select Committee, also express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the kind remarks he made about us at the beginning.
  It is no wonder, judging by the passion that has burned in the bosoms of the good burgesses of Birmingham, fuelled by this Private Bill promoted in your Lordships' House, that the word "politics" literally means "the affairs of the city". Night cafés, music and dancing are, as your Lordships know, the flames. I think that the need for the licensing of night clubs, night cafés, music and dancing was shown to us in evidence. The need for it in Birmingham would seem to me not very different from the need for it in Coventry, Daventry, Wolverhampton or Dudley, all of which are towns within the same county council area. If there was shown to be a genuine local difference, your Lordships' Committee would of course have accepted this fact and would have agreed to Amendments to the Bill proposed by the Birmingham City Council. However, in this case, your Lordships' Committee found no appreciable difference. It also seemed to us that we were setting a precedent. We knew that we were pioneering. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has just confirmed that we were pioneering in hearing the opposed clauses to the four counties' Bills all together.
  Strong assertions have been made that, if these Amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are not kept, the district councils will be tempted not to co-operate with county councils in promoting Bills. We have had a great deal of assertion on that head, but no evidence. I am sure that we were correct in setting this precedent. We were correct because the dangers outlined by Lady Young seemed to us to melt like the early morning mists on Lake Trasimene compared with the danger of your Lordships' Committee passing what it frankly thought was a Bill which had, for want of a better word, silly facets to it.
  There has been a great upheaval in local government and we know that to bring it up to date large numbers of local
  26
  government Bills need passing. If only we could have an assertion from the Government that they will introduce a general powers Bill or a miscellaneous provisions Bill, then for my part I should say, "Very well. We will go along with you this time", and we would agree with my noble friend Lady Young, in that it is a precedent that is being set. But unless we can have that very firm undertaking, I sincerely hope that Lord Hinton will resist the Amendment.
  Please do not let us allow ourselves—we have the reputation of being possibly the wiser of the two Chambers—to permit Birmingham to Balkanise (which in effect is what they are trying to do) new county council legislation. Please let us resist the blandishment of a Conservative Party two-line Whip, which is normally put on only for the Committee stage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Act and similar horrors introduced by Her Majesty's present advisers.
  I hate to say this, but my noble friend Lady Young is wrong. I say "hate" because I genuinely admire her; she may call this flannel, but it is true. We all know that she is a caring and good person with great experience of local government, but on this occasion I must say, having listened to all the arguments in the Committee for 12 long days, she has had a lapse from her normally impeccable high standard of judgment. I therefore suggest that, if it comes to a Division, we should vote for sense and pioneering as opposed to lack of sense and a strict adherence to precedent.
  3.42 p.m.
  Viscount HOOD: My Lords, in rising to make a few general observations, I hope the House will forgive me for not putting my name down on the list of speakers in this debate. My first observation is one which no member of the Committee could make himself. It has been the custom of this House, which I hope will continue, that reports of subcommittees are not rejected except in very exceptional circumstances. The whole purpose of appointing a subcommittee as distinguished as the one we appointed on this occasion is to remit to them the task of sifting the evidence and making up their minds as between the differing considerations. As I say,

  27
  the normal course for your Lordships is to accept their view, though it may sometimes be desirable, as on this occasion, that the pros and cons should be ventilated on the Floor of the House.
  It is true that the sub-committee have followed an unprecedented course, but we are dealing here with an unprecedent situation, as has been emphasised by every speaker today. We are faced with a very heavy programme of legislation of Private Bills and there is no doubt about the size and urgency of the programme that lies before us. This problem was considered by your Committee on Practice and Procedure—the Lord Chairman referred to that report—and the conclusion reached by that Committee was that Parliament may have difficulty in accommodating the Bills likely to be promoted in consequence of the Local Government Act 1972. The positive proposals made in this report for relieving the problem, and indeed enabling us to cope with it, include, first, general legislation—and on that I hope we may receive some information from the Government spokesman on what the prospects of any such general legislation is—but, failing such general legislation, there remains the device of the common clauses, which the Lord Chairman said seemed to him to be the best option.
  The search for uniformity through the common clauses holds out two benefits. First, it facilitates the consideration of Bills by this House—there is the procedural advantage—and, secondly, it helps to promote what was the whole object of the 1972 Act; namely, to introduce uniformity of local law. I believe the Amendment in the name of Lady Young would jeopardise those benefits; if it were carried, the local authorities and Parliamentary agents would probably be less enthusiastic than they have been in co-operating in introducing common clauses and Select Committees in future would be less firm in insisting on uniformity, both of which would be most undesirable.

  POLICE PAY
  3.46 p.m.
  The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, with the leave of the House I
  28
  will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the reports of the Edmund-Davies Committee, which has been reviewing police pay and negotiating machinery. The two reports are being presented to Parliament today.
  The Statement is as follows:
  "I should like to place on record the gratitude of the Government to Lord Edmund-Davies and his colleagues for these two penetrating and thorough reports.
  "The Committee draws attention to the unique position of the police in our society which, in its view, justifies the maintenance of the prohibition of the right to strike. The Committee also concludes that the work of the police has got steadily more difficult and demanding over the last 20 years. Against the background of increasing crime, the Committee is concerned about the serious manpower deficiencies in the Police Service.
  "The Committee recommends substantial increases in the pay of all ranks of the Police Service—with a view not only to making Police Service a more attractive career for potential recruits but, even more important, to making the pay of experienced officers sufficiently attractive to stem wastage. Thus, the Committee recommends an increase of 29·7 per cent. for a police constable in his first year of service and 45·5 per cent. for a constable with 15 or more years service. For the average constable, the recommended basic pay will rise to over £5,000 a year, some £1,500 more than now.
  "The Committee recommends national rates of pay for all police officers, with special allowances for London and Northern Ireland. To meet the exceptional manpower difficulties in London, a new allowance of £650 a year is recommended for the Metropolitan and City of London police, in addition to the existing London weighting of £319 a year. In view of the special difficulties which service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary entails for officers and their families, an increased allowance of £500 a year is recommended.

  29
  "The Committee also makes recommendations for up-dating police pay in the future.
  "As the House knows, the Government are committed to implementing the Committee's recommendations on pay, subject only to phasing. The Committee recommends that the proposed new scales should be implemented on 1st September 1978, but recognises that the Government, for wider reasons, may decide to phase them. The Government have decided that the increases shall be implemented in two equal instalments; on 1st September 1978 and 1st September 1979. The instalment due on 1st September 1979 will be up-dated in accordance with the Committee's recommendations. Pensions will, however, be calculated as if the recommended rates had been paid in full from 1st September 1978.
  "The new London allowance will be phased in two equal parts, like the main award. In the case of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, £365 will be paid from 1st April 1978; the balance of this allowance will be payable from 1st April 1979.
  "The Government will now consult the representatives of the police authorities and the Police Service with a view to making regulations giving effect to the pay award.
  "In its report on negotiating machinery, the Committee stresses the importance of setting up new machinery as soon as possible. The Government will now seek the comments of the local authority associations and police representative bodies on these recommendations.
  "The Committee's findings and the new scales of pay mark a fresh era in the history of the Police Service. Recruitment should be stimulated, wastage cut back, and the Police Service enabled to counter more effectively threats to law and order."
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  3.50 p.m.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, we on this side of the House would join in the thanks that the noble Lord has expressed to the noble and learned
  30
  Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and to the Members of his two Committees. In particular we too welcome the emphasis that they have put in their report on the unique position of the police, together with the Judiciary and the Armed Forces, in our society, and their endorsement, after careful consideration, of the fact that the police should not have a right to strike. Those basic assumptions, together with the requirement to recruit and to retain the police force at full strength and to retain the senior members of it are fundamental to the figures that they have recommended. Following these implications, therefore, they have worked on the basis that implementation should be all in one go on 1st September this year.
  We on this side of the House disagree with the Government on phasing this award. We think it would be an unjustifiable risk to our citizens, to their safety on the streets and in their homes, and we should tell the House and the noble Lord that a Conservative Government after the Election—as we have consistently said over the last year on many occasions—shall implement this report in full without delay.
  As the Government are not proposing to do that, there is one supplementary question that I should like to ask the noble Lord; that is, that although he has dealt with the consequences of phasing in most of the respects mentioned in the report, could he tell us whether he is going to fulfil the recommendation in paragraph 207 about the chief officers of police, or are they too going to be phased? My Lords, we on this side welcome the report, but we cannot welcome the Government's decision upon it.
  The EARL of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for reading out the Statement. We are also very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies and his colleagues. I must add here that I have a vested interest as I have a son who is a policeman in the Metropolitan Police and I particularly welcome the report.
  There is one small point I should like to raise; that is, that a young constable will get only 29·7 per cent. while a constable with 15 years' service will get 45·5 per

  31
  cent. May I ask the noble Lord whether he would consider giving a constable who has six or seven years' duty, and is married with two children, an interim rise somewhere between the 19·7 per cent. and the 45·5 per cent., otherwise I have a feeling he may still wish to leave? Could the noble Lord also give any details as to how, in the future, police pay will be negotiated so that this situation may never again be allowed to arise? Could he further say what would be the global sum if the increases were implemented now and not in phases? As your Lordships know, the only way to deter criminals in this country is to catch them, and if the Edmund-Davies Report is adopted it will certainly increase recruits and stop wastage.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, taking up the point that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, just made, certainly I very much hope that it will both stimulate recruitment and deal with the wastage problem which has been a serious one for many years. Paradoxically, the wastage of experienced officers was more serious in the last year of the Conservative Government than last year, which demonstrates that this problem is of longstanding.
  Certainly we hope very much that this problem will not arise again and I think on the basis of the Statement which I have repeated today the framework for police pay negotiations in the future will be a great deal more satisfactory than it has been in the past. I think that that will deal with the problem. When we come to discuss the general effect of some of these increases, it may be of interest to the House and I am sure it will be of interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—who asked one or two questions to which I will come in a moment—to indicate what the effect of the first phase of pay increases will be in London, which is after all where the most serious problem is with which we are now faced. An officer of less than one year's service will receive, apart from his basic pay, somewhere in the region of £1,000 or so of overtime a year, a very substantial tax-free rent allowance of over £1,000 a year, a London allowance and London weighting. That will amount to over £6,000 a year which will be payable as from 1st September this year.
  32
  That, I am afraid, brings one to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—who I realise is acting on instructions which he has no doubt received from his honourable friends in another place—which was, I regret to say, a totally irresponsible statement to make. The fact of the matter is that there is great national interest in this general question of police pay. This is a major reform of the pay of the Police Service. It is not in our national interest to talk them down in any way whatever. We should join together in recognising that these are major improvements in the pay of the Police Service and do everything we can on both sides of the House to stimulate recruitment.
  Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's statement that a constable in his early years will get £6,000 a year, can he tell us whether there is any upper age limit on new recruits joining the force?
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that the Commissioner of Police would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, to the ranks of the Metropolitan Police were it not for the slight age problem which does arise so far as police recruitment in London is concerned. I have given an illustration today of police pay in London and of what an officer of less than one year's service would get; namely, a total, including overtime, rent allowances, and all the other allowances of over £6,000 a year. That will rise for an officer of 15 years' experience to over £8,000 a year.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, while refuting the noble Lord's accusations of irresponsibility which I do entirely on my own behalf as well as on behalf of those on these Benches, could he nevertheless answer my question about chief officers which in his indignation he forgot?
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Viscount is absolutely right. My indignation was such that I did forget it. They will be subject to exactly the same phasing arrangements as others.
  Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on both sides of the House in reality we welcome this Statement and, whatever they may be earning, if young men feel that that is a good salary to get, the police force is always open to them? As I say about mining: if anybody thinks a collier is getting a good wage, let him go down the pit and cut coal. I hope that we will not make a political issue about the pay of the British police. We on this side of the House—as I believe does the entire House—welcome this report. I hope that it will be implemented and will result in good recruitment to the British police force.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, surely we ought to be quite clear on this matter: neither my noble friend nor anybody else has in any way criticised the proposals. It is only the phasing that is being criticised and I must say that the noble Lord left us absolutely mystified by his curious outburst.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I see nothing curious about it. It was made quite clear by the Home Secretary last year that there was likely to be phasing of this award. It was made quite clear when the Home Secretary met the police representative bodies, and therefore the apparent astonishment that there is going to be some phasing takes a number of us by surprise. Presumably it has something to do with various other developments which are preying on the minds of noble Lords opposite. It appears to me that in the whole general question of law and order there should be a common national interest and approach. Here we are to have wage increases to all ranks of the Police Service on a scale which we have not seen for very many years, and it seems to me that it might sometimes be in the national interest to say so.
  Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Lord Edmund-Davies's Committee has given figures which it thinks, to be fair to the police, and having taken all considerations of relativity and the rest of it into account, ought to apply from 1st September next, not from 1st September 12 months hence? That is what the Committee says, as I understand it.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, will study the report at greater length after our present exchanges, as I am sure he will, he will see that the Committee recommended that. He will also see that the Committee said that it recognised that for wider purposes the Government might have to have some degree of phasing. It was made quite clear by the Home Secretary when he met the police representative bodies last year that the Government reserved their position on this. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, has a distinguished record regarding his general attitude to pay restraint, and I am sure he will rcognise the very substantial move we have made in very difficult conditions in regard to this particular award, involving massive increases in the pay of all ranks of the Police Service. I believe that that is something which all of us should recognise and welcome.
  Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords,
  we may have to debate this matter in due course and I do not want to press it too far now, but there are two points I must put to the noble Lord. One reason why the Committee has to recognise such very large increases now is that under the administration of this Government—and this was certainly not the case under the last Government—the pay of the police has been allowed to drop, relatively, to a position far lower than it ought to be, as the Committee makes clear. That is not the fault of anyone except the present Government. The fact remains that the Committee says that, in order to put the police in a fair position, pay ought to go up to the levels it recommends as from 1st September next. The Government cannot escape that recommendation.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking for a debate on this matter I shall pass on his request to my noble friend the Chief Whip. I, and indeed the whole of the Government, would very much welcome a debate on this question, and I hope that the Opposition will discuss this through the usual channnels. With regard to the noble Lord's second point, certainly a large number of difficulties have arisen during the last few years as a result of the serious problem of inflation in this country.

  35
  The noble Lord is quite right on that. However, as I pointed out a few moments ago, one of the most serious difficulties has been in the wastage of experienced officers, and the fact is that the wastage of experienced officers was more serious when the noble Lord was Home Secretary than it was last year.
  Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley has just said, we fully welcome the recommendations regarding the police. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, became angry with my noble friend on the Front Bench and called him "irresponsible" makes me a little sad when I recall that when the matter of police pay arose at Question Time a year ago and I asked whether we could not pay the police a little more rather than be bumped on the head on the way home, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that I had made a very irresponsible suggestion. Now he has used the same word again.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I shall study with interest what the noble Lord said last year. The position is that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary met the police representative bodies last year. Taking account of the very substantial pay increase which the police received in 1975 before Phase 1 was implemented, a special arrangement was made at that time to exclude the police from the entire effects of Phase 1. There was involved in the region of just under 30 per cent. in 1975. What I no doubt said to the noble Lord on that occasion, and what I wish to repeat today, is that we face a very serious problem in this country. The question of whether we manage to maintain some control over incomes is absolutely essential to the future of this country because without control we should undoubtedly get an even higher rate of inflation. Therefore, one must look at special cases extremely carefully. The noble Lord smiles, but if there is special exception after special exception, they can create a very dangerous situation on inflationary pressures. I believe that what we have done in this particular case has been absolutely right. There was a general public recognition that the police had to have their case looked at, and the Edmund-Davies Committee has come forward with very substantial increases.
  36
  As I have pointed out, young men who join the Metropolitan Police will from 1st September this year receive over £6,000 a year, taking account of all overtime and accompanying allowances. That does not appear to me to be a trivial sum, and I should be surprised if it appeared to the noble Lord to be trivial.
  Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a quite incidental question. Will the new scale of pay apply to custodians in this House and in another place, as well as to the police?
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords; it applies only to members of the Police Service.
  The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an undertaking that when the award is phased in, allowance will also he made for any future inflation? We will give the noble Lord and his companions credit for saying that inflation is running at about 7 per cent., and so will 7 per cent. extra be given each year, allowing for phasing?
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I recognise that it is difficult to pick up detailed points during exchanges of this kind, and I am sure that when the noble Earl has an opportunity to study the Statement he will see that when the second element of the Edmund-Davies payment is made in September of next year, there will on that occasion he an additional element to take account of any increase in average earnings. Therefore, I very much look forward to having the support of the noble Earl on this matter.
  The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into the pay of nurses, over which I presided in 1974, ended by equating the pay of a ward sister with that of a station sergeant in the police force? Will the Minister undertake to draw the attention of his noble friend who represents the DHSS in this House to what is being done elsewhere?
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I shall do that, my Lords, but I must reflect that what the noble Earl says tends to emphasise the point I was endeavouring to make a few minutes ago; namely, if

  37
  there is to be a whole host of special cases, it could lead to this country experiencing most serious problems regarding the general level of inflation.
  Lord VIVIAN: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Army increases are being dealt with?
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to go into that. I regret that I cannot make any comment about pay increases for the Services. That matter is outside the context of this Statement.
  CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
  4.8 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I wish to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Young. We all have great admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside. I am not sure that I entirely agreed with my noble friend Lord Onslow when he expressed gratitude to Lord Hinton for having fully stretched him intellectually. At the age of 78½ I do not much like being stretched intellectually, and it does not take very long to stretch me. Having said that I support strongly the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Young, I should like to make it clear that we understand the aim of the Committee to try to avoid the excessive use of public time in these matters. We also understand the Committee's desire not to go on producing untidy solutions, and its objective to achieve a reasonable degree of uniformity. As always, the trouble is that in searching for uniformity one can sometimes interfere with the rights of local authorities.
  Personally, I agree with the aim to carry out as many changes as possible by general legislation and miscellaneous provisions. We have debated this matter
  38
  before in this House. It will be interesting and welcome if the Minister can give us his views on this, and if he can say whether another miscellaneous provisions Bill is likely to be considered before long. But I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that what she described as "changing the rules in the middle of the game" can create tremendous uncertainty and confusion in the minds of local authorities: and that, I think, is what this change of procedure will mean. If an area recommended by promoters is to be extended beyond that area, how can neighbouring local authorities know where they are going to be, even though the powers which will be transferred to them are permissive rather than mandatory?
  It seems to me that if this new principle were to be applied bit by bit, neighbouring local authorities may find themselves included in a Private Bill which they do not want and in which they have no interest. This seems to me thoroughly undesirable. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, can give us a fuller explanation than he has so far as to why his Committee feel that this is a necessary course to pursue at this time. If a really satisfactory answer is not given, then I think my noble friend would be fully justified in taking the opinion of the House on it. I therefore beg to support the Amendment which she has so ably moved.
  4.11 p.m.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords,
  so far as the Government are concerned, the decisions of the Select Committee had no political implications, and I intervene merely because I think a number of your Lordships have intimated that the Government should say something with regard to the decisions of the Select Committee and the Amendment which is before your Lordships' House. We are a little concerned at the decisions of the Committee and the effect that those decisions might have on the proposals by many counties and their districts to promote joint rationalisation Bills. It must be sensible—and, we would accept, a great economy in time and money—either for a county council to promote on behalf of its districts or for the county and districts to promote a joint Bill. But if any individual council is not allowed to abandon any of its proposals after the

  39
  Bill has been deposited in Parliament—and this is a point which the noble Baroness made, if my recollection is accurate—there may be a reluctance on the part of some district councils to co-operate with the county in a joint promotion.
  It seems to the Government that Parliament intended that councils promoting local Bills should have the opportunity to think again whether or not they should proceed with their Bill after it has been deposited, because Section 239 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that a local authority must pass a resolution, as soon as may be after the expiration of 14 days after the Bill has been deposited in Parliament, confirming that they want to go on with the Bill. The section goes on to say that, if they do not confirm, they should take all necessary steps to withdraw the Bill. This surely means that a council should be allowed to have second thoughts, which is what I gather happened in the case of Birmingham.
  The Committee also took no account (I do not say this unkindly) of the fact that Birmingham had not passed a resolution under Standing Order 124A, which is the Standing Order of your Lordships' House which requires district councils to pass a resolution in favour of powers which are sought on their behalf in a county Bill. In the absence of such a resolution, Birmingham could not produce evidence of need, and the normal practice would have been to exclude the council from it. Finally, the Committee did not acknowledge that Birmingham had obtained the withdrawal of a petition against the public entertainment provisions by their promise to exclude themselves from their coverage. Such agreements are subject to the approval of Parliament, and it would have been normal for the Committee to respect that undertaking. I have listened to what noble Lords have said, and I accept that the Committee came to their conclusions with the very best intentions; but, for the reasons I have given, I think it would be wrong to foist powers on Birmingham that they do not want.
  Reference has been made to what I said in answer to a Question in your Lordships' House on 15th February last
  40
  about the Government's intention to introduce legislation on this matter. I am sure that it is not necessary for me to remind your Lordships of the demands which have been made on Parliamentary time and on your Lordships this Session. It is in fact the Government's intention to introduce such legislation, but at this stage of the Session it would be wrong of me to attempt to indicate when that would be. All I want to say is that the Government feel that it is one thing to introduce legislation, which gets the approval of both Houses of Parliament, to require local authorities to accept certain conditions—that is to say, it is one thing when the matter has been before Parliament and has been thoroughly threshed out in both Houses—but it is quite another thing (if I may use the words of the noble Baroness) to change the rules halfway through, and for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to seek to do so. In view of that, it is obviously for your Lordships to make up your own minds on this matter, but, as I say, the Government feel that there is a great deal of substance in the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness which is before your Lordships' House, and the Government support the Amendment.
  4.18 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, it would not normally be appropriate for me, as Chairman of Committees, to intervene in a debate on the report of a Select Committee, especially a Select Committee of this sort, set up to consider a Private Bill. Certainly where the issue lay between the Promoters of the Bill and a Petitioner against it, I would never dream of intervening and trying to persuade your Lordships one way or the other; nor, indeed, I am quite sure, would the Government. But in the instance that we are discussing, I really feel that I should say something, as indeed did the Government—and I was very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said—because the issue is not one between Promoter and Petitioner, but is, in my view, an important matter of principle affecting future Private Bills. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, looked on it in that light, also.
  Parliament has always been rightly jealous of its legislative privilege and

  41
  suspicious of outside bodies seeking powers by Acts of Parliament. For centuries past the criterion in such cases has been need, and any outside body coming to Parliament to seek powers for itself has been required to prove its need. This is the fundamental principle of Private Bill procedure which it is the duty of the holder of my office to uphold. The Select Committee, by refusing to make the Amendment sought by the Promoters, are in this instance giving a district—that is, Birmingham—powers which it has not sought and for which it cannot prove a need. Nor, indeed, has it passed the necessary resolution required by our own Standing Orders—under Standing Order 124A. I do not believe that this is right.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, and also the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, made the point that because the provisions are appointed-day provisions—that is, they will only come into operation in a district if and when the district council appoint a day for the purpose—they are not being forced upon Birmingham because Birmingham is not obliged to appoint a day. While that is true, I do not think that this point answers the objection that a council should not be required to take powers which it does not want and for which it does not seek to show a need. The point, in my view and with respect, is really a red herring. The fact is, first, that Birmingham does not want and has not shown a need for these powers, and, secondly, that the Bill does confer the powers on Birmingham, including the power to appoint a day for the coming into operation of the provisions.
  I fully understand the case made by the Select Committee and I appreciate their objective in seeking uniformity; but the uniformity that they seek is, in my view, appropriate to public general legislation and not to a Private Act. The difficulty they faced highlights the problem of dealing with matters of national concern within the ambit of a Private Bill. Private Acts can never by their very nature achieve uniformity. In fact, I am afraid that the word "uniformity" is really a misnomer. It was never mentioned by me in introducing these Bills at Second Reading. It is the wrong word. What
  42
  Section 262 of the 1972 Act really seeks is, I think, better described as consistency.
  The fact is that present local authorities have inherited a hotch-potch of powers from previous authorities. The present districts in particular now have powers that formerly belonged to county boroughs, urban district councils and rural district councils. Such powers still relate to their old areas and many of them are totally out of date. Moreover, there is no central record of them and no proper arrangements for their repeal. It is to cure this hotch-potch that Section 262 sweeps away all or most of these provisions and compels the authorities, both county and district, to come to Parliament to prove their need for such of those powers as they wish to retain.
  May I also repeat another important point which was made in the course of her speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I think it is important to remember that the 1972 legislation made it quite clear that county councils and district councils are equal in status. It is only their different functions that distinguishes them. Both types of authority, county and district, are fully entitled to come to Parliament and seek the renewal of the powers that they will need in future to fulfil their particular functions. However, to enable Parliament to deal with the volume of necessary legislation, district councils were urged to include their desired powers under the over-all umbrella of a county bill. It is much to their credit that they agreed to do so; but there was no suggestion that if they did they might have to accept powers that they did not seek.
  Of course, I agree that we should seek a degree of uniformity in the new clauses now being proposed in county council Bills. This we will do because in future county district and councils will have uniform powers to exercise their appropriate functions over the whole of their respective areas. County powers will cover the whole county and district powers will cover the whole district. The only difference from what the Select Committee saw as the aim of conformity is that one district's powers will not necessarily be the same as those of another district. That seems to me to be one big step forward to consistency in general

  43
  and it retains an important element of local democracy. Complete uniformity must, in my view, be left to general legislation.
  I am afraid that I did not agree when the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, said that it was appropriate to put a stamp of uniformity on local councils by means of a Private Bill. It is because I wish to maintain the principle of proof of need that underlies Private Bill procedure that I hope that the House will accept the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. May I say that, if it will be convenient to the House, I will, if the House does accept this Amendment, undertake to put down the necessary Amendments to the West Midlands Bill at Third Reading in the hope that they can then be taken formally without the need for further debate.
  There is just one last point. The noble Viscount, Lord Hood, rightly drew attention to the fact that the House rarely seeks to differ from recommendations made by one of its Select Committees. But there are cases where the House has taken this view. I would suggest as one precedent, the first of the county council Bills—the South Glamorgan Bill. The House took a view on policy on that Bill after an Amendment was moved by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Chapman, and the House did assert its right to say what the policy should be rather than that recommended by the Select Committee.
  4.26 p.m.
  The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, as a former Chairman of Committees, may I ask the House to support the principle to which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has referred—that is, the principle of not allowing a power to a local authority without proof of need. It may sound technical, but it is much more than that. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that to give a power to a local authority is to remove a liberty from the citizens of that area. Parliament, as the upholder of civil liberties, has always been extremely jealous of giving powers to local authorities without abundant proof of the need in the interest of the citizens of that area, a need to exercise that power which over
  44
  rides the liberty of the individual citizen. I therefore very much hope that your Lordships will approve of the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. Lady Young.
  The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he possibly answer this point? What civil liberty is being taken away by allowing the elected county councillors of Birmingham and not the appointed justices to license music and dancing? What civil liberty is removed by that?
  The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I do not want to enter into a debate at this stage of the discussion, but I might point out to the noble Earl that whether or not the authority is elected makes no difference at all to the exercise of the power.
  4.29 p.m.
  Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that I have received from all parts of the House for my Amendment. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—for he and I worked closely together on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and this seems to be running a similar course—and also the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who speaks with great experience of local government. I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. As he rightly said, this is not a Party political issue and I am glad to confirm that not only is it not a Party political issue in this House but not one in local government either. It is, as I hope I indicated in my earlier remarks, a matter for the good of local government and private legislation; and that is what we are discussing.
  I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has drawn a very useful distinction between the use of the words "consistency" and "uniformity". I think that we would all support the former and many would support the word "uniformity", but not to make the whole of private legislation the same for every single authority. This would not in itself be desirable even if it were to be obtainable. I am also very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his inter-

  45
  vention because he has had so much experience of these matters.
  May I say to the other members of the Opposed Bills Committee, all of whom have spoken, that I appreciated very much the generous terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, introduced his remarks. He made it quite clear that his Committee conferred these powers in such a way that a local authority did not need to use them but could use them at a later stage if it so wished. This is a point which has been well answered by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare: we stick to the rules that we have always had. In private legislation an authority must prove a need, and since the City of Birmingham did not pass the resolution confirming this, it would be wrong to overrule the necessity for this resolution and to put the power into the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, raised two separate points: first about an appointed day for the implementation, which has been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Secondly, Lord Gordon-Walker said if the Amendment were rejected, Birmingham would have only permissive powers that it would not need to use. This is a variation of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, made. The fact is that it is giving Birmingham a power for which it has not asked. I very much sympathise with the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss.
  I hope that in my opening remarks I made it clear that I believe the Committee has done a valuable job. It is important to have a procedure for enabling a Committee of the House to deal with four Private Bill at the same time. I hope that, despite this debate, they will use the procedure on another occasion.
  I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, will not feel that by my questioning this matter I am out to make difficulties for anybody. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to the South Glamorgan Bill. I had intended to use that as a precedent should it have been necessary, and I opened my remarks by saying that this was an unusual procedure for me to adopt, but then it is a very unusual case. The fact is that it is a procedure which is allowable to the House. I believe it right that any noble
  46
  Lord who wishes to do so should be able to use the procedure it it be for the benefit of local government.
  I hope very much that the House will accept my Amendment, for the reasons that I have advanced. I do not believe it to be a criticism of what has taken place. It has been a useful debate and I believe that by adopting my Amendment we will be acting in the interests of local authorities who are promoting the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said I had not answered his question when I said that district councils might not co-operate in the future, and he asked: How did I know this to be the case? Perhaps I should tell the noble Earl: when they come to their agreements, they expect, if they change their mind, that the promoting authority will make the necessary amendments. If they feel that they cannot change their mind and the promoting authority cannot do so, they will not co-operate. That stands to reason. It is therefore not only in the interests of local government but in the interests of this House, which I am sure all of us wish to see upheld, that I move my Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, original Motion, as amended, agreed to.

  FINANCE BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
  Lord PEART: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Peart.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ECC 36th REPORT ON MUTTON AND LAMB (SHEEPMEAT)
  4.36 p.m.
  Lord WALSTON Lord WALSTON rose to move, That this House takes note of the Thirty-sixth Report of the European Communities Committee on Mutton and Lamb (Sheep-meat) (R/769/78). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the outset, I should like to give my thanks to those members of the Sub-Committee who have spent so many long but, I hope they will agree, fascinating and useful hours probing evidence, listening to many wise and knowledgeable people and deliberating thereafter as a result of the evidence that has been heard. In those thanks, I should like to include both our clerk and specialist adviser who have done so much to make it possible for us to produce this report with a very fair degree of speed.
  In considering this matter of the proposals from the Commission in the unattractive but useful "shorthand" of the Commission for a sheepmeat régime, the first question that any of us should ask ourselves is this: is there any need for any further Directive or legislation in this matter? Frequently in this House and elsewhere we criticise the Commission for bringing out Directives which are unnecessary. We have to satisfy ourselves as to the reasons why it is necessary to have any proposals to regulate the trade in sheepmeat. We did not have very much difficulty in doing this.
  I am speaking completely personally but most, if not all, of my fellow members go along with me when I say that with all its shortcomings we believe that the Common Agricultural Policy is a very important part of the Community. It must be made to work as efficiently and broadly as possible. Until some sheepmeat régime comes into force, the trade in mutton and lamb—and also goatmeat which does not affect this country significantly—does not come under any of the provisions of the Common Agricultural Policy. As a result of that, there is a very distinct impediment to the free movement of goods between different Member countries of the Community.
  There is probably little need to remind your Lordships that at the present time it
  48
  is impossible for British farmers to export sheepmeat to France unless there is a special permission given by the French Government which is only given when the price of sheepmeat on the Paris market rises above a certain level and is withdrawn immediately it falls below that level. That is in complete contradiction to the beliefs and concepts of the Common Agricultural Policy. Therefore it is essential that this should be removed.
  There is a further reason why these proposals are of value to the whole concept of the Common Agricultural Policy. This is one to which I shall return later in more detail, but it may surprise some of your Lordships; that is, that, while it is part of the Common Agricultural Policy that the home producer as regards the partners in the Community should have priority in the markets of the Community itself for their own products, there should be freedom, so far as is consistent with that first proviso for imports to come in from third countries. At the present time that is extremely difficult for most of our partners in the Community and, in fact, in France, which is the biggest potential for sheepmeat, imports are limited to 3,000 tonnes per annum. For those reasons, I believe that some form of sheepmeat régime is a necessary addition to the armoury of the Commission, of the Community and, particularly, of the Common Agricultural Policy.
  Having, I hope, established the fact that in general and in principle it is important that there should be a sheepmeat régime, we now have to look at the effect of these particular proposals upon the various component Members of the Community as a whole and, in particular, how beneficial or how adverse the effect may be. Broadly speaking, one may say that there is concerned in this matter, first of all, the taxpayer, who is interested in how much extra charge, if any, these proposals will put on the Community Budget and, indirectly, upon the contribution this country has to make. Secondly, and most importantly, there is the consumer—above all, the consumer in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, there are the farmers of the United Kingdom and, fourthly, our friends in New Zealand—the farmers and the sheep producers there and the people of the country as a whole. New Zealand is a very loyal

  49
  member of the Commonwealth and an old ally in every sense of the word, an economic partner and one to whom we owe a very great deal. How will these proposals affect these different interests? So far as the taxpayer is concerned, the effect is minimal. There are provisions for a premium to be paid to certain farmers. It is not specified which farmers they will be, but undoubtedly the French farmers will be adversely affected by the opening up of competition, above all, from this country. Perhaps I should have said in my earlier remarks that already France has a special arrangement with Eire over the importation of sheepmeat there which, again, runs completely counter to the ideals of the Community. But the French sheepmeat producer will undoubtedly be affected by the opening of the doors to cheaper sheepmeat coming in from elsewhere, and particularly from the United Kingdom.
  It is therefore, in my view, perfectly reasonable that at least for a transitional period—to which I shall refer later—the French producer of mutton and lamb should have some cushioning against the effect. According to the Commission's proposals, that should be dealt with by way of a premium which, in other words, is hardly distinguishable from our own deficiency payments in this country, to which we attach very great importance. It is worth mentioning that we already have agreement in the Community for the payment of special premiums to sheep producers in this country and for hill-farming subsidies to help those who are specially disadvantaged. Therefore it is not right for us to oppose the concept of the premium, but I believe it should extend—and this is where we need more clarification of the Commission's proposals—not only to the French farmers, who will be most affected, but to all sheep producers throughout the Community, wherever there may be a need.
  In passing, I should say that this is a very valuable precedent for us in this country, who for long have been pressing for some form of deficiency payments to our producers because, without going into detail, we believe it is the best way to safeguard both producer and consumer and to prevent prices rising too high. So we have here a precedent which is of value but which will cost a certain amount
  50
  of money, though not a large amount. No figures have been suggested and I think it is wise they should not be; but, undoubtedly, in terms of the total Community Budget, this figure will be a very small one. That, my Lords, is the limit of the cost to the Community and hence to the contribution that the British taxpayer has to make.
  Let me make a point here which is frequently overlooked in discussions on this matter; that is, that in those proposals there is no question whatsoever of any intervention price. There is no floor to the market and no question of the creation of a "mutton mountain" because there is no intervention price or intervention buying; and therefore the biggest potential source of expenditure by the Community does not exist in the case of sheepmeat.
  That is the situation so far as the taxpayer is concerned: what about the consumer? To my mind, there is no question at all but that the price of sheepmeat to the British consumer will rise. That is not a very happy situation in itself, but we must look at this in rather more detail and the Committee looked at it in a great deal of detail. We tried very hard to find out how much the price of sheepmeat would rise to the British consumer and we were given a whole range of possible increases in price, from 5 per cent. at the lowest end to 40 per cent. at the highest. There was a lot of talk about elasticity of demand, and many figures were produced to suggest that a certain fall-off in consumption would take place if the price rose by a certain amount. There was a lot of talk about the rate of change at which these increases in price would take place. There was also a lot of talk about the competition from other types of meat and about the relative prices of beef, pork and poultry.
  All these factors have to be taken into account, but, having done that, I confess quite frankly that we could do no more than make a guess. I hope it was an intelligent guess: it was certainly an unbiased guess, and perhaps I should point out that the membership of the Committee did cover a very wide range of interests and experience over the whole spectrum of the meat problem. There were sheep producers and general farmers; there were those with experience of the

  51
  wholesale meat business and of the retail meat business, and there were those with experience of consumer protection. At the end of the day, we came to the conclusion that the increase in price would probably be of the order of 15 per cent. As I say, that in itself is not a very happy conclusion to come to at a time when we are doing our best to hold down inflation. I do not want to anticipate the final conclusions and recommendations, but if there were a transitional period of five years for introducing this régime and if that price rise of 15 per cent. was to be spread over five years, it would in fact mean an increase—
  Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? Is it a 15 per cent. rise to the consumer—to the person buying—or is that a wholesale price?
  Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend mentioned that, because I was coming to that point and it is of significance. But if you spread this increase of 15 per cent. over five years, it will be an increase of 3 per cent. per annum. That increase is, in fact, to the producer. One never knows in these cases whether the various other people concerned, such as the wholesalers and the retailers, will charge exactly the same percentage on top of the producer's price that they pay, in which case the whole of the 15 per cent., or the 3 per cent. per annum, will be passed on to the consumer. But if, as one hopes, they said, "Our costs will not go up in any way. It is only the producer's price that will go up, not the costs of handling, of distribution, profit margins and so on. They will not go up as a result of this", then that 15 per cent. to the producer should not mean more than 10 per cent., or even 7½ per cent., to the consumer.
  I do not think one should count on that, because experience in the past makes it unlikely that at least some of this will not in some way be passed on to the consumer. I would say therefore that, spread over five years, one should expect a price rise of between 2 and 3 per cent. per annum. After all, with inflation running at the happily low figure of something under 8 per cent., a rise of 2 to 3 per cent. in sheepmeat alone is not a matter of complete disaster. But we have to face
  52
  this fact and it is one which cannot be dodged.
  However, let me make this point clear to your Lordships. This increase in price is not due to a high intervention price, or any of the other devices which we so often associate with the Community and with the Common Agricultural Policy. It is due solely to the fact that the British producer will have opened up to him markets in the rest of the Community, particularly in France, which, as I have already explained, are at present closed to him for most of the time. Therefore, there will be a greater demand with, at any rate for the moment, until production increases, no greater production. There will simply be the effect of supply and demand pushing up prices and, from our point of view in this country, the increased demand comes as a result of increased exports.
  It surprises me that there are prominent members of all Parties who are vociferous about the need to keep down the price of sheepmeat to the consumer here, and who say that nothing should be done to allow prices to rise. But, at the same time, it is the policy of the Government and of the Opposition to encourage exports wherever possible. We must realise that the only reason why any rise in price may occur is that exports from this country will be increasing, which surely must be a cause for rejoicing, even though it may result in an increased price to the consumer here.
  Lord HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I do not think he has made clear to us what is the present price of sheepmeat on the Continent. It seems to me that meat, in general, on the Continent is nearly double the price of what it is in England.
  Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I deliberately did not want to go into a lot of figures and details: they are all printed in the report. But the noble Lord is perfectly correct and prices on the Continent are very much higher. I believe that in France and Belgium the prices are approximately double what they are here, but in certain other countries of the Community they are about 50 per cent. more. However, in every case they are very considerably higher; but so, indeed,

  53
  are the prices of beef, pork and poultry, too. So that the relationship between them is not necessarily very different; and, as we all know, the level of wages and the spending power are greater there, too.
  But to return briefly to the question of exports and the increased price to the consumer here, I do not think anybody would suggest that we ought to curtail our exports of, for example, barley of which we have very valuable exports to the Continent, which help to keep up the price to the British producer of barley in this country, simply in order to bring down the price of barley here, as indeed would happen, and thereby reduce the cost of feedingstuffs and possibly reduce the cost, if not the price, of beer and whisky. So that we must be very clear about the reasons for the price increase that is likely to take place.
  The third group which are concerned are the farmers of this country, and there is no doubt that it will be beneficial to them. They will have this increased market opened to them, particularly the French market, and there will be a steady increase of market. It will not be a stop-go situation, depending upon what happens in the Paris meat markets, and on how the supplies and demands in France, or in other Member States of the Community, fluctuate. It will always be open there. But it will not be an easy market. At the moment, the French take a small amount of our sheepmeat, but they take only the best quality. They are very choosy in what they buy and it will not be possible for us to sell to France, once the gates are open, everything that is produced here.
  The demand is limited. At the moment it is a luxury product, but I hope that as time goes on it may become a more common article of diet on the Continent. Again, if the noble Lord would like to refer to the table in our report, he will see that the consumption in all the Community countries is very well below what it is in this country and in Eire. We shall be able to make use of this new opportunity only if we give yet greater care to the provision of real quality meat, and to the methods of our marketing of it. So that while farmers will benefit from it, it is not just a wonderful new open market ahead of them. It is a selective quality market, which will need a great deal of work to get the biggest possible benefit from it.
  54
  Finally, there is New Zealand. I have already spoken of the debt that we owe to them, and it is only right to say that all the evidence that we received from New Zealand, and which one has read in the newspapers, shows that they have very strong fears about the effect of this decision upon them. I believe that those fears, while reasonable, are considerably exaggerated. I do not not believe that the danger to New Zealand is anything like so great as they believe it to be.
  The most important point to remember here is that, at the present time, New Zealand has to pay a 20 per cent. tariff on all sheepmeat coming into this country. Under the new proposals there will no longer be a tariff. There will he a levy which will vary up and down, depending on the price within the Community as a whole, but on an undertaking, given as a result of the GATT commitment, it will never exceed the 20 per cent. tariff which is payable at the present time.
  So that New Zealand is in the position of knowing that there will never be a greater imposition upon their imports than there is at the present time; there may well be a diminished one. As the major supplier of sheepmeat from third countries into the Community as a whole, it is always open to them to increase their offer price, thereby receiving more money for themselves but not increasing the money over here, because the levy that they have to pay to bring it up to the ruling price within the Community will thereby be diminished. So to that extent they stand to gain somewhat.
  New Zealand also stands to gain by the fact that, at present, France imposes a 3,000 tonnes per annum limit on the amount of sheepmeat imported from third countries. Our understanding of these proposals—and here clarification is needed most importantly—is that the 3,000 tonnes limit will disappear, and the market will be open to New Zealand, subject always to the levy, so that they can develop their market without fear of impediments arising in the future, both in France and in other Community countries, with no limit at all placed on the amount that they can send into those countries. They have, therefore, a greater opportunity than exists at present.
  Their fear is that because of the rise in price in this country, consumption in this

  55
  country will drop and therefore the amount which will need to be imported from New Zealand will also drop. That is a genuine fear, and it is one that we accept. I am not saying that that fear does not exist; it is a real fear. On balance, however, I believe that the advantages which they are getting will go—I put it no higher than this—a very long way towards counteracting any disadvantages which they may suffer. Knowing the ability of the New Zealanders as exporters of sheepmeat and the quality and the consistency of their product, I believe that during the transition period they will be able to come out of this with little, if any, disadvantage and possibly with some advantage.
  To sum up, our report says that these proposals form a good basis for a just, workable and reasonable settlement. There are one or two particular points to which we wish to draw noble Lords' attention and which I hope that our negotiators will be able to achieve before the final proposals materialise. They are these. First, the safeguard clause which is written into these proposals—and, indeed, into all proposals of this nature—should be used and should be seen to be used only if there is real disruption of the entire sheepmeat market. It should not be used here and there, sporadically, if it looks as though something is going to be difficult; it should be used only in the event of a real disruption of the stability of the market. When one considers that only one-third of our sheepmeat is produced within the Community, this is highly unlikely ever to take place. If, however, disruption of the stability of the market were to take place, due notice should be given, bearing in mind the fact, so far as New Zealand in particular is concerned, that since the length of time between meat being shipped from New Zealand and arriving in Europe is very considerable, it would clearly be unfair to them if these emergency provisions, should they have to be invoked, were invoked for sheepmeat which was already on the high seas.
  Secondly, it must be made absolutely clear that the French should abandon their 3,000 tonne limit on imports from third countries, and that New Zealand and any other country outside the Community that wishes to do so should have free right of access to the whole of the Community market for its sheepmeat,
  56
  subject always to the levy, the maximum being 20 per cent. Thirdly, the premia which are suggested should be available to all sheep producers within the Community and should not be confined solely to the French who will be hit the hardest.
  Subject to those three points being clarified, we believe that this is a sound proposal, that it will help the Community as a whole, that it will improve the Common Agricultural Policy and that it will do so at virtually no cost and with a certain amount of benefit. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the Thirty-sixth Report of the European Communities Committee on Mutton and Lamb (Sheepmeat) (R/769/78).—(Lord Walston.)
  5.4 p.m.
  Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the report that we are debating this afternoon is what one would expect of a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the European Communities Committee, when one considers the members who comprise it. If Her Majesty's Government needed a private or semi-public Think-Tank on the topic of sheepmeat in general, or goatmeat in particular, it would be hard to find a wider range of experts than the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the European Communities Committee which has produced the report that we are debating this afternoon. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has experience both of the political scene in the European Community and of farming in this country. Therefore, it does not fall to me, as a mere stand-in on this long-term operation, to come with a wide-ranging series of criticisms of what the sub-committee have done, although, as we saw earlier in today's proceedings, it is essential that we should retain on the Floor of the House the right to differ from any committee, or any sub-committee which a Select Committee may set up, because we cannot be mandated by committees which are set up to do work elsewhere.
  I do not have the same range of qualifications as those possessed by the noble Lords who have taken part in the work of this sub-committee, but I do, I hope, have a serious interest in the future of the

  57
  European Economic Community, in particular in the sensible and steady evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is one of the pillars of the existing Community. Unless the Common Agricultural Policy continues to hold up the fabric that the Community has worked out for itself, the rest will fall apart. However, we must remember—I hope noble Lords will accept this comment as a preliminary to the rest of what I have to say—that the Common Agricultural Policy is not working perfectly, that it needs to change—and change quickly—in order to survive and that it was based upon a system which itself was built upon stable currencies, or currencies which did not fluctuate wildly. At this very moment, after Bonn, I hope that moves are being made towards a firmer currency relationship between the Member States of the Community. On the basis of such an arrangement, if such an arrangement comes into being, we could start to work out a new edition of the Common Agricultural Policy.
  Why do I bother to make these general remarks which appear to have nothing to do with sheepmeat? Because the proposal that the sub-committee examined and the proposal which we are considering this afternoon is but a further, modernised version of a whole series of proposals on sheepmeat which are themselves part and parcel of the existing Common Agricultural Policy. When we are examining this proposal, therefore, we have to remember that it may be but one more in a series of recommendations, that it will be discussed in the Council of Ministers—who may alter it out of all recognition—that it will be considered by the agricultural Ministers, together with a great number of wholly unrelated subjects, that it will be bargained about, probably in the middle of the night and probably when tempers are very short, and that a decision will be taken upon it, not on its own merits alone but as part and parcel of other agricultural decisions which may have to be reached at that particular moment.
  The first question that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—I hope he will accept that the questions which I am about to ask are not petty, partisan, point-scoring questions but the kind of questions which are necessary for a serious debate on the report that we are
  58
  discussing—is this: When do the Government anticipate that this proposal will reach the Council of Ministers?
  I have given what I hope may be accepted as general warnings about the nature of this proposal. I am not asking noble Lords to stand back from the report because the quality of the report does not deserve close attention. I am asking your Lordships to look at the report in, as the horrible jargon has it, the context of what is happening to the Common Agricultural Policy in general and to the proposals for the various agricultural commodities and produce in particular. It is no use looking at this report just on its own; we have to see where it is going to take us. Looking ahead to a Community of Twelve, looking ahead to a Community which is going to become increasingly anxious about expenditure on agriculture, we have to examine whether it is taking us in the right kind of direction generally. I hope other noble Lords with better qualifications than mine can address their comments to this point as well as to the particular points raised by the report itself.
  The noble Lord, Lord Walston, began his remarks by trying to assess the need for the proposals and I think we must accept that the sheepmeat régime would have come into being had there been a crying need for it to exist in order for the Community to survive. The Community has worked without a sheepmeat régime since 1958. What is the need for having one now? I ask that question not in the spirit of those who wish to prevent the Community working but with an earnest desire that the Community and the Commission in particular should only tackle a common need where a common need really exists, because unless there is a common need there is no purpose in a common policy.
  What is the common need? We have been told in the report and by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the Community has many Member States who are not particularly strong in either consumption or production of sheepmeat, and Table 1 makes that vivid. So it is a problem that really revolves around three Member States. That may be an oversimplification but the triangle of France, Eire and ourselves is the most important

  59
  triangle when this subject is being considered. If we are wondering, what is the need for a régime on sheepmeat I think we must at least consider the possibility that it is to some extent the refusal of the French which is responsible for the demand for a sheepmeat régime because it is the resistance of the French market to imports and in particular the arrangements between the French and the Irish Republic which prevent a genuine common market in sheepmeat from existing. As I understand it—though I may easily be wrong on this and if I am perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi can correct me—since the ending of the transition period at the beginning of this year a common market in sheepmeat should automatically have come into being between the new Members and the old Members.
  So, at least on the surface, it is not in the interests of all Member States to have a sheepmeat régime, and it is not necessarily in the interests of the other three Member States that I have mentioned, except that there are some legal difficulties which might be overcome by a sheepmeat régime. But, if that is the case, we should not set up sheepmeat régimes simply because existing legal sanctions are not enough. I am sounding a note of caution because I think we have to examine very carefully what it is that this proposal is committing us to. As I said in my earlier remarks, endorsement of the principles of the proposal does not commit this country to the proposal. It can be changed in the Council of Ministers; it can be changed as part of a package deal, and the reason I am asking these questions is because I want the Government to answer them.
  In their present frame of mind, whom do the Government think a sheepmeat régime will benefit? Although it is quite clear that our own sheep farmers would benefit a great deal and could stand to gain an enormous amount if their exports were increased, the price to the consumer is something about which the Select Committee itself had the greatest difficulty in coming to a firm conclusion and it is something to which we in this House need to pay a great deal of attention. The Community is already blamed for everything from Britain's performance at football and cricket to every sort of high price. It would do no good to the Com-
  60
  munity if there were a price rise in sheepmeat that was undoubtedly the result of a sheepmeat régime unless every precaution had been taken beforehand to evaluate exactly what those costs would be.
  I saw in The Times the other day a favourable comment about the Select Committee's report on the 1979 Budget which was headed, "Lords join criticism of EEC Budget over agriculture" and of course the nature of that criticism was all to do with cost. So the need for the régime in the context of a changing CAP is something on which we need to hear the views of Her Majesty's Government. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that existing obstacles prevent the free movement of goods: is it really the Government's view that the sheepmeat régime would bring these obstacles down?
  The noble Lord, Lord Walston, caused me anxiety from time to time because he was making so many of the points that I wanted to make and doing so rather better than I am able to do. In particular, he went through the various groups of people who might be affected by the introduction of this proposal. I was not fully happy with what he said about the cost to the taxpayer because, while accepting that the principle of deficiency payments, particularly during a transitional period, is very much worth having in Community legislation, I was not happy that he did not mention paragraphs 33 and 34 of his report, the conclusions of which talk about private storage. He was of course quite right to say that there are no proposals for intervention and no proposals for putting the sheepmeat, if it should ever run into surplus, into storage through the mechanism of the intervention price. I fully accept the argument that, as the Community is not self-sufficient in the production of sheepmeat, it is fairly unlikely that there will be a surplus—certainly not a large one. It is not the same as with beef or with these other commodities which give everyone in this country and in Brussels as well so much concern.
  Paragraphs 33 and 34 mention private storage, which, as I understand it, is a system for paying for the private storage of surplus sheepmeat. Somebody will have to pay for that. I know it is not very clear in the proposal how it is going to

  61
  work and I may have misunderstood what the proposal itself suggests or what the report suggests, but I think we must bear in mind that there is a possibility of a cost here because, if it means anything, private storage means a subsidised form of the sort of buying which leads to so much anxiety when there is a proper intervention price. I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, what he thinks of the proposals on private storage. Do Her Majesty's Government feel that these are sufficiently well defined and well controlled in this proposal not to lead to something which might one day turn into a form of intervention buying and storing by another name? I am asking for reassurance about the extent of private buying.
  So far as the cost to the taxpayer is concerned—I was mentioning private stockpiling under that heading—I was also concerned that the possible premia, which could be extended to areas which might be in difficulties as a result of the introduction of the sheepmeat régime, would also bring a cost for the taxpayer. Presumably the premia, which again are ill-defined, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned, could be differentiated by region, as the report says in paragraph 35; and it goes on to comment that the text is very vague as to detail. These again are things to be borne in mind when the cost is being calculated, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, could tell us what he thinks these regional premia would amount to, how they would affect us in this country and what costs they would lead to.
  My Lords, I do not want to delay your Lordships from hearing those speakers in this debate who have spent longer on this subject than I have. I have an anxiety about price. I do not think any step flowing from the Community which results in an increase in the price of food to the consumer in this country can be undertaken at this moment without a great deal of thought, and I should like some reassurance, as I am sure would my noble friends, on this aspect of the proposals that we are considering today.
  I should like to say a word from this side of the House about my understanding and our feeling on the special position of the New Zealand producers, who developed
  62
  their own production with our needs in mind, who do fill in the awkward times of the year when British production is not fulfilling all the demand that we have, and who do give us a very large proportion of their total exports of lamb. I believe they have a serious problem which we must see that Brussels, those in authority in the Community, tackle with sympathy. Nevertheless, I think that this proposal deserved all the work that noble Lords in the Select Committee have put into examining a very controversial and difficult proposal; speaking as a former member of this particular sub-committee I say so with special enthusiasm.
  I have not sought, from this position, to use words of Party political warfare, nor have I sought to attack the proposal or the report on it in a destructive manner I have tried to do what I believe this House, sitting in full session on committee reports, is intended to do; that is, to look at the proposals with thoroughness and to examine what it is that they contain. I have tried to look at the report in a rather wider framework than it was the function of the Select Committee to do. This proposal can only be seen as part of the machinery of the CAP as a whole. I believe that the CAP is standing at the threshold of change. We need to examine this proposal in the light of what we wish that change to be. I hope that the Government will express their thanks to our Select Committee by giving full answers to the questions that I and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, have raised, and others will raise in this most important debate.
  5.24 p.m.
  Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I rise as a second substitute to address myself to the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in presenting this report to the House. First, I have been asked to apologise to the House on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie for being unable to be present here today; equally, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was prevented at the last minute from attending. Luckily, I, being interested in farming, had read the report, so that I have some observation to make. First, may I say how much I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and his analysis of the problems presented to us by this draft Directive.

  63
  He gave a marvellous breakdown of the things we have to look at in conjunction with this report.
  We are faced, as Members of the Common Market, with looking at the problem not only from our own point of view but also from the point of view of our fellow Members within the Community. We have to look at this, as the Committee and Lord Walston did, from the point of view of France's position. With her present quota system for the import of sheepmeat, she will inevitably face a difficult situation, and her producers will, when and if this Directive comes into force. At the same time, as Lord Walston said, we have to look at our own consumers and our own farmers. It seems to me that the recommendation on the time limit of implementation, a period of five years, is about right from all three points of view. I think the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked why do we need an Instrument at all why did we not immediately on 1st January this year move into a free market in sheepmeat without an Instrument. I believe that would have been fatal for the consumers of this country and the price would have jumped suddenly to an unacceptable level.
  Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would allow me to intervene, she has misinterpreted the point I was making, no doubt because I put it badly. I was asking a question about the legal position. I was asking whether the sheepmeat régime was being introduced because what should have happened on 1st January this year, when transition ended, did not happen. I was not advocating it. I was merely asking whether that was not the position.
  Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I apologise for having misunderstood the noble Lord. But I still think that my argument would hold water, because had it taken place it would have meant an enormous sudden increase in the price to our consumers. It is in our interest that a Directive of this kind on the right time-scale should come into operation. I would have said that five years is just about the right time, both from the consumer price point of view and for the adjustment of the farming industry that will be necessary. Having
  64
  read the evidence given in the report, I know that there were demands for making the time-scale much longer, something like 10 years, which I believe would have been a calamity. I welcome the Committee's recommendation that five years is about the right time.
  The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned that of course we have a very special concern with the interests of New Zealand. I listened with great care to his assurances about the safeguard of the 20 per cent. maximum tariff under GATT, which puts my mind at rest somewhat. But I am concerned about the safeguard clause in the Directive. Although it is stated that this will only be used in extreme circumstances, I think it is something about which Her Majesty's Government will have to be very vigilant, because it could be used, I believe, under pressure, too frequently and perhaps unnecessarily.
  When considering the problems of New Zealand and the difficulties that that country believes it will or might face, we must remember that for some time New Zealand has been facing even greater difficulties in many ways because it has not been able to have the free market in France that it would like to have and at the same time it has been functioning under the 20 per cent. tariff. As a result, New Zealand has increased its markets in other parts of the world, and quite rightly so. Therefore, its dependence on the Common Market is not so great as it used to be. Nevertheless, I believe that this instrument, in itself, could enable New Zealand to increase its exports to Europe rather than the other way round. I take that view because New Zealand lamb does not have the same seasonal fluctuations that affect production within the Common Market itself. Therefore, from that point of view, it has in many ways an advantage.
  The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is concerned about the provision of private storage. I am equally concerned about that matter not only because of the cost, but because of the danger that he mentioned—namely, that it can be used as a form of undercover intervention buying. If it is used in that way, I believe that it could be extremely dangerous. On the other hand, if it is used with great care, I believe that it can prevent a demand for intervention buying being introduced.

  65
  Therefore, that again is one of the provisions of the Directive which must be watched very carefully and very carefully balanced.
  When reading the evidence in the report and the hope that the introduction of this Directive will be of real benefit to the British farmer, I was very disturbed to read something of which I have been aware for some time and that is that the quality—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walston—of production in this country is not necessarily up to the quality demanded in France; that some of our abattoirs are not up to standard and that our quality grading of sheepmeat is not as high as that demanded in the Common Market. If we are to benefit in any way as a farming community from this Directive we must of course increase our quality grading so that we are competitive in the whole of the European Economic Community. Incidentally, when I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about this matter on the telephone the other day, he told me that there was no problem in Scotland because Scottish lambs are always accepted, even in France! I do not know whether that is true.
  The other matter which has possibilities for us that I should like to raise is that the demand in France and on the Continent as a whole is for a very high quality carcass which is very strictly graded. On the whole the demand is for lamb. I am a housewife and I read French cookery books. There are superb French recipes for mutton which is unobtainable for purchase in Europe. I believe that properly graded English mutton could have an enormous market as a result of the introduction of these proposals.
  However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, my main concern is that the special safeguard clause should not be used against third countries except in very extreme circumstances, but that if it is used—because of the distance between New Zealand and Europe—it should only be used after adequate warning has been given. Apart from those comments, I welcome the Committee's report and thank its members for all the hard work that they have done.
  5.35 p.m.
  Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I too was a member of Sub-Committee D
  66
  and I was surprised about the inclusion of goatmeat. I remember being asked by a certain African country vet when I asked the price of beef, if I meant the price of beef from the goat or from the cow! However, sheepmeat is what we are really concerned with. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan queried whether the EEC needs to have a régime in relation to sheep-meat at all. I assure him that the committee spent a long time deliberating on that matter. We asked for some advice on the degree of certainty about the opening of the market in any event and in the absence of a régime.
  There are several problems involved. One such problem has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and that is that an immediate opening, even if possible, would cause considerable chaos and a very large price rise. We were not sufficiently sure that the market would be open and would stay open and that sheep would receive treatment in line with that for other livestock with which they will compete over the years to come. We were not sufficiently sure that New Zealand would gain entry into France in adequate quantity with the present limit of 3,000 tonnes on third countries.
  For those reasons somewhat reluctantly—it would have been very much easier to say that no régime was necessary—we felt that we had to have a régime. After all, whatever Common Agricultural Policy one may devise the object of it must be to open markets on a fair competitive basis—particularly from the British point of view—wherever our natural ability to produce a commodity cheaply exists; and it does exist in relation to sheep and lamb.
  We were also satisfied that production could be increased. Therefore, for all those reasons and also in view of the need for an orderly progress, we felt that we must stop playing Box and Cox, as was being played with us at the time, and must have a régime. The main problem is, of course, the huge price difference shown in Table 2 on page VIII of our report. With price differences approaching double, the problems for us and for France—the other main country concerned—are clearly enormous and the need for a five year transition period and perhaps for open minds during that period become very clear on that one fact alone.

  67
  I cannot believe that the premia which were suggested and about which at present we have no details—I hope that Her Majesty's Government will press for details as to how the premia will work—can more than partially solve (unless the cost is to be much higher than anticipated) the problem of this huge price difference, especially in view of the probable fall of price in France, to which I shall refer in a moment.
  Why is the difference so large? To put it another way, it has already been mentioned that the difference in prices of other livestock and meat are very considerable, but why is lamb and sheepmeat substantially larger? Once again one comes straight to the green pound, which at present, has a very substantial price reducing effect on the prices of other meats in this country which does not apply to lamb.
  We must also bear in mind the periodic stop-go system of controls and impediments to exports from this country. That, too, has made for this huge difference in price between France and our-selves. The markets, although much smaller in Europe, are, of course, considerable. The latest figures of French consumption on a per capita basis show that it is rising to about half of our own and with the price at double that of our own country the potentiality of the market is clearly considerable. I believe that, if exports, at reasonable prices, could be increased to other countries, other markets will also develop.
  I should like to turn for a moment to New Zealand. As I see it, their fears are, first, that under the safeguard clause, or any other method, there might come a situation when more than 20 per cent. duty is chargeable on imports from Third countries. Provided that our advice in paragraph 43 of our report is taken, and provided that the agreement of the EEC Commission service to use the safeguard clause only in accord with Article XIX of GATT is written into the régime, then I believe that the New Zealanders have a guarantee that the duty will be no higher than it is at present, and conceivably lower.
  Their main worry, of course, is the effect on consumption of a price rise in the United Kingdom market. This, indeed, is
  68
  the main threat to which, if I may, I shall return in a moment. In passing I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, that the New Zealanders are still very dependent on this market. Their lamb is tailor-made for this market. We questioned them quite closely on the opening up of other markets. Clearly, they have tried for a considerable period of time to open up other markets; they started trying when it first looked likely that this country would join the EEC. However, they have not made any appreciable headway. Therefore, they are still dependent upon us.
  In my opinion—and it can only be opinion, which is why we need a five-year transition period and open minds—if this régime goes progressively into operation something like the following will happen. First, there will be a progressive diversion of supplies from this country and, to an extent, from New Zealand, into Europe, and particularly France. The diversion would be greater from New Zealand if it were not for the fact that New Zealand's product is frozen and the French retail trade at the moment is simply not geared to or sympathetic with the concept of handling frozen lamb. However, I believe that that will break down over time. Therefore, there will be a progressive diversion of supplies, including all qualities of British sheepmeat at the prices concerned. I know something of the ingenuity of the French paté manufacturers and I can assure noble Lords that they will soon be developing at those prices useful uses for the fatter lamb.
  This progressive diversion of supplies into Europe will, of course, cause a price rise in Britain and a price fall in France. It is difficult to be sure of the true difference when one is not comparing exact quality for quality and one has to consider the cost of transport and also the size of the relative markets, our market being a little more than double the size of that of the French. But our guess of coming out nearer the top end of the Ministry guess is only a guess. If I were to put a private estimate forward, I think that a 20 per cent. rise is more likely over this period. But that, of course, leaves a much greater fall to be accommodated by the French. In my opinion that is, indeed, the real problem. It is the real reason for the need to have the régime written very clearly so

  69
  that safeguard clauses cannot be applied simply because prices in France start to come down, as they are bound to do.
  The consequence of this will, of course, be a consumption increase in France. In time there could well be a 50 per cent. increase in their present market, and a decrease in this country. The decrease in this country is, of course, worrying both to us and to the New Zealanders. At the moment the size of the decrease is very hard to guess. The reason, of course, is that the green pound applies to other livestock and other meat, and, under this régime does not apply to lamb and sheepmeat. Perhaps by the time the live-year transition period is over, hopefully, the green pound may be very much less of a problem. But if it were at anything like the present level of 30 per cent. of sales price, then the damage to consumption of lamb and sheepmeat in this country would be very great indeed. Therefore, this is a most important point to watch during the transition period and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will put down their markers or pegs, thus being able to raise it as the transition period progresses.
  In my view the fourth consequence will be that production in the United Kingdom will, of course, increase, and there is room for it to increase. There is considerable enthusiasm for this among lamb producers, particularly those North of the Border. However, if it does increase, the marketing arrangements to sell it—not in this country where consumption is likely to decrease but abroad—are vital. It will have to be sold abroad in very large quantities and that is another reason for a five-year transition period, because that cannot be done at a stroke. If it is not sold abroad, the price will, of course, very soon fall again regardless of the new régime.
  The people who are really frightened about this régime—and it is beginning to be mentioned in the French Press—are, of course, the French because without any doubt over this period they will face very substantial decreases in price. This, again, means that these safeguard clauses must be very carefully written and we must be absolutely sure that the 3,000 tonnes embargo on Third country imports into France is, as it should be, removed.
  70
  I think that the New Zealanders are unnecessarily alarmed if we take five years over this and if the points that I have mentioned are taken care of; but their fear could be right that much more damage to consumption in Britain could be caused if a green pound is not applied to lamb, or if we have had little or no phasing out of the green pound in relation to other meats, because other meats are directly competitive and over a period of time the price relationships, which we have thrown a little doubt on in the report, are percentage for percentage, percentage quantity for percentage relative price. To put it in simple terms, people do not buy a leg of lamb and a leg of pork on the same day. Therefore, in my view the most important points are the safeguards and the five-year adjustment period.
  I should like to say a few words as regards the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about the 15 per cent. price increase perhaps being only 10 per cent. at the point of retailer or consumption. First, as our report makes clear, this 15 per cent. is an absolute guess. So conjecture and refinement on details of at what point the price will go up by 15 per cent.—or 20 per cent., which I tend to think more likely—is really a waste of time. But I must also point out that, unless my statistics are badly out of date, about 80 per cent. of the cost of fresh lamb as it arrives at the door of the retailer is accounted for by raw material, and that therefore the differences between the price increases wholesale and retail, though they may vary considerably on the short-term, will not vary all that much on the long-term.
  5.51 p.m.
  Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, after the speech of my noble friend Lord Walston, who so ably chairs our Committee, there remains little for me to add, but I should like to emphasise certain points in our report although many of them have been covered inevitably by previous speakers. The economic basis of the Community is, as I understand it, the free movement of goods across Community frontiers, and it seems to me that there are no reasoned grounds for excluding sheepmeat from this general principle. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated in their evidence that it is generally accepted legally that

  71
  the Rome Treaty now certainly requires a Common Market machinery for sheep-meat and that barriers to intra-Community trade must go now that the transition period has ended. I cannot accept as realistic the National Federation of Meat Traders' opposition to the implementation of a sheepmeat régime as indicated in their written submission to the Committee.
  The second point I should like to emphasise is the unsatisfactory nature of the present marketing situation owing to the fact, as has already been said, that French imports from the United Kingdom are permitted only when the French market price is above a certain figure; but even then are subject to a variable levy and a weekly licensing system. May I quote Mr. John Cameron, Vice-President of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, who stated in his evidence to the Committee:
  "As far as sheep producers are concerned, we have been suffering … from a completely disruptive effect which the French importing regulations have imposed on us over the last few years, and this licensing system, which may be withdrawn at 24 hours' notice, has done a lot of damage to our sheep industry".
  So as well as there being imperative legal reasons for a sheepmeat régime there are practical advantages from a market stability point of view.
  Thirdly, I should like to refer to the possible effect of the proposed régime on United Kingdom consumer prices. As a former retailer with long experience of the food trade, I am very sceptical of forecasts of future price changes. All I think it is safe to say, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has already said, is that with free movement within the Community French prices are likely to come down and result in greater consumption, and United Kingdom prices are likely to go up and consumption to decline. But much depends on what happens to the price of competing meats such as beef, pork and, above all, poultry meat. To cushion the effect of rising prices on the British consumer and the effect of lower prices in France on the producer, the Committee recommends a five-year transitional period.
  May I now turn to the position of New Zealand and at once express my sympathy with their fears about the
  72
  future. Some years ago I paid a very happy visit to their country, and came back with greater admiration for the efficiency of their agriculture and their wonderful grasslands. One must appreciate the importance of the sheep industry to the New Zealand economy, and the long-term nature of the investment in sheepmeat production not only by producers but also in abattoirs, shipping and handling facilities at the ports. The New Zealand sheepmeat industry is also of very great importance to the United Kingdom. New Zealand supplies over 50 per cent. of the lamb consumed in this country, and has shipped lamb to the United Kingdom for nearly 100 years.
  I should also like to draw attention to the seasonality element in the lamb trade, with the availability of supplies from New Zealand when the home product is in short supply; also to a further difference referred to by the Smithfield Market Fresh Meat Traders Association in their evidence:
  "The complementary feature of New Zealand lamb to our own production extends beyond that seasonality, to the field of weight and size of carcases. New Zealand lamb also fulfils a requirement on an all-the-year round basis of furnishing the trade with a lightweight lamb which UK production is unable sufficiently to supply".
  As has already been stated, the main fears of the New Zealanders are, I think, twofold. The first concerns the operation of the proposed safeguard clause. But it is only right to underline that the Commission has emphasised that the safeguard clause will operate only when other ways of stabilising the market have been fully explored and have failed, and our Committee recommended that this assurance of the Commission should be an integral part of the régime. If it ever proved necessary—which I consider unlikely—to apply the clause, it would only be done in strict accordance with GATT regulations. It is also fair to point out that this clause is the same as that in use for other GATT products.
  Secondly, the New Zealanders fear that there will be a drop in demand in the United Kingdom due to higher prices, resulting in the costly build-up of stocks. But against this there will be a great opportunity for them to increase their sales to other Community countries, particularly to France which is the highest

  73
  consumer of lamb after the United Kingdom. At the present time France operates an import quota of 3,000 tonnes of sheepmeat per annum from non-Member countries. As we point out in our report, this quota should disappear if the Commission's proposals are adopted. May I stress that no reduction is proposed in the current level of imports into the United Kingdom and that, unlike other régimes, the sheepmeat régime can be described as market-related. My conclusion, after a great deal of thought, is that a sheepmeat régime is needed and that the present proposals are a reasonable basis for further negotiations and clarifications on certain details. I therefore commend our report to your Lordships.
  6.2 p.m.
  Lord VESTEY: My Lords, I must declare an interest before I start to speak to your Lordships this afternoon. My family company, of which I am joint managing director, has substantial interests in New Zealand, in the meat trade, and also we have substantial interests in the abattoir, wholesale and retail meat trade in this country. We have sales branches on the continent of Europe. We have cold storage interests in the United Kingdom, on the Continent and also in New Zealand and Australia. We also have a very substantial interest in shipping, part of which runs from New Zealand to this country and the Continent.
  I wish to be brief this afternoon. I shall attempt to explain to your Lordships why I am against this proposal, if I may call this Regulation a proposal. I shall not go into technical details about the probability of price rises. There has been some excellent evidence cited in this report. I shall not talk—as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, talked—about New Zealand. We all know what New Zealand's position is. I am sure that there are many Members of your Lordships' House who would want to do the best we possibly could for New Zealand. I shall not try to be technical, as I have said. I should like purely to see what we can do to get over this problem.
  I have had a fair amount to do behind the scenes, with the various submissions to this Select Committee. I should like to see what I could do to suggest a way of
  74
  solving this problem. I must also declare that I am a farmer in this country in a small way. I am also President of the Institute of Meat. This afternoon I should like to start by asking one question and then trying to answer it. Why is this proposal before the House? By proposal I mean the draft EEC Regulation establishing a common organisation of the market in sheepmeat. France continues to place restrictions on the movement of sheepmeat across her borders from other Member States, contrary to the Treaty of Rome, contrary to the principles of the Charmassson judgment—which, although it was about bananas, in principle can be applied to any commodity—and currently in contravention of a reasoned opinion of the EEC Commission. There would be no need—and indeed no desire—for this proposal if the French restrictions were to be removed.
  Of course we must be realistic. The question that follows is: Why is it France that imposes the present restriction, or indeed seeks other protection if the present restrictions are removed? We all know that it is to protect her own sheep farmers, who sell a high-cost product into what we would call a luxury home market. We cannot expect France to abandon her procedures for the immediate effect of free trade, which is bound to result in the lowering of prices in France and obviously the raising of prices in this country, as has already been mentioned.
  What is the best way to help France out of her problem? The French production is less than a fifth of the total lamb consumed in the EEC: 52 per cent. of the flocks contain fewer than 20 breeding ewes, and 90 per cent. contain fewer than 100 breeding ewes. I do not believe that the right answer is the full paraphernalia of an EEC régime under the Common Agricultural Policy, or even a light or liberal régime, as these proposals have been described.
  The Member States with any real interest in sheepmeat are France, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Ireland has already made its own bilateral arrangements with France. Surely it is not beyond the wit of some of our experts to arrive at some similar, though perhaps slightly more complicated, solution with our French partners. I know that this was tried some while ago, but it failed

  75
  owing to Irish objections. This seems to me to be much less likely to occur again now that the previous objector, Ireland, has made its own settlement.
  Why am I so strongly opposed to a régime? I have already declared my interests to your Lordships, who all know that I am deeply involved in the meat industry and not just in imported meat, or even New Zealand lamb, but right across the board: United Kingdom fresh meat from United Kingdom farmers, and also EEC trading between all Member States. My industry—the meat industry—has experienced at first hand the Common Agricultural Policy, and more particularly the régimes that have been devised in the past. In 1973 third-country beef imports amounting to 150,000 tonnes were cut off at a stroke, but in 1971 few had envisaged that such a possibility would occur. There is no reason in my mind to doubt that something like this could happen, although on a smaller scale, to lamb and mutton. I ask your Lordships to think again and to spare my industry—indeed the European meat industry—from another dose of the medicine as before. Your Lordships will say that I am exaggerating. Indeed, the Select Committee at paragraph 44 of its report says that I am exaggerating, if I have my New Zealand hat on. However, I assure your Lordships that that is not so.
  The proposal under debate here today is for a comparatively light or liberal régime, as is proposed to you now. But I suggest that this proposal has all the menace of a time bomb. It is not now or even the immediate future that concerns me so much—but it is the more distant future. What will this turn into, once it has been let loose on us? How will it be changed? What will it grow into as a result of future annual agricultural negotiations in Brussels? I believe that it will become another bargaining counter in the swap-shop, subject to decisions of political expediency, often quite unrelated to practical and commercial reality. Economic situations change; political situations change; and, even more so, people change. I have no doubt of the good intentions of those who have drafted this proposal. However, they will move on, and their intentions and assurances will be swept aside by new people and new events.
  76
  I am sustained in my thinking by a statement which the Minister of Agriculture made at the weekend, a copy of which I found on my desk when I came to my office this morning. Perhaps I might have your Lordships' permission to quote briefly from it. The Minister, speaking about the EEC proposals for sheepmeat at the opening of a new cold store, said:
  "The British Government is committed to fundamental reform of the CAP, including improved access for products from outside the EEC. It has no interest in extending the scope of the CAP and is not seeking an EEC organisation for sheepmeat".
  That is a quotation from an official Press notice from the Ministry. For those reasons alone,
  I return to my original theme; namely, that in present circumstances, which relate purely to ourselves and France, a full régime and all its unwieldy mechanism is unnecessary to solve this problem.
  6.10 p.m.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I must declare an interest in that I fatten lambs in England and breed them in Wales; I am taking part in this debate for that reason, but before I, as a farmer, put my main worries to the Government I must ask the Minister to set my mind at rest over three specific points mentioned in proposal R769. First, would he agree that two-thirds of our sheep production takes place in our less favoured areas and that therefore a sensible sheepmeat policy giving adequate returns to farmers in those areas would help to solve many of the economic, social and—dare I say it?—environmental problems that I understand the Government have difficulties with in those areas?
  On page 2 of the proposal we are told that sheep numbers are rising in Continental countries and are more or less static in the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom is the cheapest producer of sheepmeat in the EEC, this state of affairs is crazy. Would the Government agree that this is in part being caused by the present non-régime and doubtfully legal Customs harriers that have been operating? Do the Government agree that a continuance of such chaos is detrimental to both producer and consumer? On lowland farms we have come to realise once again that the sheep really is the

  77
  golden hoof and, as such, can save fertiliser, which is energy and which I believe is likely to be in short supply, particularly bearing in mind the comments of Sir Kenneth Blackster, director of the Wright Institute at this year's Oxford farm conference. I ask my noble friend Lord Vestey to consider these points with the points he raised, speaking as a butcher. I ask him to have more faith in human nature, even though I have little, and I ask him to have a little more faith in the Common Agricultural Policy being made more viable, which we all want to see.
  I would appreciate the views of the Government on those points and I would refer the Government to three specific points made by your Lordships' Select Committee, whose work and effort I know are appreciated not only here but outside the House. The Select Committee recommends—the noble Lord, Lord Walston, reinforced this in his remarks—three things: the need for a régime, the need to look after New Zealand's special place in our market, and the need for a deficiency payment. I ask the Government to explain their position on those three points. I need hardly add that all three are strongly supported by sheep farmers, including access for lamb from our fellow sheep farmers in New Zealand.
  I am, or perhaps I should say almost was, a potato producer and I have no wish to see lamb shoot up in price, and so lose my market, as has happened with potatoes. I believe, if no régime is undertaken, that that may well happen, and I must admit that the Government's words in a written reply to my noble friend Lord Hylton on 30th June—"if it proves necessary" to introduce a Community organisation for mutton and lamb—worried me extremely. Did that mean what I fear, namely, that the Government want no part in any régime, and that the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Silkin is acting as a short-term Minister of Food rather than a long-term Minister of Agriculture and Food?
  Despite, or maybe because of, what my noble friend Lord O'Hagan said, I believe this proposal is a step in the right direction, for both producer and consumer. I have been hauled over the coals in your Lordships' House in the past, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for fiercely criticising Ministers of Agriculture,
  78
  including the present Leader of this House when he was in trouble over beef prices. Indeed, I fear that when my noble friend Lord Amory was Minister of Agriculture I may have wished him in after life to go to a place I now trust he will never go to. I will certainly not promise not to do so again, particularly if the next Minister of Agriculture comes from this side of the House. It is a farmer's right to criticise Ministers of Agriculture.
  On this occasion perhaps Mr. Silkin is in a quandary; perhaps he would like a sheepmeat régime but realizes—I hope the noble Lord will say "Yes" to this—that he must not have one without the third of the Select Committee's points, namely, the need for a deficiency payment. If that is his problem and the Treaty of Rome says "No" to deficiency payments, then all I can say is that the Treaty of Rome said "No" to milk boards. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is, I think, trying to correct me; should I have said "marketing boards"?
  Lord O'HAGAN: "Nonsense" is what I said, my Lords.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I think it did, my Lords, or at any rate it said "No" as much to marketing boards as it does to deficiency payments, and I will come to my noble friend's point. In any event, the right honourable gentleman managed to get round that one. Perhaps—I commend Lord O'Hagan to this—he will look at the Select Committee's report, particularly paragraph 34, and I hope the words in that paragraph will inspire him, as I hope Lord Walston's remarks will do also. As I say, I am prepared to understand the Minister of Agriculture's problems. I can only ask of him that, if he supports the Select Committee's recommendations, will he go to Brussels to try even harder for these deficiency payments and this report than he did when he defended the milk boards?
  6.18 p.m.
  Lord WISE: My Lords, I, too, must declare an interest in so far as I am an ordinary farmer producing a certain amount of what is now called sheepmeat, although my noble friend Lord Kings Norton said, "Please continue to call it lamb and mutton". I welcome this

  79
  report and, as a sheep farmer, I certainly endorse the Committee's view that the movement of sheepmeat within the Community is essential in the interests at least of the British producer and, I consider, in the long term, of the British consumer.
  It was with some apprehension that I read the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture to which the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, referred, when he said that the Government were not seeking an EEC organisation for the lamb trade but were seeking a reform of the CAP which would allow for a free trade in food products from outside the Community. That I found rather disturbing. I suppose one can appreciate the reasons why the British, and for that matter the French, authorities do not at this time want to enter into a sheepmeat régime, but I should like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to say exactly what the Government are intending to do.
  It seems to make a nonsense of the whole concept of a Common Agricultural Policy if the vitally important sheepmeat industry is excluded from it. One would have thought that as Britain is by far the largest producer and consumer of sheep-meat within the Community, Her Majesty's Government could take the initiative and give some lead in this matter.
  Many of the points that I wished to raise have already been dealt with very adequately so I will try to skip over them as quickly as I can. The Committee recommended a transition period of five years and with that I would agree, but I am a little concerned as I do not quite understand how that transition period works; I wonder whether the French will still be able to put an embargo on imports; and whether the present system of deficiency payments within our country will continue? I should be grateful for some advice.
  It seems to me that providing New Zealand products are allowed to continue to come into the country, consumer resistance alone will prevent our prices from rising astronomically. Incidentally, I do not think the New Zealanders have anything to fear. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, the new proposals to change the present system of set tariffs to the variable levy could indeed help them. Conversely, provided the British
  80
  producer continues to produce good quality lamb at the right weight, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, has said, I do not think the British producer has anything to fear from New Zealand competition. The two complement each other to ensure continuity of supply.
  One senses that there is an air of confidence within the sheep industry at the present time. Given stability—and stability is so essential to efficient production—I believe that will continue and the proposed 20 per cent. increase in production will come about in due course. If that happens it will increase the viability of our hill farms and could in time decrease the amounts payable to them under direct grant from the EEC Commission. But in order to absorb this increased production we have to export to Europe. We must make the French people appreciate that mutton and lamb are not purely luxury commodities and that there must be free access to the French market. I am sure that a Community sheepmeat régime is essential in all our interests. I believe that the proposals form a good basis for discussion but I hope that Britain will give a lead in improving the rather vague and somewhat nebulous proposals for producer premia and fall-back support prices.
  6.23 p.m.
  Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I will not detain you long. I rise mainly to support the noble Lord, Lord Walston, under whose chairmanship of Sub-Committee D I had the great privilege of sitting. The principal points to make have all been made. I should have thought that the main point about these proposals on behalf of the Commission is that they are "freeing" down the barriers to trade which is a fundamental of the Treaty of Rome. It would seem to me that the point at issue is not whether they are introducing a régime for mutton and lamb but what they are doing. I should have thought also that that would be the answer to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan whose question was put somewhat oddly for somebody who is such a good "Communitaire" man himself.
  It would seem to me that the French are employing a particular sort of protectionism in this area and I find it very

  81
  difficult to understand how we shall be able to surmount that. The French are very skilful at hiding their "non-Communitaire" action as though they were the right ones and the British the "wrong 'uns". I find it very odd not to have heard rumours that the French have got some trick to get round these rather sensible and very moderate proposals of the Commission.
  It would seem to me that the protection of the New Zealanders is the one thing that in this country we can feel is a special duty, and so far as we were able to determine it as a Sub-Committee that has been taken care of effectively. I shall not detain your Lordships by going into the reasons why, because so many noble Lords have already done that.
  The only other points to make are that it seems to me—this point probably has not been made as thoroughly as I might have expected—that there is a great deal of room for persuading our fellow Europeans (perhaps not in the short term because, as we all know, habits and particularly eating habits, take years, if not decades, to change) that if one looks at the figures in Table 1 you see it is quite remarkable how little "sheepmeat", to use the new phrase, the Germans, the biggest single country in the European Community, or at any rate not far off it, eat compared with ourselves and the French—the other two "big 'uns". I should have thought a good bit of marketing over the years there should have been a first priority both for ourselves and for the New Zealanders as being the most efficient farmers in this general area.
  Finally, I think that a transition period is absolutely essential and it is rather odd that the Commission should not even have taken a stab at it themselves before they launched the document upon us and left it to other people to make suggestions. Being associated with bargaining of various kinds, I am not sure whether we were quite right to go for a figure of five. We might have gone for a bigger figure to settle at five, because that seems to be about the right one to end up at. With those few remarks I should very much like to follow those of my noble colleagues who sit on this Sub-Committee and commend the report to your Lordships.
  6.27 p.m.
  Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, as the tenth speaker in this debate and also as someone who is on the Sub-Committee I will be short but I should just like to say a few things because I am the first, in fact the only, speaker from Scotland in this debate, and I am also—and declare my interest with great enthusiasm—a fairly large producer of mutton and lamb.
  Before I start my speech I should like to say how grateful we all are to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, who conducted this inquiry with great skill and tenacity and has enabled us to consult with so many different interests—and many different interests have spoken in this debate today. We are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the fact that he has enabled us to talk to, examine and get papers from so many different interests. Anybody who criticises the report cannot criticise it because it has not gone into the subject thoroughly. They may criticise it, as the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, did because it does not say what he wants it to say, well, that is all right.
  We are very much indebted to the Chairman and to the other members of the Sub-Committee. It is a committee of the greatest interest. We sit there, all of us coming from different parts of the country and of different political backgrounds, and we never disagree. That is very remarkable. I come, as I say, from Scotland and I come from an area in the Borders which is an upland hill area. It stretches all across the South of Scotland and it is one of the biggest areas of production of hill sheep and lamb in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I speak with experience, and with a great desire to see the success of the régime of mutton and lamb.
  In my opinion it would be a disaster if the EEC policy were to impede the production and the sale of mutton and lamb, and I support the proposals in the report for many reasons. I should like to see much more mutton and lamb consumed on the Continent. Except for the French and ourselves, the consumption in the EEC is very low, as your Lordships will have seen from the tables published in the report. I should also like to see a

  83
  really active policy pursued by the CAP—by M. Gundelach and the others—to encourage the sale of mutton and lamb, and to encourage people in Europe to eat more mutton and lamb. I have always felt that one of the weaknesses of the EEC Commission is that it has no machinery to encourage the selling of commodities. When we read of what is happening in the EEC we learn continually of enormous butter mountains, beef into intervention, wine lakes, and all the rest of it. I was very glad when we managed to persuade the Commission to recognise the Milk Marketing Board because it is a good example of an organisation which sells and which encourages people to buy, as well as provides the daily milk delivery. I appreciate that we are not discussing milk, but this is an example of a type of organisation which is sadly lacking in Europe.
  Each time I have gone with the Committee to talk to the Commission I have asked the same questions: "What do you do about selling? What do you do about getting rid of all this wine, and so on?" The Commission has no answer. I believe that there is a weakness here, and I very much hope that in the new reorganisation of the CAP, which is gradually to come about, someone will think about selling and about how to encourage people to buy and eat more of the commodities we produce.
  I must say a few words about the French policy. I agree with every word that has been said by others on the subject of the French policy. I have learnt from a very reliable source one or two interesting facts about the present French situation. The French are in danger of putting up a kind of camouflage, in that they say they allow sheepmeat into France, but they charge such enormous levies to the exporters that this amounts to a ban. The latest figures I have about the French levy on imported mutton show that the French charge 93·6p per kilo for lamb going into France. This amounts to 42·5p per pound. It means to the exporter that when he exports a 40lb lamb he is paying £17 sterling on the price of that lamb in the levy to France. The levy is so high that it is virtually impossible for our exporters to export to France, and in many cases they have to export to other European countries, and eventually the
  84
  exports get into France. The French have received £10·7 million in a full year out of the levy. The levy should have gone to the EEC from the 1st January, but it has not, and I do not think it has gone even now. However, had it gone to the EEC we, as Members of the Community, would have recouped ourselves a little from the levy.
  Today I heard from a reliable source that our exporters are endeavouring to increase exports not so much to France—they can do that only if the French policy is altered—but to other countries. One day a week there are exports from Scotland to Belguim. One day a week there are exports to Holland. Two days a week there are exports to Germany. This is only a beginning, but it will increase as demand in Europe grows. We have heard from Members of your Lordships' House about the Irish situation, and we know that the Irish are in a very advantageous position in exporting to France because they get their mutton and lamb in free. But why is there this preferential treatment? It is surely contrary to the rules of the Community, and it should be looked at.
  Of course with all food production there is a powerful consumer lobby. We are all consumers—I am a consumer, too—and we do not want the prices to rise unduly. But speaking also as a producer, I do not want the prices to rise to such a degree that people do not buy the mutton and lamb we produce. Equally, in view of the huge increases in costs which have taken place over the past three or four years—wages and other costs are rising all the time—we cannot sell at a loss. Here arises the question of the guaranteed minimum price. This has worked very successfully for us in beef, and I should favour it. I should favour not a high basic price, but a basic price that covers the costs, and so if the price of mutton and lamb goes below that figure, a premium would need to be paid. This seems to be only fair, and it has worked well with beef in the past. For many months—indeed years—no premium was ever paid on the sale of beef because the price never went below a certain point.
  If your Lordships study Table 2 on page 8 of the report you will see that the market prices in the United Kingdom and Ireland are well below those of any other

  85
  European countries. I should like to see the European prices come down and for there to be a narrowing of the margin between the United Kingdom and Europe. I do not want our prices to rise to the level of the European prices, and I do not want overproduction, which is such a problem with certain other commodities. So much overproduction is caused by farmers in Europe growing food in uneconomic conditions that very small units can pay only if they can charge very high prices. Surely this should be avoided if possible—and this certainly applies in regard to mutton and lamb—before it goes too far. I should not like to see a repetition of what happened regarding milk, when people are paid not to produce it. I want to see people paid for producing excellent mutton and Iamb, and for encouraging the consumption in the European countries.
  Sheep can be run economically on upland areas—what are called "disadvantaged areas" in today's phrase—and unless those areas are used for mutton and lamb, as well as for store cattle, they will go down in value. The population will leave the uplands and will seek employment in the overcrowded urban areas, and the community would be deprived of work, particularly in Scotand and the hill country of Wales. This would be disastrous because nothing other than grazing and the producing of sheep and cattle can be done with the hills and upland areas.
  I heard the other day that in some European countries sheep farming is done with fewer than a score of ewes on a farm. The noble Lord, Lord Vestey, this evening gave us some figures which were extremely interesting. This type of situation is most uneconomic as the feeding and the bringing up of lambs becomes extremely expensive, as it is in France. It is in the raising of scores of sheep on hill land and in the selling of lambs to be fattened on the lowland farms, where grass and crops are grown, that it is possible to attain an economic method of producing mutton and lamb. That is the secret of the success of sheep, mutton, and store cattle farming in Scotland, North Wales, and the North of England.
  Surely in view of the experience with agricultural produce of successive Com
  86
  missioners of Agriculture in the EEC, the expensive overproduction in the wrong areas could be forestalled by adopting the right methods from the start of the new régime. I should like our Government and the Minister of Agriculture to stress this point very strongly indeed. I am sure that misuse—that is perhaps too strong a word, but the wrong use of types of agricultural land leads to complications which should not arise if' the prices remained economic.
  Our Committee heard very good evidence from New Zealand, and this evening other Members of your Lordships' House have spoken of this. I was very impressed. They are great experts at producing excellent lamb and mutton in the ideal conditions of New Zealand. Again, Lord Vestey spoke about that, and I am sure he is right. I am sure we should help the New Zealanders as much as possible to continue their excellent production. We have always been importers of New Zealand mutton. It is cheap and good, and it also comes into the United Kingdom at a time when home production is not on the market, our summer and their winter being at the same time. I should not like to see New Zealand producers paying any more than they do now to enter the Common Market, and I believe they are finding new markets in North America, in Japan and elsewhere, which I hope will help them.
  To come back to where I began, I am a supporter of the policy for mutton and lamb outlined in our report. I think we should encourage the production of sheep on the hills and uplands of the United Kingdom. If the export market were more certain and the French were prevented from opening and shutting their imports or, alternatively, from charging exhorbitant tariffs on mutton and lamb from the United Kingdom, we in this country could produce more from our uplands, and if we did that, prices would not go up; they might even come down provided that the costs were covered by the prices which we could get. I do not want the housewife to have to pay any more; on the other hand, I do not want the mutton and sheep industry, and the cattle industry, to get into the state it was in about three or four years ago, when hill farms were going on the market every day because the farmers could not make two ends meet. That is no economy

  87
  and, in my opinion, a very wrong use of land.
  Also, those responsible for the CAP should think hard about encouraging the increase of the consumption of mutton and lamb in Europe, should adopt an active selling policy and should try to do for Europe what would help all of us, which is to encourage more consumption in the EEC countries. We have done it in this country, and I think it has paid off. The amount of land which we farm today is not so great as it was, say, 20 or 30 years ago, and yet our production has gone up, and the amount of mutton and lamb which is consumed by the public is also in a fairly satisfactory state. It could be done in Europe, too, and I hope very much that, at the beginning of this new régime which we have been talking about, the snags which have impeded the other régimes which we have seen in the Common Market can be avoided. If this report helps to do that, I shall be only too delighted.
  6.43 p.m.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Walston for initiating this debate; and also, if I may, to pay a tribute to him for his work as chairman of Sub-Committee D, which has produced the excellent report under debate in your Lordships' House today. I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said about the thorough job that the Committee has made of this report, and to welcome all contributions from your Lordships. I do not think I can ever remember a debate which has been so well-informed as this one—and this, of course, is saying something in your Lordships' House.
  While I think there was a certain similarity of view from most speakers, we had a different viewpoint, of course, from the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, who also has great experience in this field; but, if I may say so, I think the debate was none the worse for that, and later on I shall try to answer some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, made. I am also grateful for the opportunity which this debate affords me as the Government spokesman of explaining to the House the
  88
  Government's view of the EEC Commission's draft proposal for a Common Market organisation for mutton and lamb. I should like to stress that discussion of the draft proposal in the Community is at an early stage, and more detailed exploration is required on some aspects. The questions raised by noble Lords have demonstrated the complexity of the issues involved. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed, and to say that the points that they have made will of course be carefully noted.
  As I think noble Lords will agree, the Committee have highlighted the main features of the proposals, and I should like first to comment in a general way on their key points. I note that the Committee believe that free movement of sheepmeat within the Community is essential, and that is a point of view which was shared by many speakers today. Following the Government's protest against the discriminatory charges against United Kingdom exports of sheep and sheepmeat into France, the Commission have found these charges illegal, and if France does not end them they may well put the matter before the European Court. The Committee also share with the Commission the view—
  Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am not playing games with the noble Lord, but this is a crucial point. What stage has been reached in these discussions about taking France to the European Court? Can the noble Lord, perhaps later in his speech, bring us up to date on what stage these court proceedings have reached? Can he tell us when the case will be heard, or give us further information about this particular point?
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is, of course, such an important and crucial matter that I was going to deal with it in detail rather later, if the noble Lord would have a little patience. As I think I said, I was at this stage in my speech sketching the general principles. I was going to deal with the detail later, and I shall have something more to say on this then. The Committee also share with the Commission the view that a sheepmeat régime is necessary to achieve free trade; and I noted very much, and agreed with, what my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said: that there is no need to exclude

  89
  sheepmeat from the Rome Treaty principle of free trade between EEC countries. Court action might also shed some light on this issue, but the Government have avoided seeking a régime because they are not convinced that comprehensive arrangements are needed to deal with this problem. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said that these proposals stem from the French attitude, and we should not set them up because of the French levies.
  Lord O'HAGAN: I did not say that, my Lords.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say that we should not set up these proposals because of the French levies, and I was going on to say that I agreed with him. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, also said that there is a need for a régime, and asked whether the sheepmeat régime would bring down the obstacles to free trade. The Commission consider that, to achieve free inter-Community trade, an organisation or common measure is required to prevent the market disruption that would follow if the French import control system was removed immediately. If, therefore, there has to be a Common Market measure, the Government agree fully with the Committee that any régime must take account of the needs of EEC producers and consumers, and also New Zealand.
  I agree fully with what was said today about New Zealand by almost every noble Lord. I shall also deal with that later. Like the Committee, we welcome the Commission's declaration on the safeguard clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to this as did the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. The Government will need to be vigilant to ensure that it is only operated with due regard to the EEC responsibilities under GATT. We are heartened by the Commissions' approach for a market-related measure because any artificially-forced increases in prices would clearly damage our substantial consumer interests.
  On aids to producers, we take note of the Committee's views, but consider that the Commission's proposals on premia are as yet too ill-defined for us to take a definite view. But we agree that whatever measures prove appropriate for a Com-
  90
  munity of Nine—and I shall have also a little more to say about the three other applicants—they must provide fair returns to producers. Finally, we are pleased to endorse the Committee's view that a transitional period is necessary to allow gradual adjustments to the new market conditions.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, seemed to think that I resented criticisms that he has made from time to time of spokesmen from this Bench and in another place. I do not resent them at all. The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to make the points that he does in his own inimitable way. He asked today: Why does the Minister not fight more strongly for these proposals? As the noble Lord has said, the problem is the legality of the French import restrictions; and while my right honourable friend has said that he is not convinced that the solution of this problem requires a full-blown régime, the Government and my right honourable friend have made it clear that they will consider a régime if one proves necessary providing it meets the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers and introduces no new restrictions on our New Zealand supplies.
  The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked why it is necessary to have a sheepmeat régime and the question has also been asked as to what exactly is the legal necessity for a régime. Sheepmeat is a product subject to the Common Agricultural Policy under the EEC Treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I thought, recognised in his very thoughtful speech. Recent judgments of the European Court have declared barriers to intra-Community trade invalid. The Commission have a general obligation to make proposals for common market organisations and they have taken the view that a common measure is, in particular, needed for sheep-meat to deal with the situation which will arise on the ending of national measures, in this case, particularly, the French levies. Nevertheless, I should point out that the Treaty does allow flexibility on the form a common organisation may take, as, provided it meets the objectives of Article 39 of the EEC Treaty, it could vary from a measure providing no more than the observance of the common rules on competition to a full-blown régime, such as we have for beef.

  91
  The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, also asked about the costs to the Community of the premia. This needs to be watched but the proposals are as yet unformed. A suitable transition measure to smooth the adaptation by producers to a free trade situation would help limit such costs, as would the full use of the aids for less-favoured areas. He also asked for an assurance on the effect on consumers following price increases. There has been a great deal of concern about the possible effect of the régime on prices to the United Kingdom. The Commission's proposals, in fact, provided no mechanism for forcing up prices. I must emphasise here, because I think this has not yet been brought out in the debate, that the basic price is not a target price but is merely a point of reference which will be based initially on the weighted average of Community prices. Prices may rise as exports to France may increase, as has been recognised today, but, as the Committee recognised as well, this depends on many factors including the production response in the United Kingdom and in France and the consumption response in France where prices will fall, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, pointed out. I can assure noble Lords that this is not a matter that the Government feel complacent about and they will obviously negotiate to ensure that no unnecessary price increases are enforced.
  There is also the question of the likely effect on consumers. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred to that and also to my right honourable friend in connection with a possible Minister of Food. The Government are very conscious that the United Kingdom domestic market buys four-fifths of our own production. It would not be in the interests of our producers to agree to a régime which put up prices sharply and significantly and so damaged their own home market. The Government wish to see that mutton and lamb remain one of our staple meats. We are one of the largest consumers in the Community—far ahead of any other country, including France. We have to recognise that consumption has been falling for a number of years and we must expect any price increase to lead to some further fall on demand. But, obviously, the Government will do all they can to minimise this.
  92
  I must now come to the question of what producer support is envisaged and the matter of the premium payments which has been supported by my noble friend Lord Walston and other noble Lords. The Government note the Committee's view in favour of deficiency payments for producer support. These have served the United Kingdom well over the years but, at this stage, the Government need to keep an open mind to the Commission's proposals which themselves provide for premium payment to producers. These are intended to help producers adjust to new market conditions as free trade is introduced; but exactly how and in what way they may be made is still not yet clear. I can only comment at this stage that Member States do not have the necessary administrative machinery at present to operate a price-related guarantee and there is great concern about the likely cost of any Community-wide premium payments. United Kingdom producers are obviously well placed to take advantage of improved export prospects and their returns are likely to increase. Here, I agree fully with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in this connection. Nevertheless, the Government will seek to ensure that our producers receive a fair return. I should like to stress this in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. The Government fully recognise the importance of safeguarding producer interests, and my right honourable friend the Minister has said so frequently.
  There is another area of the proposals on which clarification is being sought, but it would appear that it is intended that such aids would be exercised on a discretionary basis. This is the area of private storage, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Vestey. The Government considered that the Commission are right to suggest aids to private storage rather than public intervention. But clearly we shall need to examine the implications carefully in the course of negotiations.
  In reply to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, we take note of what he said and we need to be absolutely clear how the aids to private storage would operate before committing ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, also referred to the less favoured areas. The Commission have said that Member

  93
  States should examine the possibility of increasing payments under the Less Favoured Areas Directive to compensate producers whose returns would fall after the introduction of regulations, as not all Member States currently make full use of these payments. This alone, however, could not compensate producers as not all sheep are produced in areas covered by LFAD. Also, any aid given under this Directive is given for social reasons to provide adequate income in areas where physical handicaps prevent normal economic production. Member States consider that it should not be used to compensate for a market régime giving inadequate returns.
  Nearly all noble Lords today have spoken about the export potential and the importance of opening up new markets. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred to the challenging marketing opportunity. United Kingdom producers will undoubtedly benefit if the proposals are adopted from improved access to the French market which currently takes just under half our exports. Being among the most efficient in the Community—and here I should like to pay a tribute to them—our producers are well placed to take advantage of these new opportunities. I shall refer later to the question of the Irish arrangements made with the French Government.
  I am glad to say that United Kingdom exports have nearly doubled since we joined the Community, although most of this growth has been to Member States other than France. We would expect that better access to the French market, coupled with the removal of the destabilising effects of changeable levies and the removal of the threat of closure to United Kingdom imports, should lead to a steadier trade. This will be beneficial not only to the trade but to the whole United Kingdom sheep market.
  Noble Lords are aware of the fears that the Common Market organisation would force us to reduce our imports mainly from New Zealand. In fact, as they stand, the Commission's proposals provide for no greater restrictions on imports than exist at present. The Government's main aims in negotiations are to ensure that we maintain proper access for the supplies that we need and, as the Committee also mentioned, to
  94
  ensure that there is a clear understanding that the safeguard clause is operated strictly in accordance with the GATT rules. Here I should like to endorse all that my noble friend Lord Walston and the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord O'Hagan, have said about New Zealand. I agree on the long term with my noble friend Lord Walston when he said that New Zealand might benefit from an expanding market. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, we must ensure that New Zealand has a guarantee. The Government are very conscious of the significant role products from sheep play in the New Zealand economy. We keep in close touch with the New Zealand Government.
  It is early days but, as the proposals take shape, we will continue to consult with New Zealand and, in negotiating, always keep to the fore the aim that any arrangements must allow New Zealand to retain their present access to the United Kingdom markets. Sixty-five per cent. of New Zealand Iamb exports come to the United Kingdom and all sheep products are almost 40 per cent. of New Zealand's earnings. We should not forget, as my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said, the importance from the marketing point of view of the seasonal aspects of New Zealand lamb production.
  I can also assure noble Lords that the Government are very aware of the heavy investment in services involved in the trade between New Zealand and the United Kingdom, such as shipping, cold store and insurance, which have developed with the trade which started almost a hundred years ago, as I think my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said. Mention has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, of the green pound. The Commission's proposals provide for the use of a stabilised commercial rate, not green rates. The Commission consider that sheepmeat is an unusual market calling for an unusual arrangement. They consider market related monetary arrangements are the corollary of their market related measures.
  The Government initially favour considering this proposal because there are no intervention arrangements, but we shall want to examine the implications further. Other Member States have suggested that various options should be

  95
  considered as well as the Commission's proposals. Possibilities are being explored by technical experts in Brussels. At this stage, the Government can only be prepared to consider any legally viable alternatives, but we must bear in mind that any continuing charges or restrictions on inter-Community trade similar to the present French levies on our exports are not likely to be compatible with the EEC Treaty. The noble Lord, Lord Vestey, pointed out that Ireland has made her own arrangements with France. He asked why the United Kingdom could not do the same. Any such restrictions would be legally questionable under the Treaty requirements for free trade. They would therefore be open to challenge.
  Now I should like to deal with the discrimination against the United Kingdom exports to France, following the Franco-Irish arrangements. The United Kingdom Government have protested to the EEC Commission about the heightened discrimination against our exports on 10th January after the announcement of the Franco-Irish arrangements. A further protest was sent on 28th February when the rates of levy were increased by 26 per cent. to 51 per cent., and noble Lords can be assured that we are watching market developments closely. The EEC Commission have declared the French controls to be contrary to the EEC Treaty, and they have ordered the French Government to end this discrimination by the 22nd June, although they have now granted them a further month—that is, until 22nd July—to do so. If the French Government persist in applying its import measures, the Commission could well take them to the European Court of Justice.
  The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, referred to the accession applications from the three Mediterranean countries. As noble Lords may realise, Greece, Spain and Portugal all have significant sheep industries with prices higher than ours in the United Kingdom. The accession of any of these States would certainly have significant consequences for the EEC market in mutton and lamb, but this will need to be dealt with at the appropriate time.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked how the transition period will work. The
  96
  Minister of Agriculture has told the Council of Agricultural Ministers that the Commission's proposals are deficient in that they lack measures to aid transition to free trade. In seeking these measures, obviously we cannot allow those which disrupt trade, as the present French closure system does. We will seek measures which allow a gradual price and market adjustment.
  The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked when the proposal would reach the Council of Ministers. He has been very patient with me in not asking me when I was going to answer the question and I have kept it till the end. Following the Council meeting on 19th and 20th June, the proposal is being examined at technical level and will come before the Council again in the autumn. The differences between the Community markets in the sheep sector are such that the negotiations may take a considerable time. If a Community régime proves to be necessary, then the Government agree with the Committee that the Commission's market-related proposals represent a reasonable starting point for negotiations. But in considering these and any ideas which may come forward, the Government will maintain that any arrangement must allow New Zealand to retain its present access to the United Kingdom market; it must protect our consumers from unnecessary or rapid price rises; and it must provide an adequate return to our producers.
  Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I do not think there is anything I need add, except my thanks to those who have taken part in this debate, and in particular I should like to thank those who have been members of the Sub-Committee. I extend very special thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who said that she had come in a the last moment. But if one had listened to her (as we all did with pleasure) one would never have realised that her speech was not a carefully prepared one. I am most grateful, my Lords, for the thought that your Lordships have given to this Motion, for the encouragement which most of you have given to it, and for your having taken such valuable note of these proposals.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I regret that I am unable this evening to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, since neither the report of the Joint Committee on the Bill, nor the Bill itself, as amended by the Committee, is yet available. However, I hope that the report will be published in the course of today and that I shall be able to return to the matter tomorrow. I apologise to the House. The Motion is not moved.

  MAXIMUM NUMBER OF JUDGES ORDER 1978
  7.14 p.m.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1978, laid before the House on 20th June 1978, be approved. The order arises from the need to enable the Court of Appeal to cope with the continuing increase in the number of appeals reaching the court as well as the growing complexity of the appeal cases following long criminal trials. The purpose of the order is to raise the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal from 16 to 18.
  I emphasise the word "maximum" because the order does not commit either the House or me to any particular appointments, and an appointment would only be recommended when I am satisfied of the need for it. Nevertheless, the state of business in the Court of Appeal is such that I think it will in fact be necessary to recommend at least one further appointment if this draft Order in Council is made.
  I should like to explain briefly why it is necessary to seek the approval of the House for this order. Under Section 1(1)(b)(i) of the Administration of Justice Act 1968, the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal—that is the Lords Justices—was fixed at 13. Section 1(2) and (3) of that Act provides, however, that the maximum may be increased by Order in Council, subject to the draft order being laid before Parliament and approved by Affirmative
  98
  Resolution of each House. The maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal was so increased from 13 to 14 in July 1970. It was further increased from 14 to 16 in July 1975 and there are now 16 Lords Justices in post. It is accordingly necessary for me to promote this order if further full-time appointments to the Court of Appeal are to be made. I may say that the order has been approved already in another place.
  As your Lordships will know, the Court of Appeal deals with both civil and criminal appeals and the civil and criminal divisions of the court have been faced with very considerable extra work. In the civil division, since 1972 the number of appeals set down has risen steadily from 1,108 in 1973 to 1,359 in 1977. That upward trend has continued in the period up to the end of May this year. The number of criminal appeals also continues at a high level and, I fear, shows no sign of diminishing; nor indeed do the cases coming for trial to the criminal courts. The number of outstanding criminal appeal cases has risen from 2,144 at the end of 1975 to 2,684 at the end of 1977. There were 2,715 cases outstanding on the 26th May, 1978.
  A normal sitting of the court comprises three judges—in criminal cases usually one Lord Justice and two High Court Judges; in civil cases the Master of the Rolls and two Lord Justices, or three Lords Justices. At any one time, three Lords Justices are normally occupied on criminal business, leaving 13 out of the total number of 16 and, of course the Master of the Rolls himself, available for civil business. The civil division can only manage to contain the workload by sitting five courts continuously, and so they are permanently one judge short. To fill the extra place, I have found it necessary to invite retired judges to sit continuously and to call upon other judges who could be spared from their normal work, either in the High Court or indeed in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. But for the valuable service of these judges, we should now be faced with a very serious situation indeed. Nevertheless, it is not satisfactory for the business of the Court of Appeal to be managed indefinitely in this way; nor would it be safe to assume that it would be practical to do so. Your Lordships may think that the complement

  99
  of the court should at least coincide with the normal requirement of judges for it.
  Although I recognise the need to make no more full-time judicial appointments than are absolutely necessary, I should be failing in my responsibility for the administration of the higher courts if I were not to take reasonable steps to ensure that appellants, both civil and criminal, have their appeals heard as soon as can conveniently be arranged. This applies particularly to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, where the appellant may be in custody and his appeal may be successful, as from time to time they are. I do not believe that the court will be able to meet the demands which are being put upon it without at least one additional full-time appointment in the near future. I envisage that this will be made, if the order is approved, later this year.
  It is unlikely that the second appointment will be necessary for the time being, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is sensible to have the power to make such an appointment at a time of ever-increasing business in the courts. I hope, accordingly, that your Lordships will agree to raise the maximum number of Lords Justices from 16 to 18, as proposed in the order. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, that The draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1978, laid before the House on 20th June, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  7.20 p.m.
  Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, I must confess to a feeling of nostalgia when I heard the voice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposing an increase in the number of judges, since in another place and in another garb I have on many occasions, on one side of the Table or the other, been either proposing or supporting—and I support on this occasion the proposal which has been made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
  It is always important for Parliament to discuss the number of judges, because of the importance of the role and status of judges, and that it should require Parliamentary approval has always seemed
  100
  to me perfectly correct. A Lord Justice is, after all, an appointment recommended by the Prime Minister—of course on the advice of the Lord Chancellor; he is sworn of the Privy Council and he is a person who has a very heavy responsibility, because it is the Court of Appeal which broadly governs the interpretation of the law by the judges of first instance. But it should never be forgotten—and sometimes it seems to be forgotten in certain judicial quarters—that the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House is, in fact, the superior court. Wryly I have noticed—though with some pleasure, I confess—that in your Lordships' House the Appellate Committee has had occasion to assert its authority.
  But the Court of Appeal is, of course, of enormous importance and that it has increased in number so much, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, is of great significance; though I note that the puisne judges seem to have remained far fewer in number, in proportion, than the Court of Appeal. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, the Court of Appeal has increased in number by some 38 per cent. in the last 10 years and that is a sizeable figure. It is, of course, necessary. I noticed that in the Daily Cause List last Friday the Court of Appeal was sitting in five Civil Divisions, and one judge was the Master of the Rolls, while another was a former Lord Justice. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that it was necessary to provide a sufficient complement. On that occasion, there was only one Lord Justice sitting in the Criminal Division. Altogether there were 15 judges of one kind or another sitting on appellate work.
  There must be provision for an effective five Civil Divisions. There must also be Lords Justices presiding over the criminal divisions, because, after all, they are presiding over appeals from puisne judges, or judges of first instance. It was the whole idea of the new format of criminal appeals that a Lord Justice should be the person who was, as it were, presiding over the court which reviewed the work of the puisne judges. But there is very little provision for illness and for other duties, even if the increase is made which the noble and learned Lord has proposed today. I suppose that it is very much a matter of the immense burden of work which is involved in the Criminal Appeal Division.

  101
  As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, there has been a great increase in the number of cases coming before the courts. In 10 years, the number of trials in this country has doubled. To give some illustration, when I first began to practice in 1946 there were four judges at the Central Criminal Court. There was the Red Judge—that is, the visiting High Court judge—the Recorder, the Common Serjeant and one judge. Those four judges did the whole of the business and, as we always thought, had very ample holidays as well. Now if you go down to the Central Criminal Court there is no break, and there are 30 judges sitting there doing the work which used to be done by four. That is the scale of the change in the work done by the judges, and I suppose that it must properly be reflected in the scale of the appellate work.
  But if it be the criminal side which is causing the greatest difficulty, I wonder whether we should look again at the powers of the Court of Appeal. I know that the Donavan Committee recommended—and it was approved by nearly everybody—that there should be removed from the Court of Criminal Appeal, as it was, and the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, as it now is, the power to increase sentence. That deprived that court of the sanction against unmeritorious appeals. What, I wonder, is the volume of the increase in criminal appeals? Is it very great, and does it involve a great deal of work?
  I wonder, after several years of experience, whether we should perhaps reconsider that provision. There should never be any fear that meritorious appeals cannot, and will not, appear before the court. But the fact that the Court of Criminal Appeal had that power in criminal cases was a considerable sanction, and it would also give the Criminal Appeal Division an ability to lay down general levels of sentence. So I think that it is for consideration whether we ought to think of that again.
  I want to emphasise the importance of the role of judges, and the respect and support which they are entitled to receive from Ministers as well as from all in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. Whenever any Government require impartial and skilled chairmanship, to whom do
  102
  they turn? They turn to the judges. Bodies of inquiry are invariably presided over by the judges, because they carry the respect and the confidence of the general public. Therefore, it was all the more reprehensible that, in comments which must have caused grave embarrassment to his colleague, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, in what he may have explained as a historical lecture, criticised the judges. In any contest of public repute, the Lord President would find far greater confidence in the judges than in the politicians. I do not believe that that criticism of the Judiciary is reflected in any part of Her Majesty's Opposition, and the Judiciary is held in high regard in this country and overseas, as I personally have witnessed in many parts of the globe.
  I appreciate the need to enlarge the Court of Appeal, and I believe that the noble and learned Lord is correct in so proposing. I trust that this will reduce the delays in concluding appeals while still maintaining, as I am sure it will, the high standards of skill and integrity in which the Judiciary in the United Kingdom is universally honoured. So I beg to support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
  7.28 p.m.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, has said, this is very much a nostalgic experience. When he was the shadow Attorney and I was the Attorney, and the orders were reversed, we opposed each other frequently in another place. If I may say so, the fact that this Chamber is not wholly full is not a new experience for either of us, when changes in the administration of the courts and of the law are under discussion. It is of crucial importance but, obviously, it is not of first paramount interest to Members of either House. But I am grateful for the noble and learned. Lord's support for this measure.
  He has highlighted, as I have sought to do, the considerable strain that the increase in the number of criminal cases is imposing on the courts. The quantum of civil appeals does not diminish, and on top of the number of criminal appeals is the fact that there are more and longer

  103
  criminal trials, with consequential longer criminal appeals, which add to the burdens.
  I shall not embark upon the attendant matters to which the noble and learned Lord referred. We are certainly looking at the procedures of the Court of Appeal to see whether we can effect some reduction in the time taken to complete those proceedings. The burden upon the Lords Justices has been extremely heavy. I am glad that, like myself, the noble and learned Lord has taken advantage of this occasion to pay tribute to the Lords Justices. So far as the administration of justice in the courts is concerned, I regard the work of the Court of Appeal as possibly the most arduous. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to all other noble Lords for their anticipated support of this order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  VALUATION LISTS (POSTPONEMENT) ORDER 1978
  7.31 p.m.
  Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the Valuation Lists (Postponement) Order 1978, laid before the House on 9th May, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This order, which provides for the postponement of the date on which new valuation lists shall take effect from 1st April 1980 to 1st April 1981, is made under the General Rate Act 1975. If it is approved, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to follow it by laying a second order to postpone revaluation by a further year until 1982. For technical reasons, we cannot lay both orders at once, so we have to take two bites at the cherry in this way.
  The existing valuation lists came into effect in 1973 and it was then expected that they would be replaced by new lists in 1978, in accordance with the statutory requirement in the 1967 Rate Act for quinquennial revaluations. Later, however, the revaluation planned for 1978 was postponed until 1980 so that work on revaluation would not have to start before the recommendations of the Layfield Committee were known. In the event, as noble Lords will be aware, the Layfield
  104
  Committee recommended that the rating system should be retained, but that in future domestic property should be assessed for rates on the basis of its capital valuation. There was widespread support for this proposal from local authorities, from professional bodies and from individuals concerned with rating. The Government in their Green Paper on local government finance, published last year, accepted the proposal and made it clear that we would wish to introduce the necessary legislation in the near future.
  The Government remain committed to assessing domestic property by reference to its capital value. We believe this would be much the best basis of valuation for the future because there is so much more open market evidence of capital values than of rental values. We would thus be able to provide assessments of domestic property based on substantial evidence, and this would give us a better and a more consistent basis for levying rates. There might, of course, be a need for temporary or even permanent arrangements to mitigate the effects of the change; but, as I said, the change would require legislation, and it subsequently became clear that there would be no majority for such legislation in this Parliament. We regret that, but it is a fact of life with which we have to live.
  Capital valuation legislation being ruled out for the time being, we had to consider what alternatives are open to us. We could have suggested deferring revaluation until legislation was available that would allow us to proceed with revaluation based on capital values. But the existing valuation lists are becoming more and more out-of-date and for this reason already contain anomalies both for domestic and non-domestic properties which will become increasingly serious as time passes. We do not think that this would be the right course. To take just a few examples, the current lists cannot fully reflect the effect of things that have happened since 1973, such as changing levels and patterns of trade, fluctuating demands for specialised buildings, varying fashions of lifestyle, the beneficial impact of major developments and so on. Many of these factors have a substantial impact on the relative values of different properties.
  We also have to face the growing problem arising from the operation of

  105
  Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1974. Under that section, the installation of central heating and other minor structural improvements are not taken into account in assessments in between general revaluations. This is seen as being very unfair by many people who had improvements before 1973, and the longer revaluation is delayed the more complaints we can expect on this score. There is sufficient rental evidence for non-domestic properties, and it is increasingly necessary to review their assessments to reflect changes in this evidence and to take account of all the relevant factors.
  The Layfield Committee emphasised in their report the need for regular and frequent revaluations, and we came to the conclusion that we could not let matters drift but must act to produce new valuation lists as quickly as possible on the existing rental basis. The Valuation Office have been asked to start work. With 22 million properties to be valued, their work on revaluation is likely to take four years, and will be completed by 1982. The order, and its successor to which I referred earlier, will accordingly prescribe 1st April 1982 as the date for the new lists to take effect.
  I can well appreciate that there may be some who have doubts whether there is enough rental evidence available in the domestic sector to support a further rental revaluation. Indeed, the Government themselves expressed similar doubts in their Green Paper. The less evidence there is of open market rents, the greater the difficulties in preparing the new list, and for dwellings there must be a greater reliance on indirect evidence. Nevertheless, we are confident that we can produce a sustainable Valuation List which will be a major improvement on the present List, will remedy many of its anomalies, and will provide a firmer base for the rating system in the early 1980s. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Valuation Lists (Postponement) Order 1978, laid before the House on 9th May, be approved.— (Baroness Stedman.)
  Lord LYELL: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining this short order. Certainly she has explained it with her usual charm. The House will be amazed to find me and not my noble friend Lady
  106
  Young speaking on the subject this evening. Alas! my noble friend had a previous engagement, and she has asked me to express her apologies for any discourtesy in not being in the House to make her reply to the noble Baroness.
  For my part, I am most interested in the report. First it is pointed out in paragraph 2 on page 3 that the committee wish to draw attention to the unusual use of the powers conferred by the Statute. Then the report goes on to mention the two postponements of revaluation by means of the General Rate Act 1975, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, and the two present orders.
  Secondly, the House will be very interested, as I am, in the reply given by the Department in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the appendix to the report, especially the charming way in which "best intentions" are described as being "erroneous in law". I just wish that the two noble and learned Lords who have just been crossing swords over the number of judges that there should be in the land were here, for I am sure that they would find this point to be equally interesting.
  I should like to turn to one or two more general points which the noble Baroness may not be able to answer tonight, but I hope that we shall reach an arrangement about that. First, may I ask the noble Baroness whether there are any precedents for this kind of procedure? I notice that the General Rate Act 1975 prescribed a revaluation for, I believe, 1st April 1978. I think I am correct in saying that in the past such revaluations have tended to take effect on a five-year cycle. May 1 ask the noble Baroness whether I am right in suggesting that the previous occasions when revaluation lists were published were 1973, 1968, 1963, and possibly 1958? It seems to be a five-year cycle. As has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, when there are distortions some rather weird consequences occur.
  I am sure that both the noble Baroness and the House will appreciate that for most of us revaluations are in the nature of a visit to the dentist. Such visits tend to engender a feeling of guilt which is suddenly allied to a feeling of pleasure when the visit is, or can be, postponed, just as these revaluations can be postponed by the making of an order this

  107
  evening. These postponements, be they of dental visits or of revaluation orders, normally give rise to greater and more pressing need to visit the dentist or to revalue, and certainly on such occasions as we are discussing this evening they give rise to just as much annoyance and trouble to householders and other property owners as was so well explained by the noble Baroness. I think the noble Baroness referred to the change in the pattern of life so far as industry and domestic rating is concerned. The spread of the rateable values can alter and when we have distortions of what has appeared to be a fairly regular cycle one can find annoyance and anger, especially when the new Valuation Lists appear after seven years.
  I am still a little mystified by the need for the postponement, but certainly the noble Baroness has done all in her power to explain the reasons. I hesitate to suggest that she has given us a multitude of reasons. I feel somewhat like the sylviculturist who is dazzled and cannot see the wood for the trees, but I have to admit that I have enjoyed the friendly language of the Committee's report, together with the charm of the Department's reply. Of course, the noble Baroness always keeps the House spellbound with her kind explanations, and indeed on occasions like this evening with her patience, on the Scotland Bill, the Wales Bill, or even on the problems of the instructional signs in the Highway Code, with which she and I are increasingly familiar. I believe that this evening she has been her usual self. Certainly I am still a little lost, as regards both the revaluation procedures and the ritual conversation between the Committee and the Department, but I am assured that such conversations are usual. I should like to thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has explained the order. Any queries that may arise from my comments I am sure we can settle afterwards. I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has received this order. As he has said, ritual conversations do go on between Committees and Departments and they make interesting reading. While we try to save the time of the House by doing it in one go, we are now advised
  108
  that we have to do it in two goes, and, given success before the end of this Session, we shall be back again for one other year in order to bring us up to the 1982 revaluation.
  The noble Lord asked about postponements of revaluation. It takes about four years to undertake a revaluation, and, as he has said, provision was made for regular revaluations at five-yearly intervals. That procedure was first introduced in the Rating and Valuation Act 1925, but since then in actual fact there have been only five revaluations, so we seem to have slipped somewhat between 1925 and now. We had one in 1928–29; we had one in 1934; we did not have another one until 1956; we had one in 1963 and one in 1973; and, with a bit of luck and a good wind tonight, we shall have another one in 1982. So I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has received the Motion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COLLECTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 6) REGULATIONS 1978
  7.43 p.m.
  Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 6) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 5th July, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this brings back memories of a year ago when I was struggling to understand what the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) was all about. The Cinematograph Films Act 1957 provides for a statutory levy (popularly known as the Eady Levy) to be paid by cinema exhibitors in Great Britain for eventual payment to makers of British films and other organisations to do with the British film industry.
  The levy is collected by H.M. Customs and Excise from box office takings and is paid for distribution to the British Film Fund Agency, a statutory body established under the Act. The rate at which levy has to be paid is prescribed in the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations 1968, as amended, and is currently one-ninth of the price of admission in excess of 12½p, the calculation

  109
  being made net of VAT. This portion of the net admission price which is not liable to levy had stood at 7½p since 1968, until it was increased by order last year. The regulations also provide for certain exemptions, the most important of which is in respect of cinemas whose takings in any particular week, or whose average weekly takings (calculated from the beginning of a levy period), are less than £900. Each successive period of 52 weeks constitutes a "levy period".
  The yield from the levy has been in the region of £5 million each year for some years past. This yield has remained more or less constant because the rise in prices has been balanced by a significant decline in the number of people who now go to the cinema. In recent years large numbers of cinemas have closed, and in many areas the public are effectively denied access to cinema films. Despite the relief which was given last year, many cinema exhibitors are operating either at a loss or at an unacceptably low margin of profitability. The trade associations concerned have therefore made representations that exhibitors ought to he afforded some further relief from levy liability. The Department of Trade not only has a statutory obligation, in Section 2(3) of the Cinematograph Films Act 1957, to pay regard to the prevailing economic circumstances of both exhibitors and makers of British films in deciding the level of levy, but also has to consult the Cinematograph Films Council. This has been done and the Council has recommended, in view of the pressures exhibitors are under, that the total amount which would otherwise be payable by exhibitors should be reduced by £1 million.
  In recommending the particular methods for affording this relief, the Council were mindful of the importance of giving help where it would be most effective—primarily the smaller cinemas which attract smaller audiences. But they also had to have regard to the damage to the production industry if larger cinemas operating on a marginal profit were obliged to close because the department has a parallel statutory obligation to take account of the economic interests of the makers of British films.
  It was the Cinematograph Films Council's recommendation that the two methods provided in the proposed regula-
  110
  tions would combine to achieve the best effect for all concerned. First, total or partial exemption from payment of levy is at present allowed when a cinema's takings in a particular week fall below £900, or, as I have said, where they fall below an average of £900 a week over the whole of the levy period. Obviously the main beneficiaries of this exemption are the smaller cinemas, though regrettably larger cinemas sometimes fail to attract big enough audiences in the course of a week to take even these small amounts. The Council recommended that this exemption figure should be raised from £900 to £1,100, thereby increasing the number of cinemas who would pay no levy at all in any one week or more. It has been estimated that this increase should benefit the exhibitors to the order of some £650,000.
  The second method is that any exhibitor paying a levy only does so at present on a percentage of the price of the cinema seat in excess of 12½p. Further benefit can accordingly be given to the exhibitor by raising this levy-free portion of the seat price. The Council recommended that this levy-free portion should be raised by a sufficient amount to increase the relief afforded by some £350,000. It is of course not possible in advance to be exactly certain about the number of cinemas in the coming year which will be left paying levy once the exemption figure has been raised to £1,100. Thus there must be an element of estimation in considering how much the levy-free portion ought to be increased. It is estimated that an increase from 12½p to 17½p should produce approximately the desired relief.
  It is in the light of the economic circumstances of exhibitors and the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council that these draft regulations now come before your Lordships. Their purpose is thus to reduce the amount of levy otherwise payable by exhibitors by approximately £1 million, and to do that, as I have said, by increasing from 12½p to 17½p the portion of the payment for admission net of VAT which is not liable to levy and by increasing from £900 to £1,100 the amount by reference to which total or partial exemption from payment of levy is allowed. I commend this order for the approval of the House.
  Moved, That the draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment

  111
  No. 6) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 5th July, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
  7.50 p.m.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Baroness began by saying that she remembered the occasion a year ago when we were considering a very similar order to this, when the figures were raised, if I remember rightly, to £900 and 12½ pence, which we are further increasing tonight. I remember that occasion, too, because I spoke from this Box, as I am doing tonight. One of my noble friends, who shall be nameless, was not able to be here, and this morning—surprise, surprise!—he is not here again; he is on his way to America. So here we are once more.
  However, undoubtedly this order is of merit. I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships. It will, I think, increase the chance—and I fear it is only a chance—of some of the very small cinemas, which I think serve a very useful social purpose being able to stay in business and provide the sort of facilities which in small, more remote communities are so very desirable. My only doubt is whether in fact the increases are sufficient to achieve that purpose. However, as the noble Baroness has said, it is to some extent a question of suck it and see, because it is not possible in advance to predict quite how many people will be attending these smaller cinemas and therefore how much more or less levy they will be obliged to pay. So let us wait until this time next year and see how things fare.
  May I say in parentheses, finally, that this order, the Collection of Levy order, is an interesting and useful one. Perhaps we shall soon be discussing the Distribution of Levy order—another very interesting subject which may perhaps be coming before us in the near future. In the meantime, I hope your Lordships will approve this order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS (ACCOUNTS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1978
  7.52 p.m.
  Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the draft Protection of Depositors
  112
  (Accounts) (Amendment) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 6th July, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for three orders in one go, but this really is a very simple one and a very short one. The Statutory Instrument which is now laid in draft is a simple piece of good housekeeping. The Protection of Depositors Act 1963 is underpinned by subordinate legislation prescribing among other things the provision of accounts by those who advertise to take deposits of interest. They do not include the clearing banks and the building societies, for which there are separate regulations. The Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations 1976 prescribe the form and the manner of the presentation of deposit takers' accounts. They do so in part by the explicit adoption of certain accounts requirements from the Companies Act. Following implementation of the Companies Act in 1976 certain clauses of the Companies Acts of 1948 and 1967 have been amended or have been superseded. Reference to those clauses in the Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations have thus become outdated and need to be replaced by reference to the relevant provisions of the Companies Acts 1976. This is precisely what the new regulations in the Statutory Instrument are designed to achieve. They are not intended to introduce changes to the accounts requirements themselves I commend the regulations for your Lordships approval. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft Protection of Depositors (Accounts) (Amendment) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 6th July, ae approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
  Lord CULLEN of ASH BOURNE: My Lords, the noble Baroness has clearly and briefly explained the regulations, with which we on this side are entirely happy. The only question I should like to ask her is why it takes two years for this bit of housekeeping to take place. Otherwise, I am very happy, and I hope your Lordships will agree to the regulations.
  Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern that two years appears to be a long time, and I am making inquiries about it now. I am not

  113
  in a position to give him an answer, but I will write to him about it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BRITISH AEROSPACE: CIVIL/MILITARY AIRCRAFT
  7.54 p.m.
  The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in formulating British Aerospace's future policy and commitments with Europe and/or the United States for both civil and military aircraft. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to start by saying that I have had a letter from the Chairman of British Aerospace, Lord Beswick, very much regretting that he cannot be here to listen to us tonight. He is in Brussels talking to Viscount Davignon about aerospace matters, and I wish him well.
  Since I first drafted what I was going to say tonight, the go-ahead for the Hawker Siddeley 146 has been given, with simultaneous authority to British Airways to purchase 19 737s from Boeing. The go-ahead for the 146 gives me great joy, but perhaps the purchase of the Boeings does not. In fact, I can only hope that it is not what I would call straws in the wind. The timing of the two announcements was perhaps slightly unfortunate; it seemed to me to be too coincidental, that it may be the 146 was offered as a sop to British Aerospace so that British Airways could be allowed to buy 737s instead of 1-11s.
  While on the subject of the 737, I should like to know whether it is going to have a crew of two or three on the flight deck. If it is only a crew of two, have British Airways pilots agreed to this and have BALPA agreed to this? If it is going to be a crew of three, presumably the operating costs are going to be correspondingly higher. Before I reach the wider issue of tonight's Question, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, what British Airways mean when they state that Boeings have offered the British aircraft industry very considerable work if 737s are purchased and that this offset work would, over the 737's presumed
  114
  15-year life, reimburse Britain for the whole of the initial foreign exchange expenditure on these aircraft? Could the noble Lord enlarge on this offset work; that is, how the figures have been arrived at which will reimburse the United Kingdom for the estimated £140 million spent on these aeroplanes? Lastly, when the costings were done, was the fact that spare American engines would be needed taken into account?
  Turning briefly to the wider picture, as I have said before in this House, Boeing is very frightened of British and European Aerospace and will do everything it can to destroy this potential. The easiest way for it to do this is to turn us into subcontractors on its, Boeing's, terms; the offer of the Rolls-Royce engines in the 757s, for instance, a new but an ancient aeroplane, narrow-gutted, with a fuselage designed nearly 25 years ago; the market forecast is of 1,000 or more, which may well only turn out to be perhaps 100 or a few more.
  Further, let us remember that it is airlines who stipulate what engines are going to be used. It appears recently that there have been some portents, which I hope were favourable, in that the Prime Minister has now entered into talks with different people, and he obviously realises the conflict which is raging between the engine manufacturers, the operators, the airframe builders and the designers. I think we should remember tonight that Rolls-Royce were bankrupted originally by putting all their eggs in one basket with Lockheed. All may be well now, but history must certainly not be allowed to repeat itself.
  Only the other day, the Germans very emphatically expressed their views to Her Majesty's Government about our cooperation with Europe. We simply dare not turn our back on Europe over cooperation in relation to civil aircraft. If we did, there could be no doubt that it would have the most disastrous effect on the much larger military sphere, where at last Europe is beginning to show more and more successful collaboration. We have two current aeroplanes in the military field, the Jaguar and the Tornado. It is very unfortunate that the present situation seems to have become an internal fight with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and British Aerospace versus Sir Kenneth

  115
  Keith and Rolls-Royce. But this seems to me a situation which could be resolved to everyone's advantage.
  British Aerospace, newly nationalised and under the more than able chairman ship of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—together with all the expertise he has behind him from what was BAC and Hawker Siddeley—is without doubt the leading aerospace company in the world. Its knowledge about designing, building and selling commercial aeroplanes, civil and military, is second to none. But with one proviso, which is that it must be given a free hand and not interfered with both bureaucratically and politically as has so often happened in the past.
  I should like to point out that I am given to understand that the policy of British Aerospace is not one of Europe versus the United States. There is plenty of cake for all to eat if it is cut up and managed in the right way. I have said before that it is the airlines which buy aeroplanes and I am convinced that Sir Kenneth Keith could get Rolls-Royce's foot in the door of the A.300 and the B.10, particularly as Airbus Industrie are crying out for us to join them.
  Rolls-Royce's estimated figures for employment on the Boeing 757 project also seem to be quite erroneous and leave much to be desired. For instance, its figure for possible future employment should take into account that at this moment nearly 2,000 are employed building the A.300 wing. Only 10 days ago a new order worth over £20 million was placed at Hatfield for 16 more sets of wings and the authority was given to purchase wing materials up to a total of 148. So far 80 sets of wings have been delivered. So, there is no doubt that the United States market if vulnerable to Europe and Eastern Airlines shows that. It is, I agree, unfortunate that United has now gone Boeing, but it is interesting that it has stipulated that it wants the 767 and not the 757.
  Let us not also forget that the other options that there are already on the B.10 include Lufthansa, Swissair and Air France. In fact, only 10 days ago Lufthansa gave a memorandum of understanding for 25 B.10s. I believe that the right policy is for us to join Airbus
  116
  Industrie but on a proper basis. The basis must be economically viable, and the French and the Germans must be given to understand that we do not want to be involved in undertaking any financial deficits from the past.
  The chairman of British Aerospace, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has publicly stated that we must not have another Concorde financing fiasco, and I hope that that is a lesson which we have all learned. But neither do we want a fight between the United States and Europe which not only would probably be approved of by Boeing, but in all probability could be encouraged. British Airways' base should be in Europe, but with collaboration and co-operation from the United States. That is why the McDonnell Douglas deal looks fairly favourable: one-third British, one-third European and one-third American. It would help in the marketing of the Hawker Siddeley 146; it would help with military aircraft like the advanced Harrier; it would help with missiles—the Harpoon anti-ship missile; and it would also help Rolls-Royce. We would eventually, in the not too distant future, have a second generation supersonic transport, because there is no doubt that supersonic travel is here to stay.
  I wish to revert to the British Airways' statement as regards the problem of the 737 or the 1-11—about it being nothing unusual for an airline to leave its ordering as late as possible, that is, 24 months. How, with so many projects currently under active discussion and consideration, can British Airways possibly favour the new, old narrow-bodied 757? Perhaps I should point out here that in an internal memorandum that was leaked the British Airways Flight Operations Department stated that it was much more keen on McDonnell Douglas than on Boeing. That may not be the feeling of its masters, but it is certainly the feeling of a section of British Airways.
  Again, in the last Press release from British Airways on the 29th June it was stated that a narrow-bodied subsonic service that cannot operate non-stop would be unattractive to passengers. I agree that they were discussing a long distance route, but nevertheless if in 1978 narrow-bodied aeroplanes are unattractive—which is also confirmed by British

  117
  Airways purchase of 737s instead of the 1-11—they must be out of their minds if they think that by the mid and late 1980s they could operate successfully and viably a narrow-bodied and obsolescent aeroplane like the 757.
  So, I believe that the best course for British Aerospace to pursue must be a collaborative course. But that course must depend upon a number of complex factors which must include the best match of industrial partners, work-sharing and aircraft marketing ability. We have the finest design and capability technologists in aerospace throughout the world. Do not let anyone in authority forget that. Do not let us this time miss the bus, and I mean the B.10 Airbus. The French have given the go-ahead. If we wait any longer we shall not even build the wings; Fokker VFW will do so in Holland. So I am very pleased that this question has arisen tonight because I gather that the Secretary of State for Industry, Mr. Varley, is going to Europe at the end of the week to talk to the Germans and the French.
  I wish to raise one specific point. During the Committee discussions on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill the Minister of State stated on 10th February 1976, at column 1061 of Commons Hansard that:
  "Market strategy in new projects must be for the board of British Aerospace and not for the Secretary of State".
  There is still time for us to join the B.10 project, but time is running low. If we join with Europe, from this would come the Joint European Transport—JET, as it is called—and/or the McDonnell Douglas ATMR. Only the other day the EEC announced an initial programme of technological research in aeronautical manufacture. Twenty two million units of account are to be invested in research and development of airframes and 14.7 million units of account in helicoper research.
  We have reached a T-junction: one road is right and one is wrong. The wrong road would be the one that makes us subcontractors to Boeing and will lead to total and utter disaster to our own aerospace industry, a disaster from which it will never recover. But the right road will open up untold vistas—hitherto undreamed—of progress, employment, prosperity and unqualified success. Right
  118
  is Europe. Britain and Europe can get afterwards the collaboration they require from the United States. We have the key of Wonderland in our hand at this moment: let us use it now. United we stand, divided we fall. I do not know what the brief of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will say tonight, but I can only hope that those in authority will pay some heed to my few words as well as to the much wiser and more knowledgeable words that are to come.
  8.9 p.m.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the House is always grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for raising these matters which he does quite regularly. However, I wonder whether tonight the issues are quite as black and white as he suggests. My personal inclination is to follow him down the road that he charts, but if that is the way my heart points, my head says that we should pause and consider.
  First, let us consider the very recent history in these matters, namely, the Government's authority to British Airways to purchase the Boeing 737 aircraft and, almost in the same breath, the Government's approval of the plans of British Aerospace to proceed with development of the HS.146. I shall deal first with the 737. There is no doubt at all that the 737 is a very fine aircraft. It is marginally bigger than the BAC 1-11, which was the British competitor for the order. All the figures that I have seen suggest a lower seat-mile operating cost. I suspect that that lower cost stems almost entirely from the larger size of the American aircraft.
  I am tempted to think that the other great merit of the 737 was that British Airways had no hand in its design. I cannot but reflect on the sagas of the Trident and Comet, and even the Vanguard years ago, which were designed—and this is certainly the case of the Trident and the Vanguard—to the precise requirements of BEA, as it then was. Although those aeroplanes may well have been right for BEA at the time, they did not seem to be right for anybody else, and thus the sales were very disappointing.
  However, on this occasion British Airways have clearly stated their preference for the American aeroplane and

  119
  the Government have agreed with them. Certainly the decision not to proceed with a purchase of 1-11 aircraft will be a disappointment to British Aerospace, but British Aerospace were not proposing—and never did propose—to produce a fundamentally different variant of the 1-11, and it was simply a continuation of an existing line. The business will no doubt be missed, but not, I hope, fatally so.
  I turn now to the HS.146. The Government have announced that they are to finance the development of that aeroplane. I am certainly lost in admiration for all the statistics which British Aerospace have produced and which they have sent to me and, no doubt, to other noble Lords. But I am still wondering exactly who will buy this aeroplane in the very considerable numbers that are necessary for the project to prove viable. I hope that the confidence of British Aerospace proves justified.
  Turning to the future, we do not yet know what British Airways would choose after the Boeing 737 purchase. We have heard suggestions that they would prefer an American route, but certainly the purchase of the 737 in no way commits them or the Government to pursue the Boeing proposals to which so much publicity has been given. If I understood him aright, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, suggested that we ought to go full tilt into the new variant of the A.300, the B.10 as it is called, but the noble Earl did not tell us—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, can—quite what the terms would be if we were to go into that project now.
  That aircraft has been in service for some years and it is widely known that we should have to buy our way into the project as it now is. How much would that cost? I have no idea, but I suspect that the price would be very high. As the noble Earl said, we are at present major sub-contractors in that project, and it may be wise to continue in that role, at least for the moment.
  Following on from the A.300 are the JET 1 and the JET 2 projects, as they are called. Provided that these projects are at least compatible with Rolls-Royce engines, I should certainly think that we
  120
  ought to participate in them. But for the time being they are both paper aeroplanes and I would want to reserve final judgment until more details are known and, in particular, until it was more readily apparent than it is now who would buy both aeroplanes should the go-ahead be given.
  I think that the history of British aerospace—and I mean that with a small "a" for aerospace—is one where great initial promise has not always been fulfilled. Despite the undoubted technical merit of all the aeroplanes that we have produced in the last 20 years or more, very few of them have sold in numbers sufficient to recover development costs. I do not think that we can go down that road indefinitely. After all, nowadays development costs are astronomic compared with what they were 10 or 20 years ago.
  The initial figure for the HS.146, which is a very modest aeroplane and which in no way advances the state of the art, is £250 million which is enormous for such a simple aeroplane. We certainly ought not to be going into that project with that sort of money if we are not pretty sure that costs of that sort could be recovered. I must say that I am not very enamoured with the proposals that I have seen for participation with the Americans. I think that the one I dislike least is the one put forward by McDonnell Douglas, but I must say that I have not seen very much of the detail and I would wish to reserve final judgment on that, too. However, there is one other area which, in my view, British Aerospace ought to be considering, which came to light during the proceedings on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, to which the noble Earl has already referred. Your Lordships will recall that among the companies included for nationalisation was a small firm called Scottish Aviation, which is now based at Prestwick in Ayrshire. During those proceedings I and others suggested to your Lordships that Scottish Aviation was not a suitable company for nationalisation. Be that as it may, one of the arguments advanced by the Government in support of their proposal to include that company was that Scottish Aviation would be the nucleus of a new light aircraft industry.

  121
  Scottish Aviation has a history of manufacturing small aeroplanes, mostly under licence, although in the more distance past it has designed aeroplanes from scratch. But more recently it has produced a number of different designs, including the Bulldog, the Jetstream and others, from plans that were already in existence when it acquired them. Therefore, it was suggested by the Government that Scottish Aviation would be in a good position to start a new light aircraft industry in this country; indeed, this was given as an important argument in supporting the inclusion of Scottish Aviation in the aircraft and shipbuilding industry maw. I wonder whether we can now hear what plans have been drawn up to proceed along these lines. After all, British Aerospace is now firmly in existence.
  The Farnborough Air Show is just a few months round the corner. If I am lucky enough to be invited, I shall go and ask British Aerospace, "Where are the light aircraft we were promised?" It was definitely maintained that only by this means could a light aircraft industry be assured in this country, and I hope that the noble Lord, if not tonight then perhaps at some future occasion, will he able to tell us what has been achieved.
  Having said that, the fundamental question which the noble Earl poses in his Question is whether we should proceed, on the one hand, into partnership with the Americans or, on the other hand, into partnership with our European colleagues. I do not think that the answer is quite as simple as the noble Earl suggested. As I said, with my heart I would happily go with the Europeans, but I suspect that if we really consider this matter in all its detail we should have to weigh very carefully the brilliant commercial success of the American aircraft industry, on the one hand, and the rather more patchy performance of the European industry, on the other. I emphasise that I am speaking only in terms of commercial success, because technical success has never eluded the British industry or indeed the European industry; but this is a matter which we have to weigh very carefully before reaching a firm conclusion.
  8.22 p.m.
  Lord KINGS NORTON: My Lords, it would seem that the future of British
  122
  Aviation is of even less interest to your Lordships than the future of the Judiciary but presumably in both cases the importance of the matter is in inverse ratio to your Lordships' interest in it. However, I think all of us here are grateful to the noble Earl for putting down his Unstarred Question for today. I am a little less grateful to him than I might have been because he has dealt so effectively with most of the matters I was going to raise myself. Nevertheless, I should like to emphasise and underline some of the points he made.
  I am glad too that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, introduced what I might term a note of realism. I thought at one moment that it was going to be a note of pessimism, but when he got on to light aircraft I felt that he was then voicing views which most of us would whole-heartedly support, and I hope that we shall have an answer from the noble Lord on that matter. As the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, made clear, since he put down this Question part of it has been answered. He referred of course to the ordering of 19 Boeing 737 aircraft. He did not mention—which was mentioned at the same time as that order was announced—that we also heard of the possible ordering of a trifling number of BAC 1-11 aircraft for British Airways.
  The most important news on that day when those announcements were made was the decision to go ahead with the HS 146. I think many of us have been puzzled as to why that decision could not have been made long ago, but to me it is still welcome, and I hope it is not too late. The rest of the pattern is still not clear. We have heard nevertheless quite a lot about the possible options. They have been described to us by the noble Earl. He told of us the proposals by Boeing for collaboration between Boeing and British Aerospace on the 757, which it is presumed—though I do not know with what certainty—would have Rolls-Royce RB 211-535 engines. We have heard of the proposal of McDonnell-Douglas for their ATMR, by which the aircraft would be the result of collaboration between that company, British Aerospace, and European Aerospace on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis. Those proposals were explained to the Prime Minister when he was in the United States last

  123
  by representatives of the two big American companies concerned.
  Another more immediate proposal which has also been referred to twice this evening is for British Aerospace to work with Airbus Industrie on the A.300 B.10 design, and on this my understanding is that the Prime Minister himself is taking an interest, and with the Industry Minister is talking to their European opposite numbers. How far these talks have got I think none of us is clear, but if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, can give us an interim report I know that we should all be very interested indeed. What is much more important, and what I cannot guess, is how the Prime Minister's mind is moving on the longer-term and far more momentous problem—and momentous it is. The course shortly to be set can only have far-reaching consequences for the British Aircraft industry. There are some considerations which I am sure are vital, and no doubt they are already in the Prime Minister's mind but I should still like to underline them.
  The first is—and this has been said already by the noble Earl—that British Aerospace must be in a position to take a strong line. Once the broad policy is decided upon, it must be free to negotiate with whosoever it may be—Americans, Continentals, or both. It is a thousand pities that there has not been a stronger British initiative. Except for the rather embryonic JET proposals, where indeed we have been involved from the outset, we are talking about designs initiated outside this country. We have, however, taken what appears to be a lead with the HS.146, and there I do not have the sort of doubts which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, appears to have. In certain circumstances I think we all agree that it could, too, be an important negotiating factor.
  Secondly, my Lords, I would advise quite definitely against a deal with Boeing. This is the biggest aircraft company in the world. It is a wonderful company, it has wonderful facilities, and a wonderful record. This is a company which cannot, in my view, of its very size and nature readily understand collaboration. It does not need help, especially with United Airlines' enormous order for 767s under its belt. It can really only be in a position
  124
  to dictate. British Aerospace is the biggest airframe constructor outside America, but it could just become a sub-contractor to Boeing, and even the HS.146 would not retrieve its morale. Moreover, I do not think that Rolls-Royce would long be the preferred engine for the Boeing 757. It is not sense to suppose that Pratt and Whitney and General Electric would take lying down an invasion from Derby.
  The second option is much more attractive—I mean the collaboration between McDonnell-Douglas, British Aerospace, and the Continental companies—and I think it is worth very serious attention, and I am sure it is getting it. The three groups are much more evenly matched, and I believe that here is something which could be made to work, either on the ATMR or on one or more of the European JET projects. I suppose, too, that a purely European policy could be made to work, though the reorganisation necessary would need agonising reappraisal in Airbus Industrie. We just could not allow control, financial or technical, from Toulouse. There would have to be a genuine partnership, and the history of Airbus Industrie and British relations with it is not at all encouraging. I am not referring to the relationship of the Hawker Siddeley company with it which seems to have been a notable success, but the official relationship above that.
  My Lords, whichever way we go—and I hope it is not the first way I mentioned—we must play from strength. British Aerospace is, in brains and brawn, immensely strong. Rolls-Royce in brains and brawn is immenseley strong -too. With British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce sculling together, if I may be permitted a Henley analogy, we ought to have another British gold. But I feel I must ask, while I have no doubt they are pulling together, are they in phase? It is absolutely essential that they should be. Airframes and the engines for them must come to fruition at the same time.
  We have Europe's most powerful airframe constructor; we have Europe's most powerful engine constructor. We have surely a combination here which is a world beater. Are we using, I ask, this combination to our best advantage? Are the two constructors in close enough touch with one of the world's largest operators,

  125
  British Airways? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will reassure us on this. He may think that because he knows of my long connection with aviation, I know the answers. Quite frankly, I do not. All I know is that the companies should be in the closest communion not only in negotiating the next phase of British aviation policy but in planning the next one after that.
  To me it is rather a pity that the HS.146 has not got Rolls-Royce engines. In some quarters this is seen as a merit. Forty per cent. of the aircraft, we are told, will be USA equipped, and I suppose that that 40 per cent. includes the engines. This, we are told, makes the aircraft more acceptable in the USA. Well, perhaps. But had there been a Rolls-Royce engine of the right size available, I think that the HS.146 would have had Rolls-Royce engines. Had British Aerospace's predecessor Hawker Siddeley and Rolls-Royce planned together closely enough years ago, I think that that could have come to pass. Indeed, if Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace's other predecessor, the British Aircraft Corporation, had planned together more closely in the past, there might have been a Spey development leading to a bigger BAC 1-11 and so to an order for 19 BAC 1-11s instead of 19 Boeing 737s.
  All this, my Lords, you will say just illustrates that
  "of all sad words of tongue or pen the saddes are these—'What might have been'.".
  Also it underlines what I have been saying about collaboration between our two great British aviation constructors. Collaboration with Boeing, collaboration with McDonnell-Douglas, collaboration with Airbus Industrie—all these are secondary to what can be for us the most effective collaboration of all: British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce.
  8.33 p.m.
  The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure that the House—even if it is a little thin—is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for raising this interesting debate tonight in such a lucid, attractive and informed way. The noble Earl has built up a reputation in this House for his academic and practical knowledge and experience. I well remember his unofficial trip in a Harrier
  126
  a few days before a debate on the Maritime Harrier, which we all admired and which some of the braver ones envied.
  The noble Earl asked a pretty wide Question. I do not think that many of the speakers in front of me devoted much time to the military side. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will have an answer in what I suspect will be a very thick brief. I hope that his brief is a little more informative than his almost embarrassingly thin brief on the Fairford airfield, on which a Question was asked a week or so ago by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley.
  It is interesting to note in the first annual report of British Aerospace that its sales have a ratio of about 90 per cent. military to only 10 per cent. civil. Indeed a great deal of that goes abroad. It is equally interesting to note that about 90 per cent. of the Parliamentary debates are on the civil side and only 10 per cent. on the military. I suspect the reason for this is that everyone wishes to see a much more balanced industry and a much more balanced policy for the national interest.
  I shall turn briefly to the civil side and ask, as indeed the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley asked, who is responsible for policy for the industry? That sounds a very simple question, but I would say that it has become somewhat confusing in recent months. Is the policy left to British Aerospace, as we thought it was when the Act went through? What is the role of the National Enterprise Board? What indeed is the role of the Cabinet Committee that was recently set up? Indeed, what is the role of the Prime Minister? There has been some confusion in recent months not only as to whether the Prime Minister has now become the Secretary of State, but what the Government meant by the phrase "reviewing the matter urgently" or "a decision very soon". Those are phrases which I hope the noble Lord will avoid this evening. However, they have been repeated now for over nine months.
  I do not pretend, on the civil side, to belittle the gravity, the seriousness, or the complexity of reaching a policy decision. The present options on the civil side offer a teasing jigsaw. Added to this is the knowledge that what looks

  127
  right now could well look very wrong in 1985. What I fear is that there are so many people in on this decision of policy—as to whether we go European or McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed, or a combination of these—that the eventual decision will come by default, rather than by the firm hand of vision. How long do we have left, in fairness to British Aerospace and to Rolls-Royce, before the delay becomes penal and before the apparent policy of indecision becomes a policy of lame necessity?
  As to the decision, I must say that I support a mixed collaboration, if it is possible. European collaboration will still need to stay with us—and indeed with McDonnell-Douglas. I was a little surprised when my noble friend said that he was not in favour of McDonnell-Douglas, when one sees apparently what it offers as scope in the United States.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I did not say that I was not in favour of it. I said that it was the most attractive arrangement that I had seen.
  The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am not at all surprised that he should correct me because it offered this vital scope and possibility in the United States market, assistance with the HS.146, and work on the military side. It must be that this combination, coupled with the European combination, would be the answer.
  What is stopping this apparent jigsaw from being assembled? One must presume it is the attitude of our European partners, the Airbus Indudstrie. What is the penalty, as the noble Lord asked, if Airbus Industrie is asking us to rejoin the club? Will it accept McDonnell-Douglas in the proposals? If we do not join the club, will it cancel the present contract that Hawker-Siddeley has for the Airbus wings? One has heard this said. I hope that the noble Lord will give us more information.
  In a recent debate in another place the Government set out clearly the options open on the civil projects. Besides deciding which partner British Aerospace should have, it was stated then that Rolls-Royce would require equal support from
  128
  the Government in the development of the 211–535 engine. On that occasion no mention was made whether Rolls-Royce would be collaborating with either a European partner or an American partner. I hope that the noble Lord will tell us not only what the development costs of this new engine would be to Rolls-Royce, but with which company, if any, Rolls-Royce is talking at the present time.
  Turning to the recent announcement of the British Airways order. I too was saddened to see only a trickle of BAC 1-11s coming in with the general order, particularly after the encouraging Romanian contract that British Aerospace won for the 1-11. One accepts that British Airways have a right to exercise commercial judgment. Indeed they have that duty. But the Government equally have a duty to protect our industry. I ask, what work, if any, from the order placed with Boeing will come to our industry? Has there been some commitment, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, mentioned earlier? Is there any commitment at all for British industry to benefit from this order? On the HS.146 decision, we very much welcomed the Government's decision, when it eventually came. One wishes the project well. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether Rolls-Royce will, or is likely to, play any part in supplying engines, or will there be exclusively an American engine?
  On the military side, perhaps the key question which I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to answer is about the likely successor or the policy on the likely successor to the Harrier/Jaguar replacement. Can the noble Lord say anything tonight about that and, for instance, is Panavia likely to be used as a vehicle for other projects, as it is so successfully developing Tornado? It would be a great shame if the invaluable experience gained by the industries concerned was lost by Panavia not continuing.
  I should also like the noble Lord to answer some questions about the Harrier. As we know, the United States have now taken on the second stage of the advanced Harrier development in order to put it into operation for the Marine Corps. What rights do we have over this design? In recent months a large delegation from China has been to this country looking at our industry—at what we can produce

  129
  both on the civil and military side—and I should like to know what the position would be if, for example, the Chinese said, "We would like your advanced Harrier". What would our position be regarding the United States?
  My final point is about the research policy of the Government. Noble Lords will have noted from the first report of British Aerospace that comment was made on the Government's policy of providing no funding for civil projects for British Aerospace; that is, no funding on basic research. I understand that the Government's answer is, "This is public money coming from the same source—from the Government—whether it be support or research, and there is no necessity to define the two and simply put them together".
  British Aerospace as a body feels very strongly about that. Their competitors in Europe and the United States have an advantage over them; they are given research money for basic research for civil projects. I suggest that the present policy proves harmful and is unfair and damaging, unfair because research often springs a wider application and damaging because, as British Aerospace say, it gives a competitive disadvantage and a disincentive to go into this vital part of research. Has Lord Winterbottom noted the remarks of the chairman of British Aerospace on this matter? What is the Government's answer to that point?
  The policy on aerospace by Governments has not been one of our proudest achievements in the last 10 years. During that time we have been more noted for our cancellations, but today we have little to cancel, so we cannot be noted for that. There is very little in the basket. Despite that, we are being wooed today by no fewer than four different partners on our civil policy, by Europe and by the three American companies. I am not cynical enough to believe that it is only our money and muscle they want. I believe it is for our expertise, our know-how and our reputation. I hope Government policy will always cherish and guard our reputation and I hope we will be able to say in 10 years' time in this House that the policy, soon to be decided, was a policy of vision.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords I join the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for giving us the opportunity this evening to debate the present state of play of the aerospace industry. The debate will enable the House to make its views known before some very important decisions are taken in respect of future civil aircraft projects. The Question also provides a timely opportunity to consider the military aspects of British Aerospace's activities which, it must be remembered, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, form the lion's share of the Corporation's work. The Question reads:
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in formulating British Aerospace's future policy and commitments with Europe and/or the United Slates for both civil and military aircraft".
  What the Question is asking for is a progress report, and that I hope to give this evening. I shall, I regret to say, cling slightly to my brief; where I can answer questions I will about any questions I cannot answer I will either write directly to the noble Lords who asked them or give a Written Answer if the noble Lord concerned wishes the information to be made public.
  Let me quickly get two points out of the way, having made that rather guarded approach. First, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, asked me about the crewing of the Boeing 737s. BALPA have agreed to two pilots on the deck of the 737. Secondly, concerning the Boeing offset, a question asked by two noble Lords, Boeing have offered to place substantial orders for United Kingdom equipment as offset to the purchase of the 737s. The details are under negotiation and are commercial in confidence.
  The civil side of the aircraft industry is at a crossroads. On the one hand, the industry can turn to co-operation with Europe as full partners of the Airbus Industrie consortium. On the other, the industry could turn to a partnership with the United States. A less well defined road, though in many ways at least as attractive, lies down the middle, with partnership with both our American and European friends. Whichever path his chosen, we must be certain that the collaborative project chosen has sound

  131
  commercial prospects. The future healthy growth of the industry can be built only on such a foundation.
  I should emphasise the need for collaboration with other manufacturers in the civil aircraft market, and I believe that has been the feeling of the House. Although British Aerospace is the largest manufacturer of aircraft in Europe and is capable of designing and building civil aircraft on its own, good overseas sales of its products must be achieved for the project to be commercially viable. There is also a need in today's world for the sharing of the financial risks involved in launching new aircraft. It is for these reasons that we look to other nations to join in the collaborative manufacture of these aircraft. It is not in any way a sign of weakness in the United Kingdom industry that such collaboration is sought, as a study of the Corporation's annual report will demonstrate. It is a tribute to our industry that so many powerful foreign airframe manufacturers seek to collaborate with us, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made that point. It is not, I think, the rather cynical view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that Boeing might wish to reduce us to the position of sub-contractors in their major projects. British Aerospace has a great deal to offer and that is why other national groupings are courting it.
  Within Europe, there is the possibility of joining with Airbus Industrie in the manufacture of the B.10 derivative of the successful A.300 Airbus. British Aerospace is already engaged on the production of the B.2 and B.4 variants of the Airbus through a sub-contract to manufacture the wing box. Participation in the manufacture of present and possible future Airbus Industrie products could eventually lead to the creation of a commercially sound basis for the European aerospace industry. Since American manufacturers are also offering collaboration on their products, it is only right and sensible that British Aerospace should give full consideration to all the options open to it. Collaboration with Boeing on the B.757, a 180-seat narrow-bodied development of the B.727, has considerable attractions in the employment prospects which it would offer the airframe and aeroengine industry in the United Kingdom. Boeing is a very successful company
  132
  holding 60 per cent. of the world's aircraft market. Its past record suggests that any aircraft it sells is likely to do well. But, as noble Lords will realize—and who better than the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton? —there would be much hard bargaining in terms of any contract, and the possible longer term effects on British Aerospace must also be taken into account. The Government will also have in mind, when the time comes to take final decisions, the effect of collaboration with Boeing on Rolls-Royce since they see good prospects for their proposed RB211-535 engine in the -757 airframe.
  Noble Lords will also be aware of the ATMR, a project by the McDonnell Douglas Company for a 190-seat medium-range 6-abreast aircraft. The project has great attractions in that it involves three-way collaboration between America, British Aerospace and other European manufacturers. However, your Lordships should realise that the project is not so well advanced in its design and the collaborative terms of manufacture—indeed, the collaborative partners themselves—have not yet been identified.
  At this point I should make the Government's position quite clear. We are encouraging British Aerospace to seek commercially viable projects. It is on this basis that the final decisions will be taken. However, just to clarify that a little further, I have been asked directly, who is ultimately responsible for policy? My answer is that it is for British Aerospace to reach a judgment on the complex commercial issues involved in the various collaborative projects under discussion, but Government approval for major projects is required by Section 7 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Act 1977. That reflects the size of public financial resources at stake in any major aircraft project.
  The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether British Aerospace has reached a judgment?
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thought I had made that clear. We are just taking a photograph of the stage reached in the various options open to the British Aerospace industry as of, presumably, yesterday evening when my brief was prepared.
  The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to make my point clear. What I think the noble Lord was saying in reply to a question by my noble friend was that under Section 7 of the Act, British Aerospace have to make a judgment, but it is then up to the Government of the day to make a political judgment. What I am saying is this: has British Aerospace at this point—after all, they are a nationalised industry—reported to the Government now with a judgment—perhaps forgetting the political judgment?
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not think I said that. This is a point which one has to express rather carefully. British Aerospace can form a technical judgment. It is considering the options which we are discussing this evening. We have reached only one firm decision in the interim period between the creation of British Aerospace and today and that is the point I am coming to next about the decision on the HS. 146. Noble Lords who will be fair-minded about this I know, will realise that any major project will demand a substantial injection of public money into research, development and the manufacture of any major new project. No company would be able to launch into a project of this magnitude without the financial support of the Government. It would only be in the tradition of public accountability for the Government to have the last say as to whether or not they thought the project was viable in terms of the actual project in itself and the capacity of the country to support it. I am trying to make it clear, at least as clear as I understand it. At the end of the day money must rule what we do and that is where the Government come in.
  The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this matter and I will not pursue it any more after this. What I am saying is, if British Aerospace come down on a decision and the Government disagree, would it be made public?
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this open government business is something that ought to be debated by itself. It is a very important question. Speaking purely personally, I do not believe that everybody ought to be allowed to listen to our discussions and arguments. What they have a right to know is what the
  134
  decisions are and, where possible, the reasons for those decisions, but too much open government is as dangerous as too little.
  I should now like to turn to the HS.146 which I believe from now on will be known as the British Aerospace 146. As will be recalled, work on this project was suspended in late 1974 but continued development work has been possible under Government contract and, more recently, by British Aerospace. The corporation recommended in March 1978 that the project should he launched and last week the Government announced its consent. With the full commitment of the workers in British Aerospace to achieving a high level of productivity, I am sure that this project will be recorded as a great success for the new corporation. The project will also provide a basis for limited collaboration with other manufacturers and that aspect of the programme is now being pursued. May I say how much I personally welcome the blessing of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, on this proposal.
  As regards Rolls-Royce, the Government are at present giving detailed consideration to their proposal that the RB211-535 should now be launched as an engine for the aerospace market. As with the British Aerospace 146, this is a very important decision which will have important repercussions for Rolls-Royce. We owe it to the thousands of people employed by the company, and by its suppliers, to decide this issue in the light of the best possible information. The decision on the -535 project is being considered by the Government along with the wider collaborative options now facing the industry.
  I should now like to turn your attention to certain military aspects of aerospace policy. On the military aircraft side British Aerospace has been and is still involved in major collaborative projects with European partners, and their experience will provide an invaluable basis for the future collaborative projects which the Government is striving to establish. I would mention in particular the Jaguar programme, which is now drawing to a close after successful Anglo-French collaboration, and the Tornado project, the multi-role combat aircraft on which we are engaged with West Germany and

  135
  Italy. The latter is now in full production and represents, as it will for several years, the largest military aircraft programme on which British Aerospace is engaged.
  Looking to future military aircraft, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull was doing just that, the most important project in prospect for the 1980s will be a new tactical combat aircraft which the Royal Air Force sees as meeting its requirement to replace the Harrier and Jaguar when these aircraft reach the end of their operational life towards the end of the next decade. The Government remain hopeful that sufficient common ground can be established with other European allies with broadly similar requirements to enable another collaborative project to be launched. Who the collaborators will be I cannot at this moment say, but the collaborative possibilities are being explored with other interested Governments, mainly through the Independent European Programme Group, which has already devoted considerable collective effort to the complex and often intractable issues that will have to be resolved if the Independent European Programme Group's objectives are to be realised.
  Reconciling views on operational requirements, time-scales and possible solutions for a costly advanced new aircraft of this sort is inevitably a difficult and protracted process, and it is not yet possible to forecast the outcome. Further discussions will be needed to establish whether agreement is possible on the basis for a collaborative project. The Government are pursuing this as a matter of urgency—forgive the phrase—and hope that substantial progress can be made during the coming year in establishing how much common ground exists and in arriving at a common solution.
  If a European collaborative project proves unattainable the Government will need to consider the options of proceeding with a national project or of seeking collaboration with the United States. Whatever the outcome, in respect of this project there should be substantial further work in prospect for British Aerospace over the next decade. Meanwhile, the corporation is continuing studies for the Ministry of Defence of possible designs and of the advanced technology relevant
  136
  to a new tactical combat aircraft, and the results of this work will make a valuable contribution to the process of defining solutions.
  In conclusion, I can assure your Lordships that the Government are very well aware of the pressures upon them to reach early decisions in respect of the civil aricraft projects and Rolls-Royce—
  The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I have the feeling that the noble Lord is about to come to the end of his speech. Can he mention the two points on which I tried to give him notice earlier? One is the Harrier question, and the other is the matter of basic research.
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that I have mentioned basic research. As regards the Harrier, I shall write to the noble Earl particularly in relation to the Chinese interest in the aircraft. Obviously, this is a very sensitive matter.
  As I was saying, the Government are very well aware of the pressures upon them to reach early decisions in respect of the civil aircraft projects and Rolls-Royce. I hope that my short speech this evening has indicated that these are complicated matters and that the decisions will need careful consideration. The remarks made this evening in your Lordships' House will be most helpful to the Government in reaching their conclusions. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and though comparisons may be odious, may I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for the interesting point he has made about the great organisations existing in this country when considering the future of the British aerospace industry—
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he able to tell me anything at all about the plans for the light aircraft manufacture at Scottish Aviation? If not, will he be able to write to me on the matter?
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would permit me to write to him. I have nothing firm to say this evening.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
  Reported from the Committee on Unopposed Bills with Amendments.
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
  The Queen's Consent signified and Bill reported from the Committee on Unopposed Bills with Amendments.
IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  CONSUMER SAFETY BILL
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL
  RATING (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  THE SEVESO DISASTER
  THE SEVESO DISASTER
  VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS AND GOVERNMENT AID
  VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS AND GOVERNMENT AID
  SOCIAL SECURITY: ABUSE OF BENEFITS
  SOCIAL SECURITY: ABUSE OF BENEFITS
  INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION
  INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION